Posted on 11/30/2006 4:11:28 PM PST by dangus
The 2006 election was tragic for conservatives who did lose several key races. But the losses were downright devestating for RINOs (Republicans In Name Only.)
The following is a list of the RINOs, who scored under 60% as graded by the American Conservative Union, and how they fared in the last election:
SENATE: Linc Chafee, RI: defeated. Olympia Snowe, ME: no contest. Sue Collins, ME: re-elected. Mike DeWine, OH: defeated.
HOUSE Christopher Shays, CT: re-elected. Mike Castle, DE: re-elected. Sherwood Boehlert, NY: defeated. Jim Leach, IA: retired. Mark Kirk, IL: re-elected. Nancy Johnson, CT: defeated. Wayne Gilchrest, MD: re-elected. Scott McInnis, CO: previously retired. Jim Ramstad, MN: re-elected. Robert Simmons, CT: defeated. Tim Johnson, IL: re-elected. Jim Gerlach, PA: re-elected. Tom Davis, VA: re-elected. Schwarz, MI: defeated in primary. Charlie Bass, NH: defeated.
It's worse than that, even. Also ousted were Jeb Bradley (ACU score: 60), Mark Foley (63), Mike Sweeney (72), and Clay Shaw (71).
This is not to say that there weren't some painful conservative losses, such as Northup, Hostettler, Sodrel, Chocola, and Taylor. But the losses to the Republican Party struck largely at the "centrist" wing. Where's the media decrying the loss of so-called centrists, like they did in 1994?
Agreed. I was speaking to the general rule, not the exception. Yes, there are times a politician has to be more flexible, such as Arnold in CA. However, too often the right gives up and fails to offer the conservative alternative. This is exactly what has happened in CO for numerous races.
"...I'm not sure many should be rehashed here (Schiavo)..."
The purpose of this piece was to pin failure in the last election on Senators and Congressmen the ACU finds objectionable or questionable (probably because they've never been photographed leaving a church, or firebombing an abortion clinic, but that's another discussion), or as some here put it, the RINOS.
It is my position that conservatives are just as worthy of blame as republicans (there is a difference, you know), and in some cases, have eben more spectacular failures to their (dis-)credit. If we're going to have an intelligent debate then truthfulness and intellectual honesty have to be applied to both sides of the argument, no?
Therefore, anything is fair game when it took place within the entirety of the last six years.
No worries. It happens to us all.
Bunch of mayflies...
Oh please, spare me the patronizing civics lesson. I'm way ahead of ya. Let me know when you catch up and want to have a conversation.
I'll agree that there is a lot of blame to go around. Even amongst some Conservatives (your Classic Liberals), statism and apathy seeps in (along with lack of leadership), and those are great dangers. It is always a good thing to have a vigorous challenge of leadership and not to lose focus on issues important to us (i.e. Jefferson's notion of revolution). We didn't keep our eye on the ball. We've got 2 years to get our act together.
Hard to have a conversation with someone who apparently doesn't know what he's talking about. You used the word "liberal" incorrectly. i.e. you intended for it to be inferred as something it isn't. It's also hard to have a conversation with someone who could be this dishonest (although I'll cut you a break and chalk it up to a simple brain fart rather than malice).
The Republican party is a liberal party. Always has been, always will be. What you, as a conservative, seek to conserve are principles of personal liberty created by liberal means. Why this should somehow fail to register with you (and you're not alone, many toss about the terms so casually and without any historical sense of what they mean)is beyond me.
You're right about that. His poll numbers collapsed right after the Toomey fiasco and NEVER recovered. Had he not made that dreadful mistake, he may have had a chance to hold his seat. My guess is he still would have lost given the negative environment and Casey name, but it would have only been by a couple points instead of the 20-point shellacing he did take.
However, he would still be a hero among us Conservatives and would be a VERY formidable force for the '08 presidential nomination, given the RINO parade we are currently faced with.
Truly tragic.
I still couldn't believe conservatives were so revengeful that they let Santorum lost simply because he helped Specter. Specter was his senior in the senate, and they're from a same state. You expected Santorum to backstabbed him? If conservatives are so emotional that they're willing to lose almost everything by losing the Congress, I think we're going to lose everything... Say goodbye to all kind of conservatism...
The problem is, however, that rarely are there true fiscal Conservatives who are also social liberals. If you're the latter, it's almost impossible to be the former, because increased spending and government intervention is required to be a social lib.
I'm personally ticked about Curt Weldon. Defeated by Clinton's little toadies because he wouldn't shut up.
The problem is, you might be able to get away with it in localized contests, but where a Presidential candidate is concerned, they will have to choose. It's hard to motivate the Conservative base for a Giuliani type. A social policy Democrat is poison and would cause a 3rd party candidate to rise.
There, I hope this helps straighten you out.
Like I said, NO Rinos, NO Defeat! Believe me, we're on the same page.
My Bad. I'm probably getting caught up in the incorrect use of "liberal" that seems to be rampant here and assuming that we're not.
That and I hate the term RINO. It's such a crock and it's typically tossed about as a mean-spirited perjorative, mostly by people who can't adequately define either "republic" or "republican".
Sorry for the confusion.
There are a LOT of those voters. I had a hairdresser who wouldn't vote for Bush/Cheney because she thought Cheney was ugly. (I switched salons, needless to say.)
You really have to understand that a great deal of voting is not based on firm command of the issues. It is done often on feelings, impulse, peer pressure, and vague impressions derived from a few news stories and commercials. That is why the debates are important...often that is the only time voters actually listen to the candidates.
It is a shame that the electorate is so fickle and so ill-informed, but they are. And, their votes count just as much as yours does.
With the current 3 stooges the media is trying to foist on us, they're all degrees of distasteful, from Giuliani the social liberal, McCain the media-whoring megalomaniacal senile nut, and flip-floppin' cut 'n run from Taxachusetts Romney. We have got to do better than this.
Your anecdotes about family and friends are nice, but how do you know your airhead hairdresser actually voted? I'd be willing to put money down that she votes about one time out of five, if that. Most people won't admit that they don't vote, don't care, or are intimidated by the whole process. Talk is cheap and getting off your rear and going to the polls is a pain if you don't usually do it.
The electorate is not the same people each time. That is the most important dynamic in politics today, yet so few of the so-called pros grasp the impact of that fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.