Replies

It appears that many 'conservatives' think that being a RINO is an excellent piece of political strategy. However, where does that really leave us?

The two-party system ensures that politicans do not have to really represent their constituency any more. Why? Because they know that republicans will always end up voting GOP, and if only by default, simply in order to keep the dems from getting elected. So they often just take our votes for granted. The contemporary manifestation of the two-party system serves only those who are in power.

Everything becomes a matter of making it appear that there are fundamental differences between the parties, when in actuality there are fewer and fewer of them to be found. But certainly there are smokescreens everywhere. For example, republicans will often let the GOP get away with things that they would never let the dems get away with, and vice versa. Democrats -- who used to care about human rights, and who never opposed any of Clinton's military adventures -- opposed not the Iraqi war, per se, so much as they simply opposed Bush. But why? Well, that's what happens when one deserts principle for politics, as many here also advocate, but in relation to other things. Anyone else is deemed 'a purist.'

We said that the dems opposed the war out of hypocrisy. However, the dems contradicted themselves -- and made fools of themselves -- out of desperation: anything to keep themselves from having to see that there are very few differences between the parties. It becomes a matter of opposition simply for the sake of opposition, even if there really isn't any real difference.

That's also why Republicans will often contradict themselves, make fools of themselves, and sell out on everything that they say they believe in too...anything to defeat the dems and to keep the illusion of a dichotomy alive. ("It's better than the dems!") We therefore also use empty opposition in order to excuse the unjustifiable. The irony is that we necessarily become only more like the dems as a result; and then we turn around and laud this move as being an excellent strategic move. So, again, where does that really leave us?

"It appears that many 'conservatives' think that being a RINO is an excellent piece of political strategy. However, where does that really leave us?" I didn't mean RINOs. I hate RINOs. But from what I have seen there is a vast spectrum even inside the Republican party, with RINOs on one end, "purist" conservatives on the other end, and several shades in between from "center-right" to moderate/center to "a shade better than RINOs".

I think the accusations of some that Bush is not conservative enough, is not valid. Bush is in the right to center inside the Republican party, in my opinion, and we should be darn happy that he is president. Who do people want, Buchanan?

And we should apply some common sense. For example, in California, Riordan,-- whom I consider "a shade better than a RINO" politically, but a sensible no-nonsense business man, who was an excellent Mayor of LA -- would be infinitely better than far-left incompetent corrupt idiot Gray Davis. The reason we got Davis, was because the Republican couldn't bring themselves to give the nomination to Riordan.

I think idealism and ideology are all good and well, but that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee, if you are lucky.

It's kind of like a starving man wanting $1M exactly, and won't take a penny less, he would rather starve to death, than to take $500,000. Conservatives want ultraconservative politicians, and rather have ultra left, than support center right, which will get them part way to where they want to be.