Is Driving Rinos out of the GOP Good for the Country? Thought-Provoking Must-Read for Rudy-Haters.

FR | April 16, 2002 | Common Tator

[Al Simmons]

Wedge Issues Posted by: “Common Tator” in FreeRepublic.com April 16, 2002

The one thing that amazes me on this site is the belief by some that the conservative position is the majority position.

Mostly people tend to believe it could be the majority position if the right candidate ran, or if it weren't for the media or RINOs or etc, etc. They really don't have a clue.

Roughly 2/3 of the public has firm views. They have made up their minds and do not change them. This group is nearly equally split between the left and the right.

There are about a 1/3 of the population that is never sure. Sometimes it will go left and sometimes it will go right.

When a party restricts itself to its base it will be in a minority party. The "base only" party will be reduced to crying as the other side works its will. In some nations both the left and right restrict themselves to just their base. That nation then develops five or six parties. And all governments in that nation are coalitions of a major party and some of the minor parties. In that situation the minor party always has more influence than its numbers represent. For the Rino and Dino haters that is the worst of all worlds.

Many of Rino and Dino haters try to make ours a 3 or 4 party system. They never figure out that their splinter right or left party would never get much power in a government based on coalitions. They are too small. It is the centrist parties that have a 1/3 of the public as potential members that get the clout in the Multi Party system. As you can see in a 2 party or a 5 or 6 party system the center tends to prevail.

But in our two party system the center is an instrument the major parties use to enact their goals. In the multiparty system it is the center parties that use the right and left to enact their centrist goals. Such a system like those in Italy and France are RINO and DINO paradise.

This nation now and for all of the last 140 years has been roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right and 1/3 in the middle. Those in the middle who run for office are what we call RINOs and DINOs.

When Republicans drive RINOs out they leave the party to become DINOs and take their political power with them. The Democrat party gets them by default.

Then the Democrats thanks to its Dino buddies have a veto proof house and senate. It was Barry Goldwater's greatest accomplishment. In my BRAIN I knew Barry would elect a lot of DINOs ... and he did.

If a party with most of the center wins the presidency too, they have a filibuster proof senate. That party then can do anything it wants to do. When the party leadership takes control they implement the parties’ core beliefs. It was what LBJ did after Goldwater drove all the RINOs into LBJ's camp. It let LBJ do the "Great Society." LBJ had to have Barry's help to do it. And Barry did what it took to give LBJ the support he needed... LBJ had all the left. Barry gave him all the center.

To win control a party must keep its base and get over half the middle. If the Republicans have more RINOs than the Democrats have DINOs the Republican agenda prevails. If the Democrats have more DINOs than the Republicans have RINOs the Democrat agenda prevails.

Those that demand the defeat of RINOs are doing all they can to enact the leftist agenda. They are the most valuable asset the left has. One of the most effective tactics in politics in the negative campaign.

Negative campaigns are not about getting votes for your candidate. They are about getting the other side's base to not vote for their candidate. Thus if you can get the right to vote against a Rino or not vote at all, you can elect a very liberal candidate.

If you can force the Republicans to nominate a right wing candidate so right wing he can't get the center voters, you elect the left candidate.

[Kryptonite]

Senator Allen would have made an excellent candidate. I have some growing hopes for Romney.

All I see from Rudy is a chance to beat Hillary. Not a great chance at all, but a chance. And that's motivating people these days.

I'm willing to be patient as things develop, and confident that time will work things out in at least a minimally-satisfactory manner. Until then the preening, chest thumping and aggression will continue to bore me.

[OMalley]

deflection? that was part of the thread, maybe you missed it.

And while you are chastizing her for the way she "looked" it might interest you to know that you are coming across as a self rightous, elitist snob AND a prude!

I realize you dont think you come across as mean and condesending, or any of the above but you do and it begs to be poked at.

I dont say that to be cruel, but it might help to be aware that we dont always appear as we hope.

Delphinium is a fine christian woman btw regardless of what you are posting.

Still want that hug?

[dmw]

And you are??? I didn't know I was talking to you. Are you representing
PSYCHO-FREEP?

Well, while you are here I will address your first comment (without being too prolixy) and then hopefully you can find someone else to confuse.

I never used the word "treasonous liberals" to anyone. If you have a problem with that description I suggest you go to the source. My point is STILL valid, don't vote for someone just because you got your feelings hurt over a couple of words. Is that so hard for you to understand, or are you another one of those sensitive liberals who when you get your feelings hurt decides to retaliate by voting for a liberal?

[youngjim]

Rudy's own words.

Thanks for playing, Delphium. We had this out yesterday; and as I remember, the words were actually Margaret Sanger's words, that you attributed to Rudy simply because he once praised Sanger. This is called conflation and it is simply a lie. Which makes you a deceitful person. Which totally blows away your self-professed "coming to Christ."

Your delude yourself if you think that you are acting as a Christian; your words are mere cant and they do no service to the Lord.

[nopardons]

People don't usually talk openly about behavior that they are ashamed of and they most assuredly don't revel in it. You have done both. If you don't want something used against you............don't post it!

Good breeding and good manners, as well as good behavior, knows no class. These are things which are available to all; no matter one's social strata.

Now stop trying to make this thread all about YOU! If you want to ramble on and chat, go find a chat thread.

[OMalley]

What you are doing is harrassing someone and bloating yourself up. you have no right to question someones faith.

btw you logic does not hold up.

[Blue Collar Republican]

Again, you don't know me. The McCain thing was a joke. If you look at the post again, notice the tag line. You weren't the only one to miss it. (PAID FOR BY McCain 2008)

As for being put in with everyone else, I don't know them. I am a pro-gun, low tax, personal responsibility, secure our borders, JEW. I drink, smoke and cuss a blue streak.

As I said before, I like Tom Tancredo, or Duncan Hunter, but I don't think they can win. Mitt is the least objectionable of the RINOs.

Once again, you make good points but they are overshadowed by your insults. Go get a beer and walk away from the computer for a few minutes. It might help.

[OMalley]

You have mail:)

[upsdriver]

ditto

[L.N. Smithee]

a. That title is called a "Hook" to get you 'in' to take a look, and

b. There are some posters on the other threads to whom that moniker fits like a glove.

But lets stick to the ideas of this piece, at least on this thread, please.

When you throw a left "hook" unprovoked, you have forfeited your right to say "Let's settle this like civilized people." You wanna start a fight, you better be ready to finish it.

Which brings me to my challenge to you issued Monday when you suggested if the GOP didn't win, Hillary Clinton would 'make homeschooling illegal.' You chickened out, as I thought you would.

[youngjim]

And you are??? an interested observer and participant on this very long thread. Why do you ask?

PREMISE I never used the word "treasonous liberals" to anyone.

CONCLUSION My point is STILL valid, don't vote for someone just because you got your feelings hurt over a couple of words.

I don't want to confuse you, but this is called equivocation and its a common logical fallacy. In your premise you state X. Then your conclusion cites Y as true--with absolutely nothing to link X and Y but your banal fancy. As any decent judge would ask "Is there a question in there, or is counsel speculating?

PSYCHO-FREEP can answer you if he wants; educating the twits is yet another service I provide.

[youngjim]

btw you logic does not hold up.

I'll consider that if you like to explain my error to me.

[youngjim]

Again, you don't know me. The McCain thing was a joke. If you look at the post again, notice the tag line. You weren't the only one to miss it. (PAID FOR BY McCain 2008)

My bad, and my apologies (only to you however and not to my other targets here) I didn't notice your ironic comment.

I will take your advice, however, and am going straight to bed.

[MadIvan]

Oh, that was Gladstone. :)

My thanks.

Regards, Ivan

[nopardons]

No, not in the least. OTOH, from your posts, I doubt that you are calm or happy. Pity that................

[nopardons]

Your appear, sadly to have a dearth reading comprehension ability.

I may "appear" to be one thing to you, but quite something else to most others here.

If I refuse to get down into to the gutter with you ( the plural you ), that makes me an "elitist snob"? Well, better that, than what your bunch looks like on that thread, that you did everything you could to get me to post to. And "good Christians" don't behave in the manner that you ( plural again ) do.

No thanks, keep your hugs for those who want then.

I will remind you of the fact that I did reach out to you and you wanted none of it. So please don't playact now, in public.

[Syncro]

It's a second definition in what you posted

I noticed that.

...and that definition is not the one that first springs to anyone's mind.

Unless of course they look at the context in which it is used. If that is done, it is clear what is meant by abortionist. And would save "anyone's mind" from jumping to erroneous conclusions

I'm glad you looked it up in at least one dictionary. The second definition doesn't show up in some dictionaries, and it does in others.

Here's something else I found, maybe it will help (I can dream, can't I?)

-ist

a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc: abortionist

One that produces, makes, operates, plays, or is connected with a specified thing: abortionist.

-ist 

agent noun suffix, also used to indicate adherence to a certain doctrine or custom, from Fr. -iste, from L. -ista, from Gk. -istes, from agential suffix -tes. Variant -ister (e.g. chorister, barister) is from O.Fr. -istre: abortionist

And no, I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone

No one asked you to. There is no doubt what was meant.

I was merely trying to help you see the post in question from a non-histrionical viewpoint.

I have to post the last quote in context, it is classic:

And no, I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone, calling anyone else an abortionist, or a "baby killer", which is also a term flung about here, now.

Rudy Giuliani by his own words is an abortionist (see above which way this word is used here) and so he has been described as such.

I certainly hope you (or Rudy) haven't been called a baby killer. He may be an abortionist, but he doesn't preform the procedure. He's a lawyer, not a doctor.

[nopardons]

Oh, I see, you think that THAT is "harassment", but that the real harassment that you and your ilk engage in, is just good, clean fun?

You should get someone to explain what harassment really is, to you!

[Al Simmons]

"I don't think it is good for the country to drive pro lifers and 2nd Amendment supporters from the Republican Party."

Oh Jes*s Chr*st, not this SHale again. The GOP has a primary. The motivated vote. The delegates select a nominee.

No one is driving anyone from the party.

It is the 'my way or the highway' crowd that is threatening to in effect 'bolt the party' by staying home on election day or voting for some third party no-name candidate if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.

That's called throwing a tantrum. Or wanting to enforce a diktat on the GOP (litmus test, call it what it will).

Fortunately we have a democratic process. What will be will be, but calling people names and making threats is no way to win friends and influence people.

I will be voting for whoever the GOP nominates because the alternative is to help elect - through direct vote or by withholding my vote - the candidate from h*ll. A lot of good your principles will do when she shuts down sites like this and talk radio via the (UN)'Fairness Doctrine', outlaws homeschooling and cracks down on religious people's right to associate freely for the purpose of effecting change.

But you keep saying that there's no difference between Giuliani and Hitlary.

Have you seen the video montage of Rudy silently praying, and mouthing the words, barely keeping his composure, through tears at funeral after funeral post 9/11?

And THAT is the man who is exposed to the kinds of insults we have seen thrown around here of late?

Its disgusting. But you don't hear me threatening to stay home if someone other than Rudy gets the nomination. I'll walk over burning hot coals and crawl over broken glass to defeat satan in a pantsuit.

Some other around here would rather burn down the house instead and ensure her victory.

Well, I know one thing: whatever happens in 2008, MY conscience will be clear.

[nopardons]

You are attempting to pull someone's chestnuts out of the fire and no, it isn't working.

Oh yes, I and Rudy and others on this site have indeed been called babykillers; amongst many other vile, spurious things.

I haven't killed a baby and as far as I know, neither has Rudy. But then, neither am I any of the other things that have been hurled at me, these past two months.