Open Letter to Rush Re Voting for RINOs

October 17, 2006 | ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Rush:

Maybe you remember me? I'm "Mike from North Caldwell." I've been a (an accepted) "caller" to the show about 20 times, but I have not tried to call for five years or more now. I still listen when I can, but work makes it difficult for me to call these days.

Today is a day I would have called. I would have called have called after you got that woman, who ostensibly called to chide you for being to tough on Republicans who won't support RINOs, to say she would vote straight Republican because she had no other choice.

I wonder if you have some advice for me. You see, I live in New Jersey and the Republicans want me to vote for Tom Kean, Jr. Now Tom Kean, Jr. didn't just support the smoking ban here in NJ. He's not just a co-sponsor. He's the guy who introduced the bill; and he's proud of it. Because of Tom Kean, Jr.'s bill I have had to join a private club to have a comfortable place to smoke a cigar. (Side note: The club was written up in CA and I'm sure the members would be honored if you would show up at one of the monthly club dinners.) I really don't want this guy in the Senate. Sure, we might lose a vote in the full Senate but Kean, if he wins, would get committee assignments that might go to a real Republican.

And what about my representative, Rodney Frelinghuysen? Have you even heard of him? He is the ultimate get-along-go-along-Republican. He has been elected here six times to the House, and is the fourth Frelinghuysen to represent NJ there. They think it's their own little Duchy. Recently I received a response from him regarding my objection to the circuitous ban on Internet gambling. He didn't care. He was voting for it. Now I have never bet a nickel on poker or sports on any of the internet sites targeted by this bill (and not much more than a few dollars elsewhere) but I would like to think that if I had the time sometime, I could play in an on-line poker tournament. Now RINO Frelinghuysen has helped make that unlikely. Why should I support a guy who thinks my (potential) recreational gambling is his business, or that it is even within the province of the Federal Government?

And what about our President? I give him very high marks and credit for there not having been another successful terrorist attack here in the United States since 9/11. But does his government really have to prevent middle-aged guys like me from carrying my shaving kit onto an airplane, when flying to or from the same airport near my home that I have used for more than 25 years now? I had to get up at 4AM yesterday for a 6:20 flight even though I was staying only five minutes away from the small airport I used to fly home. I was all for the war in Iraq, but I'm hardly for imposing "democracy" on them. (I'd withdraw to garrisons outside the cities, and only come in to "restore order" when it suited our interests.) We used to criticize "nation building." What happened?

Now maybe you'll argue that the Supreme Court is at stake. And you would have a point. But really, except for aggravating me, Supreme Court decisions have much less effect upon my life than not being allowed to take a tube of toothpaste with me when I board an airplane.

So I'm not going to vote for Kean or Frelinghuysen. I cannot vote for Bush again, but I tell you now I won't be voting for McCain if he is the Republican nominee in '08. No, I almost certainly will not be voting for the Democrat either. Instead I'll look for some Conservative, Libertarian, of Constitutional Party candidate in these elections. Almost every one of the votes these parties get is a vote that the Republicans will know they could have had with a true Republican candidate. I'm hoping to encourage them in that direction.

Thanks for reading this.

ML/NJ (aka "Mike from North Caldwell")

[ml/nj]

WOW ! What a Kool-Aid drinker!

Do you really feel that anyone who says he's a Republican, is a Republican?

Do you really think that someone who INTRODUCES a Nazi-like law against smoking can still call himself a Republican? (FTR, I, now and before the ban, regularly have patronized then ONLY place in NJ with a distilled spirits license where one can still smoke cigars. And, as a backup, I've joined this carefully crafted club -no employees, nothing for sale - where I can also go to relax with a cigar.)

Do you really favor guys who vote, with no regard for the Constitution, to restrict the freedom of tens of thousands (at least) Americans to play poker on-line?

Are you in favor of nation building?

Will you really vote for McCain?

How many of your own principles are you willing to toss aside so that we can have a pseudo Republican majority which cowers before the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis, and NY Timeses. I want Republicans who take names and kick @$$ when they have a majority. I want Republicans who don't turn the other cheek when they arrive at a trashed White House. I know you do too. Otherwise you wouldn't be here.

ML/NJ

[sefarkas]

The list at #13 gets spammed to ...

Fair enough. I was suggesting that this list be a yardstick to measure candidates by. It is unlikely that the RINOs and RINO wannabes in NJ, CT, etc. would help the agenda listed out in such detail. Your list of complaints can be directed primarily at the White House; however, the choice being faced by the 47% of the eligible electorate likely to vote does not include President Bush. A vote for Kean or Lieberman will not help get a conservative agenda passed. Voting for those two will only assure that the Republican Party puts up more RINOs and shuts out conservative and libertarian challengers to the country club elites running the G.O.P.

[ml/nj]

Stop the whining already!!!

From mw.com:   ALREADY  1 : prior to a specified or implied past, present, or future time : by this time : PREVIOUSLY (he had already left when I called)

What an inane comment. When was the last time I posted anything in this vein here, or anyplace else?

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Stop the whining already!!!

From mw.com:   ALREADY  1 : prior to a specified or implied past, present, or future time : by this time : PREVIOUSLY (he had already left when I called)

What an inane comment. When was the last time I posted anything in this vein here, or anyplace else?

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

And what was Rush's reply to the letter?

I cannot say.

ML/NJ

[pwatson]

Yet another example of a person who does not understand politics. Democrats get this one point, politics are all about who runs the government. Only one side wins, they make all policy, all appointments, they run the government. The national elections are all about power and it is only a 2 party system. Your party wins thats all that matters. At the national level you will always water down the views to more moderate and thus less conservative and in the old days less liberal. All politics are also local, you don't like liberals join the local precinct, go to your county and state party meetings. Help run local city and county and then state office folks who are more conservative. You feed the national level from the local level the same way minor league feeds the major league in baseball. The Christian Coalition did this in Texas back in about 1990 we took over all the metropolitan school boards that grew nation wide and climaxed with the 1995 Newt contract with America taking over the Congress.
Not voting for Rinos thinking they somehow hear your non vote and somehow the Republican Committee will send out a memo saying only true blue conservatives need apply is pure fantasy land. That is not how it works, it only gets you Clinton elected like when so many pissed off at Bush folks voted for Perot thinking there, that will punish the Rockerfeller NYC Republicans. No, all that got us was Blow job Clinton and the 911 attacks.

Learn how national politics works.

[thoughtomator]

Most of the complaints I listed fall just as squarely in the hands of Congress as with the administration. Campaign "reform", for example, needed to pass both houses of Congress, and got signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court - betrayals by all of the above of their oaths of office, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Immigration falls just as much in Congress' lap as the President's, if not more so. Same for SS. The filibuster issue is 100% in the hands of the Senate, and their failure there was an error of historical magnitude that will have repercussions for decades to come. And futhermore there is much more that I did not list before that is totally and completely in the hands of Congress (e.g. the outrageous spending spree they've been on, legislative corruption out the wazoo, etc.). Moreover, the President is very much involved, since control of Congress will have a profound impact on what he can and cannot do for the last two years of his term.

[GOP_Lady]

Why can't you say?

[GOP_Lady]

Extremely well stated. ;-)

[GOP_Lady]

Extremely well stated. :-)

[thoughtomator]

In short, the pragmatic, practical reality is that national politics works to make absolutely totally sure that the citizen has as little actual representation as possible while maintaining the fiction of representative government.

[ml/nj]

Learn how national politics works.

I've learned, while maybe you weren't paying attention. I voted for Nixon and got the sell-out of the Nationalists and affirmative action. I voted for Bush the First and got the Americans with Disabilities Act and "no new taxes." Bush the Second is the first one to call for a Palestinian State.

I'm not suggesting that the Dims are better, but we can be. We must be.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Why can't you say?

I just can't.

ML/NJ

[GOP_Lady]

You might as well go hang out with the Dems then, because that's what your thinking and actions will give us.

[sefarkas]

Learn how national politics works.

Yet another example of someone who will vote blindly for the G.O.P. and later complain bitterly that the folks he voted for in the election conduct themselves inappropriately in office. This is an example of a country-club Republican who could not give a *($W_ about what folks voted for in 1994. The folks in 1994 voted overwhelmingly for change. What we have in 2006 is a list of RINOs that want to be elected not because they believe in the Contract with America or the fine points listed in #13; but, because they have less competition on that side of the ballot during the primaries. Kean, Lieberman, Shays, and the rest that voted against impeaching Clinton do not deserve to be in office. It is a canard to claim that the RATs (in general) will not support President Bush in foreign policy like Iraq. Only the looniest fringe of the RATs actually vote for policies Murtha type ideas put into legislation. Not even Pelosi voted for the Murtha idea to pull out immediately. But we can be sure that RINOs like Kean and his wannabe brothers like Lieberman will thwart Social Security reform, compel President Bush to nominate moderates to the Supreme Court and on and on. PWATSON may know many things about winning elections and holding on to power; getting conservative and libertarian ideas implemented does not seem to be in his quiver.

[Badray]

Thank you for a well reasoned letter. I hope that you have your asbestos undies on because you will need it. You will subject to the cries about the forth coming calamities that will befall us because you dared to act on your principles.

What your critics forget is that even if -- I don't think that it will happen -- the dems take both house, they will not have significant margins that will allow them to do what everything that they want to do.

They will not have the votes to impeach or convict Bush either.

And whatever garbage issues forth from a dem led congress, do we not still have a wonderful, strong and committed President who will veto those bills?

I too will vote my conscience. That will include some pubbies, but mostly I will use the write in function. If the GOP is too stupid to get the message, that's not my fault.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Or two.

For those who say that the RINOs will side with the Dems, then that should be all the proof that anyone needs that we should never support RINOs.

And if you are afraid that Bush won't use the veto pen, then your problem should be with Bush, not with the author of this letter or me.

[GOP_Lady]

You might as well hang out with the loser Dems as well.

[Badray]

I actually think the Dims might be less politically correct when it comes to the Swine. They know that their willing accomplices in the media would look the other way, and it might help them consolidate their power on the home front. Anyone who thinks all the carping about torture &c. would have gone on if Clinton were still President is just a fool.

Another good point and similar to what I posted yesterday on another forum, if not this one.

The left is complaining about the war to depose Bush and take control. Does any one really believe that not keeping the country safe will earn the Dems votes again? Will the American people just roll over and surrender?

I know that the prospects of dem control can be upsetting, but too many people are running scared and not thinking this through. There are too many talking head cheerleaders for the GOP who are painting a horrible picture but are not telling the whole story. I've not heard one of them even mention a presidential veto. All they do is throw out the Fairness Doctrine being brought back. I hate fearmongering and it doesn't move me.

[Badray]

Only one side wins, they make all policy, all appointments, they run the government.

Really? Then why didn't we get everything that we wanted when 'we' controlled congress and the WH?

Maybe YOU need to learn how politics work before making comments like that.

Electing RINOs -- dems who wear an R -- serves only to help the dems, not us. I won't vote for a RINO any more.

[kerryusama04]

The pubbies have to stay in the majority. We've had a great 5 years in the gun rights department and the courts. Then, of course, there's this:

Evil, incorporated.