If there's no FRed and no Hunter and we're left with the four headless RINOs, then what?

January 10, 2008 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

The question was posed to me last night, if the only two conservatives in the race were to drop out, leaving the hapless RINOs Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain to ward off the Evil Witch of the East then, Jim, what do we do?

Well, I think four issues that most of us conservatives will agree on that are at the top or near the top of our priority lists are National Defense, Border Security, Guns and Life should be considered. We can argue all day long on whether or not these guys are constitutionally minded, small government fiscal conservatives, and I don't believe any of them are, but we'll leave that for another day. Let's concentrate on National Defense, Border Security, Guns and Life.

Well, I can see right off that that rules out Rudy, the draft dodging, gun grabbing, sanctuary city abortionist. At least the other three claim to be pro-life, although Romney has been a pro-choice abortionist for all of his elected history until he decided to run for president. I think Romney's pro choice, big government nanny state (RomneyCare) record gives him two big black eyes and should knock him out of any further consideration. That leaves Huckabee and McCain.

Now, all four of these guys are terrible on border security even though they're all claiming now to be border hawks. McCain led the charge for amnesty and the rest fell in line like dutiful RINO troopers. Can't really make a distinction among these guys on the border issue. All fail, though I think most conservatives would rank McCain at or near the bottom.

Guns. Rudy's definitely out. McCain's out. Romney's not much better. Guess Huckabee the big duck hunter outshoots the others in this category.

Rudy fails in all categories, McCain and Romney fail on guns, and all fail on borders. So I guess Huckabee has more to offer over the others at this point as he is at least pro-life and pro-gun.

Now comes national defense. Sorry, but I can't see the draft dodging, gun grabbing, gay loving, cross-dressing, illegal alien pandering abortion activist Rudy Giuliani as a very appealing or effective guy to head up our military, even if he did make some rousing anti-terrorist speeches on 9/11. The "gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military" Romney (no military or national security experience that I know of) doesn't give me goosebumps either.

So, again, we're down to Huckabee and McCain. Now you all know that I like Huckabee as he is a likable fellow, and I hate McCain, but wait. If the whole shebang is going to be decided on which of the still standing Republican wannabes should defend America from the terrorists and the surrendering Democrats, I think I'll have to go with McCain over Huckabee. At least McCain served in the military and has a whole lot more military and national security experience while serving on various committees in the senate than does Huckabee. Huckabee has none. And I doubt Huckabee can defeat Hillary. But then, McCain probably won't either, so guess that leaves plan B. Squat down, tuck your head down between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.

Here's praying that the only two all around consistently reliable conservatives hang in there and one of them gets the nod.

Go Hunter!! Go, FRed, GO!!

[devere]

“People that think McCain will support them on social issues are dreaming.”

General elections are often about defeating the evil of the two lessers. I’d have no enthusiasm for voting for John McCain, but he might get my vote against Bill-ze-Bubba’s wife.

[DuncanWaring]

...but hes better than the alternative.

Better than the alternative? Repeal of the First Amendment ... Throwing the borders wide open ... Attempting to kill gun shows ... Gang of 14 ... Opposition to tax cuts ... One of the Keating 5 ... horrendous temper.

He's not "better than the alternative" - he's not better than anything.

[CASchack]

My ranking is:

(1) Fred — the best! As a statesman he might end up comparing with Ike and Reagan.
(2) Duncan — a very good man.
(3) Mitt — great executive experience, a clean personal life, and could turn out OK, or even better than that.
(4) Rudy — a great NYC mayor, a tough leader for the WOT, and sticks to his unpopular positions.
(5) John — might appoint better judges than a Democrat, but he seems slightly nuts.
(6) Mike — Pardons any killer or rapist who yells Jesus, raises taxes instead of cutting spending, believes in a federal nanny state and the constitution be damned, wants to give tuition breaks to illegal aliens, uses the name of God to troll for votes, still soliciting wedding gifts after 20 years, supports a crackpot 30% sales tax scheme.

I’d vote for one through four. John is a maybe. Mike, no chance.

This is my order of preference exactly, and I will go right down the line and vote accordingly.

[rove_wannabe]

How did we get to this? It’s depressing.

Why isn’t there a true conservative who can communicate the values and issues we hold effectively? Reagan was before my time, but his nickname “great communicator” rings so true today.

[Jim Robinson]

Endorse McCain?

No sir. I’m with Thompson all the way. The question posed was if there were no conservatives in the race, which of the four RINOs would be best. Answer: none. Then I says to myself, well then, which of the RINOs could I choose to piss off most of the folks. Now that’s a tough question. Try ranking them from the bottom up. Oops, can’t be done. They’re all on the bottom. OK, which one could I live with as Commander-in-chief? Surely not Hillary or Obama. Or Rudy or Huckabee. Like I said, as far as I can tell, of the RINOs on the list only McCain has any experience whatsoever for the job. And I hate him and have sworn an oath never to support him or vote for him.

So there you have it. Without a conservative in the race, I endorse plan B. And that entails kissing my ass goodbye.

Pray for Thompson/Hunter!!

[BlackElk]

I want the war to continue until each and every Al Qaeda stooge is six feet under or disintegrated by death from the sky. That means in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in any other country necessary to the effort. Anything less is surrendermonkeyism but you already knew that. If materialism has rto take a hit for us to carry out the responsibility for defending Western Civilization, so be it.

Use technology to replace the need for petroleum without downsizing vehicles to pregnant roller skates or castrating the engines as the paleos wish to castrate our military and you will not need to worry about gasoline prices. Temporary discomfort from high gas prices and heating oil prices make alternative technologies a LOT more likely. At that point, paleoPaulie's Islamofascist love objects can drink crude and eat sand in radioactive deserts for all I care.

Money is not everything and, if currency collapses, you never know whether we will repudiate international debt (which suggests that we would have a very hard time obtaining more borrowed funds making fiscal conservatism absolutely necessary and bankrupting Red China in the process). Likely the "fiscal conservative" bleating about 1920s Deutschmarks will prove as poor a prediction as usual.

"Green Party socialists" will be elected to Congress only if paleoPaulie's policy of autosmooch applied to Islamofascist butts becomes a lot more popular than one may realistically imagine. Shrimp may whistle and pigs may fly but you won't see the paleosurrendermonkey or any of his disciples in cowardice elected as a non-Demonrat POTUS on any ticket.

Republicanism is conservatism. Conservatism and Republicanism are NOT and never will be mindless cartoon libertarianism.

[EternalVigilance]

Why isn’t there a true conservative who can communicate the values and issues we hold effectively?

There is. Click on my screenname and you'll find lots of solid information. Especially, click on the pdf and read.

[TigersEye]

Go Hunter!! Go, FRed, GO!!

Everything you said is reality but your last line is the only sanity of it. Not your sanity, Jim, the sanity of the reality we face.

The Four Headless RINOs is a great metaphor. The choice between them is like choosing between disease, pestilence, war or famine. (pick your favorite disaster) And then there's Hillobama. I guess that's just the non-stop express ticket to hell. It's a real head scratcher. What do you pick the slow, medium or fast train?

[Names Ash Housewares]

Are you proposing we support Paul?

[DeusExMachina05]

Yep, you stay home in Nov and when you want to bitch about Queen Hillary et al, Ill be laughing at you and your quest for purity my FRiend Don Quixote.

[pogo101]

who's next?

3. Mitt, and hope he turns out to be no worse than Bush 41, to whom I think he's roughly cmparable

4. Giuliani

5. McCain

6. Huckabee

Obviously JMO -- and choices 4 through 6 are are even further below "Mitt" than "Mitt" is below Fred. (It gets hard to tell the little dots 4-6 apart when they're so far from view.)

[festus]

I say we just get a boat and go take over France.

[festus]

You undervote and I’ll go hang some poor guy named chad.

[DuncanWaring]

I ain’t staying home but I ain’t voting for McCain, either.

[Diplomat]

Ronald Reagan SIGNED/GRANTED amnesty to every illegal when he was president. This is a fact. George Bush never signed an amnesty bill, although he certainly wanted to.

Who is more the RINO, GWB or Reagan, or are they equal RINOs?

[Jim Robinson]

Sounds like a winning plan to me.

[BlackElk]

PaleoPaulie would not know how to bulk up his pet pig much less national borders, ours or anyone else's. Get used to the fact that the American military was meant for real and necessary tasks and not for F Troop and Keystone Kop border patrol duty.

Da**ed straight the paleopipsqueak ain't gonna be nominated since too many patriots vote to allow such an abomination. Since he has the pretension to make believe that he is either Republican, conservative or patriotic or all three (when he is quite obviously none of them), actual Republicans and conservatives and patriots (usually all three) get to have fun mocking the paleosurrenderman and his gullible followers.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Are you proposing we support Paul?

No, but I'm saying he's bringing a lot to the table and it would be counter-productive to ignore or demean him.

I don't agree with some of his foreign policy views, like the fact that he doesn't recognize Islam for the evil it is and wanting to pull the rug out from under our troops. But on some of his other views, he's right. We don't need to be giving 3rd-world countries all of this foreign aid and we don't need to intervene in their affairs. Look what Bush is doing to Israel today, for crying out loud.

[nicmarlo]

I’ve got a migraine.

: )

[K-oneTexas]

Rudy, not a RINO ... a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. Where as RINO's basically have gone to the Democrat side but didn't bother to change their party affiliation. "Blowing smoke" in the votes face and tap dancing at election time to be re-elected.

Rudy is plainly a liberal Republican masquerading as a conservative Republican, a true Rockefeller Republican from 40 years ago, to hopefully be elected.



Old terms
A Rockefeller Republican = a liberal on domestic and social issues; conservative fiscally with high taxes (no tax cuts) to keep balanced budgets; loves infrastructure projects and New Deal type projects run by federal government; massive amounts of foreign aid; an internationalist on foreign policy, a 'One Worlder'. They did believe in a strong military but I do not think if this applies to them today.

Goldwater Republican = conservative domestic, social, fiscal policy; strong military; individual rights, economic freedom, and a government of strictly limited powers. A truer conservative Republican would and not quite Libertarian.



Rudy is the 'Eastern Establishment' candidate, and basically the liberal wing of the Republican Party's candidate. IMHO, much more so than Romney who probably fits better as a moderate Republican.

McCain is "The Insider" and is a RINO or "sell out". Huckabee seems to fit between Rudy and Romney but closer to Rudy. McCain is closer to Rudy and nearer the Democrat philosophy; but hasn't the basic philosophy to be considered a Republican because of his compromising or temperament for the job he seeks.

From the conservative right to moderate center to liberal left of political philosophy spectrum from Libertarian thru Republican to Democrat (Added Hunter and Fred to complete the spectrum.):

Libertarian --- Hunter -- Fred -- Romney -- Huckabee -- Rudy -- McCain --- Democrat

Just my humble opinion of course.