Dig this, I HAVE a 'Rat Governor precisely because I HAD a RINO Governor. This is all you get when you elect a RINO Governor. You gain nothing with them and you lose EVERYTHING in the end. With RINO Governors, there are no baby steps towards making the GOP more competitive or any movement at all towards Conservatism, just gigantic leaps towards liberalism, the 'Rat agenda, and MORE 'Rat elected officials. Is that clear enough ?
You're leaving a lot out of your analogy. Sundquist RAN as a conservative, even governed as one for a while. Then somebody at the TEA must of found pictures of him in bed with little boys or something, I don't know. He BECAME a RINO.
He ran as a conservative, becasue TN is as conservative as Cali is liberal (pay attention now, son...) The ONLY way you can win in TN is running as an anti-liberal (like Lincoln Davis did).
Arnold, on the other hand is NOT running as a conservative. That would be like Bredesen running as a Ted Kennedy liberal.
You can only win in a state that tilts heavily to one side by running on that side or as a moderate!!!!
Take Tennessee, turn it upside down, and understand why in Tennesse a RINO is a treachery, but in Cali, it's a vast improvement.
All that sounds nice, but I'm not sure it stands up to examination. It seems even on this thread the example of Reagan changing from a D to an R over several years is a counter example.
And check up on how Gingrich came to be Speaker of the House, thus leading to the "Voters' tantrum of '94".
All of these might be considered "baby steps" that did indeed make the GOP more competitive. I'm sure there are exceptions, but would you throw out the successes with the bath water from the failures? Who indeed can guarantee success? Who's pronouncements are more prophetic than another's?
Also see my posts #146 and #346 (I think).