"We're talking about replacing rinos with conservatives wherever we can in the primaries."
===
I am all for that, AS LONG AS those conservatives will be able to beat their Dem opponents in November.
I think we should vote for the most conservative, ELECTABLE Republican.
It doesn't matter how conservative a Republican candidate is, if he/she is defeated by the Dems. As we found out many times in CA.
A less conservative, but electable Republican who WINS, and defeats the Dem nominee, does more good for us, than the most wonderful, most conservative Republican who loses and we end up with a Dem replacing an incumbent Republican, RINO or not.
I don't like RINOs any more than anyone else here, but if it weren't some of the RINOs in Congress, the Republicans wouldn't have a majority, because those seats would be taken by Dems.
Defeating incumbent Republicans is always chancy, because that gives the Dems a better chance of winning, going against an unknown, instead of the incumbent.
Thank you for your comments.This is the only way we keep
from having a speaker pelosi
There are many different varieties of RINO. There is a big difference between someone who articulates conservative principles but is forced to compromise on implementation, and someone who claims to be a Republican but offers no reason for their slight opposition to liberal programs.
If the Democrats propose a $10B program and it's a horrible idea, the best outcome is for conservative Republicans to oppose it absolutely even if a few RINOs may join the Dems and get the program passed for $10B. If the Republicans say the program will be a disaster, but it gets full funding, the Democrats will have nobody to blame but themselves for its failure, and it may later be possible to cut the program.
By contrast, if the RINOs work with the other Republicans to produce a "compromise" program of $5B, that may seem to save $5B in the short term, but any failings in the program will be blamed on those who cut the funding from $10B. The Republicans won't be able to point out that the program was a bad idea from the start, since they supported giving it $5B. Consequently, the liberals will be able to give the program $10B next year, and when that's not enough, $15B the year after that, etc.
To many people seem to think that compromise always a minimal-risk strategy. It isn't. In poker, there are plenty of situations where a large play would be a sound play, and where folding would also be a sound play, but where a call or a small raise is a completely stupid play. It may seem that calling a $100 bet is a "compromise" between folding or making a $200 raise, but in fact it may be the worst possible move.