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

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.

How vey 'democratic' of you, to try defining conservatism as hard right

You missed my point. The hard (RR) right is anything but conservative.

and at least as overt a try to create schism as anything you claim is being done on this thread.

Well, at least I do so without resorting to calling people traitorous cretins, treasonous liberals, queer-lover, Nazi, Fascist, etc. Which is what "your side" seems to relish. So I would suggest those labels have a greater impact on "schism" than those of us who reject them.

Is it possible you want the Republican party to morph from conservative to modewrately liberal so that your pro-choice opinion on abortion will be validated?

One of the sure signs of a vacuous argument is, in addition to all the name calling I mentioned, not responding to a post, but to the poster, as if the message is unimportant if we can label the messenger.

I'm all for conservative principles governing my Party. But as surprising as this may come to you, selecting a presidential candidate does not require me to inspect his personal social values. I want to know what kind of leader he will be in this world war on terror we are in; I want to know if he will secure my Country; I want to know his positions on taxes, budget control, crime, immigration reform, and a whole host of issues totally unrelated to stem cells, gays, abortion, prayer in school, evolution, Ten Commandments.

I don't care what church he attends, or even if he attends any. I want him to bring back the conservative values that many here consider second to their particular social values. I want him to be someone who can bring the divided Nation back together, not further split it. I want him to invite everyone into our Party, not just white Christians. We are a party with real conservative values that can appeal to everyone, not just the few. I want someone who sets goals, but is not afraid to talk to the other side, to be willing to compromise in order to achieve those goals.

So if that makes me a traitorous cretin, a Nazi, a queer-lover, then so be it. Hit the damn abuse button and get me off this "high value" forum.

I think I told you before, but if I didn't, let me say it now, I have great respect for you for serving your country honorably. I have no issues with Psycho-freep, or with you for that matter in regards to your service. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for putting your life on the line for your country and doing it admirably and with great courage.

I am confused as to why the subject of military service ever got thrown into this debate. I guess I missed some posts where things were said that started this whole conversation. My recollection (and I may be wrong) is that someone (Jim?) made a comment about people who betray their conservative values as being treasonous. From what I have read, I think some people (especially some who served their country) took this comment and twisted it around to mean something other than what this poster meant it to be. Jim clearly said he wasn't saying people who supported Rudy were treasonous towards their country, he was talking about betraying the conservative principles that we hold near and dear to our hearts.

I know it is a loaded word, and provocative one at that, but it is important that it be kept in context, because the poster (as far as I could tell) was not saying that those who support Rudy are treasonous towards their country, at least that is now how I understood his words. You and others may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's how he explained it. I think it is wrong to try to twist his words around to make them mean something different than what he explained.

Here is how dictionary.com defines the word treason:

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
*3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

I think the third definition is the point that the poster says he was trying to make. Free Republic (Jim Robinson) has been very clear in communicating what he believes this forum represents and the goals it is trying to accomplish. And anyone who would support someone who does not represent the conservative values of this forum should expect to be criticized for it. As Jim said to someone yesterday, "if you can't take the heat, then maybe you need to get out of the kitchen". Like I said before, people on both sides of this issue have been extremely harsh in their rhetoric at times. If anyone has a problem with having an intense debate of this nature, then maybe they should not join in on the Rudy threads, and I'm speaking to those on both sides of the issue. By the way, if you criticize the anti-Rudy people who use words or language that you feel is inappropriate, I hope that you are being equally critical to those on the other side who do the very same thing.

Regarding people who say things like "traitors" or "I spit on you", that is disgusting and uncalled for. Those posters should be banned from here if they are posting comments like that. But I do want to be clear, if the person who called you a traitor because you are willing to compromise or abandon the conservative values that Jim Robinson espouses here on FR, then I guess I would have to say, I understand the sentiments. You have been here at FR since the beginning pretty much, you know how deeply Jim believes in the social conservative values that he promotes here on FR. He, and people like him (me included), do feel a sense of betrayal towards people who are willing to abandon or compromise these principles and support someone who does not live up to those ideals that we cherish and have fought so hard for. Like Jim, it surprises me that conservatives here are willing to compromise their principles for the sake of having a rEPULICAN win the election. I know you have said again and again, we gotta do this so that we get more later. I simply don't agree with that Al, but that's a debate for another time.

If someone called you a traitor and tied it in with your loyalty to your country, that is wrong and should not be tolerated. But if you are saying that it is wrong for someone to call you a traitor because you are willing to compromise your long held conservative principles just to get someone with an r behind their name, then I would say it's fair game. I said it before, and I'll say it again, calling someone a traitor is harsh, it's provocative, and I probably wouldn't think to use that word, but I can't really say I disagree with it in the context that is was used. Anyone who is willing to abandon or compromise the conservative principles that we have fought so hard for all of these years, to me that's the definition of betrayal.

Again, it's all about context, and if you feel that being called a traitor for what some of us view as betrayal to the hard fought conservative principles that cherish, then I guess we aren't going to agree on this, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I think it is unreasonable for those of you who have served your country honorably to think that, as you said, "deserve a little better than to be called such names directly or by insinuation". Why should that be if we are talking about betraying conservative principles? What difference does it make what anyone's background is when we are debating something that has nothing to do with your military service? Whether someone served or not, no one should expect special privileges when it comes to debating issues here. I am not trying to dismiss the significance of your service or anything like that, but it seems unreasonable that any debate we have here that we would have to be more "cautious" in what is said to those of you who served in the military. If the issue is related to serving your country, fine, but when it is an unrelated topic, why should this even be brought into the debate? I just don't get that.

Al, I am sorry someone here said to you "I spit on you!" That makes me not only angry, but it hurts me to know that someone could be so insensitive to say such a hurtful, mean and vicious comment like that to you. If this poster wasn't banned for saying that to you I am extremely disappointed. In fact, if that comment is still on this forum I would like to know so I can give this worthless scum a piece of my mind, secondly, I would ask Jim to remove it if it hasn't already happened.

Sorry this has become a long post, I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism about it, but I really do not care. I won't huff and puff as some people have done here and decide to vote for someone else just because my poor little feeling got hurt. That is so lame that anyone would say they are going to vote for Rudy just because of what someone said on this forum. It just goes to show you how shallow, ignorant and gullible many people are here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.