LOL. As Bugs used to say, "He don't know me very well, do he?" Are you kidding me? Anyway, suffice to say, you're way off the mark there.
According to your thinking, we'd be better off with more RINOs and that is just ridiculous.
Nope. I'm saying a RINO beat a DEM every single time. I actually think it's miraculous that so many liberals run and win as GOPers. Clearly, their constituents prefer liberals, and yet, somehow we're extremely fortunate to have these libs run as GOPers, which helps the GOP preserve a majority. That majority makes a tremendous difference. I don't think we'd have gotten Alito or Roberts out of a DEM controlled judiciary committee. No way. I don't get why this is so tough to grasp. It's very basic.
Except that anything bad any of the RINOs do--even if its because they're NOT conservative--will be used by the media to blast conservatives and Republicans. If I had a nickel every time the media called King George the RINO (1999-2002) a "conservative Republican" I'd be rich. Further, replacing a RINO is very expensive. First the party's money goes to fund the RINO's primary campaign. Then money is needed to mount a primary campaign against the RINO. Then after the RINO is defeated in the primary, the challenger still needs money for the general election.
By contrast, defeating a Democrat can be done much more cheaply since one only need fund one election (unless a RINO weasels his way onto the primary and needs to be defeated).