How can the populace be expected to vote conservative when many so-called Republicans hardly even try to articulate conservative positions, or suggest that anything's wrong with liberal ones?
There are many situations in poker where it would make sense to either raise the stakes or to fold, but it would make no sense to call. Although a "call" might seem like a reasonable compromise option between raising and folding, it may be the worst possible choice.
I would suggest that the same is often true in politics. If liberals are proposing a program and a conservative staunchly opposes it, pointing out precisely why it won't work, then even if the program passes over his objection he will be well-placed to blame its failings on the liberals. By contrast, if a RINO suggests that the program should be funded for half the requested level and the program then fails (as of course it will), its failings will be blamed on "conservatives" and its funding will be increased each year, since its continuous failings will obviously be a result of evil conservatives' underfunding.
There's a little clue to all that, but one has to bring oneself to look at Ronald Reagan as he was as of 1976, and NOT through the rose-colored glasses the ultra-hard right sees him though. As of 1976, RR by any honest definition, was a RINO in many respects. In 1968, as governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion law and restrictive gun laws in the country. Undoubtedly what got him elected governor in 1968, and made him a viable national candidate, were those positions. In fact he'd have been pilloried here on FR had it been around then. AFTER he won the presidency he publicly renounced those positions. IMHO, John McCain, once elected, will reveal a far more conservative conduct than any here could grudgingly admit to or ever see. Mash here for a glimpse...