[PhiKapMom]

You are wasting your time -- that Freeper loves nothing better than to go on another site and trash all of us.

Personally I think the word RINO is being applied to the wrong group. The Republican Party has always been moderate to conservative with few liberals -- we always voted. It is the religious right and/or the far right conservatives that come up with the litmus test for Republican candidates -- it is 100% of what they want or they threaten to stay home. To me those people that threaten candidates with not voting are the RINOs -- Republicans in Name Only!

"Real" Republicans go vote and nothing will stop them -- they also vote/work for the candidates that will WIN because losing ia not an option going into a campaign. Religious conservatives will not win in some states and that is fact! I agree with the Reagan philosophy of 80% of agreement with a Republican is better than any DemocRAT. If there is an "R" behind the name, this Bush Republican votes for them! Simple as that!

[Sabertooth]

that Freeper loves nothing better than to go on another site and trash all of us.

Evidence, please.

[BillyBoy]

>> It is the religious right and/or the far right conservatives that come up with the litmus test for Republican candidates -- it is 100% of what they want or they threaten to stay home <<

Yeah, keep drinking the Ahnuld Kool-aid and pretending he agrees with the GOP platform. The truth is, I'll happily vote for any REAL "moderate" Republican (as opposed to the media version of "moderate") who supports the MAJORITY of the Republican Party platform. If disagrees with 49% of it, he's got my vote. I'd take the Pete Wilsons, George Vonovichs, and Jim Edgars of the world over a Democrat. I would have voted for Rick Lazio over Hillary in a heartbeat. You can quote me on that.

On the other hand, I will NOT support a RINO (yes, a real RINO who supports the DEMOCRATS position MORE than "his" own party) Arnuld has yet to come out in favor of ANY conservative position. Not one. If you disagree, perhaps you could name ONE issue were he's on our side (aside from generic garbage like "he wants to bring the buisnesses back"-- last time I checked, every candidate will tell you that)

Arnold on our side 90% of the time? Hardly. Arnold is a pro-abortion, gun-control saluting, gay rights, human cloning, Kyoto treaty, gaia-worshiping, pro-Clinton, pro-Kennedy, big government, tax-and-spend "for the children" liberal. That's not an opinion, those are FACTS from his OWN statements. Deal with it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Gotta disagree on that - I've seen him on "that other site", but whenever I've looked, he hasn't been trashing any of us. There are others who do that - but I bear no ill will.

Sabrekitty is a uniter, not a divider (at least as far as his online persona goes), despite the fact that he is much further to the right than I am.

[nickcarraway]

It is the religious right and/or the far right conservatives that come up with the litmus test for Republican candidates -- it is 100% of what they want or they threaten to stay home.

Where did you get that idea? From what I see, the liberal Republicans will never support a concervative Republican candidate, but conservative Republicans always have to come through for the liberal candidates. Look what happened in NJ in 2001. After Schundler won, the state GOP took their ball and went home. Even though he was a three time winner in an overwhelmingly Democrat city, they would rather have a Democrat. Same thing happened in California. They actually had a group called ``Republicans for Davis.''

[Kuksool]

{Religious conservatives will not win in some states}

Are Frank Keating, J.C. Watts, Ernest Istook, Don Nickles, and James Inhofe losers? The New York Times would consider these people to be members of the vast religious right conspiracy.