Listen, in liberal states, if we have a RINO in office, you can accept that. You can work to make that state more conservative over time, so that it can become a state eventually that will accept a conservative, but until then, a RINO who is usually with us is better than a Dem who is not. Where we need to improve is in removing RINOs from holding office in conservative states. This is unacceptable. Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel, this means you. They should be removed in PRIMARIES, and the national GOP should stay the hell out of the race.
This is a winning strategy--persuade in liberal states, consolidate in conservative states, and use primaries to replace, not general elections against socialists. Oh, one other thing--
Go libertarian hunting all you want. They have cost us the Senate, and endangered the US as a result.
Good point about RINOs, they do serve a purpose. Anybody doubting that need look no further than AZ8, RINO Kolbe retired and the hard right GOP lost to the lefty Dem. Now I'm not sure the GOP could have gotten somebody RINO enough to replace Kolbe, but they certianly would have had a better chance than they got with a non-RINO.
Can't blame the Libertarians though. The job of a candidate is to get the votes, successful politicians pull in those non-hardliners (like Reagan did with the Libertarians), for the same reason that RINOs are occassionally necessary too.
"This is unacceptable. Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel, this means you. They should be removed in PRIMARIES, and the national GOP should stay the hell out of the race"
That's just it, how many Republicans were running against Republican incumbants? Hardly any. The National GOP made sure they supported noone who would challenge a standing Republican, RINO or not.
Interesting. I tend to agree with one caveat: We need to get out replace incumbent RINOs in liberal states every election or two, so their seniority doesn't allow them to hold the party hostage.
Examples: McCain and Specter.