Fair question. The case FOR supporting RINOs is that if the R's get 50+1 then they control the Senate, which means committee assignments, and voting majorities. Without last terms R control (enabled by RINOS) the Donkeys, for instance, would probably have been able to bottle up Roberts and Alioto's Supreme Court nominations in Judiciary. Thus, no conservatives getting appointed.
There are lots of other problems with Donkeys in control, for instance Reid running the Senate with his odd rules to push amnesty. Unlikely in a R controlled Senate.
So much as we hate them it may make sense to keep a few around if we want to be in the majority.
We should work to get rid of every last one of the RINOs every opportunity we get because about 90+% of the time they’re going to foil our efforts. Challenge them in the primaries and vote Democrat in the general, if that doesn’t work, and every once in awhile we’ll get rid of ONE! Otherwise, we’ll continue to be stuck with all of them except for the ones the Democrats manage to take out without our help.
I hear ya on the Senate. I was referring strictly to the WH. As we have all found out, having an "R" in the WH was a huge detriment to the future of the United States regarding amnesty for 20 million illegals. This amnesty would have been a sure way to bankrupt our Social Security system, permanently change the face of our land, surrender parts of our country to a hostile people without even a fight, and keep our borders open to the, (no doubt), THOUSANDS of terrorists who have managed to waltz into our country and lay down their sleeper cells. And the Pres didn't even give all that a second thought. He stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ted Kennedy and Dingy Harry Reid, for God's sake. So I can't help but re-ask my original question: "what would be the difference between another RINO in the WH or a Democrat"?