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.

[MHGinTN]

The most compelling chararcteristic of Rudy is his 'you get what you see' ... he comes across as just what you see and hear when he is interviewed. That is often called 'being genuine' ... there is much to be said for that characteristic, especially when so many of the runners areplastic banana characters propelled by 'organizations'. Soldiers, because their lives depend upon clarity, are drawn to genuineness and repelled by falseness and plasticity.

[SJackson]

Al, thanks for an illuminating thread.

I think the third definition is the point that the poster says he was trying to make.

You're probably right, though when using an inflamatory term, it's a good idea to make that clear. Posters using it, like felon and the sexual allusions, should not only be careful, but willing to defend their position.

Note the post (below) on a McCain thread

I've no doubt the poster wasn't really suggesting McCain is a traitor, but it offends me. And in my view the problem isn't mine, it's the anti-McCains in this case, the anti-Rudys in others.

Words have meanings, and while #3 could fit, it's reasonable for a reader to default to #1 or #2, a traitor to America.

[youngjim]

are drawn to Rudy for his obvious leadership qualities.

I've also noticed that on the Rudy threads that a lot of the Rudy supporters are women.

I'm not sure what motivates the anti-Rudy's, but by their style of attack indicates MACSOG68 analysis is spot on; their anger is a direct result of their positions having been marginalized by the larger political debate of who will defend this country. They add to the vicious circle of their own rage by smearing Rudy; he being a more convenient target though not at all a wise one.

I will happily get down in the mud with these idiots as I respect Rudy's leadership qualities; respect the veterans and women's opinion of them; and quite frankly I'd pick a good baseball fan like Rudy and W, over a self-professed "Christian" any day of the week.

That said, perhaps the anti-Rudy's could proffer some names that have a chance. And for those I anticipate will proffer Hunter and Keyes--your heart has gotten the best of your head.

[Al Simmons]

Thank you for your post. I disagree with your analysis of the tone of the debate, but it wasn't JimRob who started throwing around the words 'treasonous liberals' - it was OldMil or someone with a similar moniker who has now disappeared from these threads(?) Jim just encouraged it by not reigning it in, and he and I have already discussed the matter and agreed to disagree.

And, for the record, neither I nor my brothers have 'abandoned' our principles as you insinuate.

Once again a 'red herring' to try to create guilt so as to 'get people in line'.

We do not owe ideological fealty to JimRob or anyone else - we are what we have been from the beginning - conservative warriors looking to do what is best for our country.

The fact that some folks around here can't seem to get their gaze off their navels and see what is looming abroad in the war - and the coming nuclear threat from Iran - is frankly scary.

I am choosing to support the candidate who I think would be best at ensuring our national survival.

The issues that have you 'wrapped around the axle' are not ones that a President has much control over (abortion still legal under RR and Dubya - the point has been made ad nauseam. When even RR appointed 2 Justices who voted to uphold Roe you know its a crapshoot.) Rudy has stated his conservative judicial philosophy, and I am certain he will appoint many more anti-abortion judges and religious judges than ANY Dem. A majority of them will fit that description is he is Prez. I find him to be a man of his word, and the fact that he not doing the old flip-flop a la Mitt is driving me even more enthusiastically to hsi camp.

The President's job #1 is to be the C-in-C and defend the nation. At a time of peace you might discount that but not in 2008. And I am comfortable that his judicial nominees will be acceptable to me.

You are speaking not only to a Vet, but a lawyer who has personally met and spoken with both Judge Bork and (then) Judge Scalia about Constitutional law issues, and backs their views on the matter 100%. Perhaps the fact that I do not see Rudy as being a threat to the Federal Judiciary will give you some degree of comfort. His appointments would be 100% better than ANY made by a Dem, and, as MadIvan pointed out above, even one Democrat term in office can have catastrophic long-term consequences - especially when we are at war.

[MACVSOG68]

Wow, what an amazing display of straw in motion.

Another indicator of a lost argument. Simply use the old strawman charge. You charge me with creating schisms and then when I give you examples of what you have done you call them strawmen.

The notion of why folks support Rudy is relevant to their issues, and the actual theme of this thread.

And so you don't believe that the tactics used by your friends here to drive all the moderates out is relevant to a thread entitled "Is Driving Rinos Out of the GOP Good For the Country"?

Incidentally, the issues you named are for the most part social issues if you have actual conservative values rather than living your life on situational ethics, where all issues are negotiable because of weak character.

They are religiously and morally based, not conservatively based. Because a member of the RR calls himself a conservative does not so make him. I have no problems with anyone who makes those values a major part of their lives; I argue that for the most part they do not belong in the political debate. I listed the issues I believe a good candidate should be concerned with, and I believe most Americans would agree with those.

And you may decry situational ethics, but go back and look at the threads these past couple of weeks, and tell me just how ethical those on your side of the debate are. They use distortions, lies, vicious labels, threats, and every tool in the book to shut up the other side. Doesn't sound too ethical to me, unless you believe that "the end justifies the means" is really not situational ethics.

And therein is the source of controversy over Rudy's so liberal values and how they will direct his decisions in office.

Your definition of liberal is not necessarily consistent with the reality of real liberalism here in the Country, nor with the definition of most Americans. There are twice as many people in America who describe themselves as conservative compared with those who claim to be liberals. Yet Rudy's favorability rating at last check was 65%, far more than every other candidate on either side of the aisle. And I am pretty certain, he would address the issues I consider important to this Nation, and which are real conservative values.

I understand that it is not easy being marginalized. But the RR brought it on themselves, and were helped out by the pathetic 109th.

[MACVSOG68]

So you support someone that is splitting Free Republic and seems destined to split the Republican Party?

To the contrary. The splitting here has been instigated by and fostered by the leader of this forum and those members of the far right who cannot accept any discussion of a candidate who doesn't meet their "social values" test. And yet, these people have become so marginalized, that I doubt it's long term effect on the Republican Party, if the Party decides to broaden its scope to bring in those some here have gone out of their way to keep out. But yes, there is a definite split here on FR, and it will likely be fatal in the long run.

Discussion is healthy. Name calling is not. I can agree with that. Besides, how else are we going to convince you that you are wrong?

How about a little intellectual discourse? But those days are long gone here on FR. It has become nothing but oneupmanship on these threads, and I don't see much that's going to change it. If I get on here and say, here's the reasons I like so and so, I will likely be met by sarcasm at best and vitriolic name calling at worst. There is nothing positive going on here at all. Yes, discussion is healthy. We might want to try it again some time.

[MHGinTN]

If you look at what I have written and compare that to what you 'claimed', even you will see straw flying from your rake: "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."

You asserted, "They (the social issues) are religiously and morally based, not conservatively based." Gee, perhaps you would educate me as to what is 'true' source of conservative values.

[MACVSOG68]

We agree on that, which is why I would like to see Newt enter the debate. Not to really seek nomination, as he is totally unelectable, but to focus the debate more on the issues of importance, and bring out the plasticity in those who really don't understand the depth of the issues. They learn a few talking points and go out hunting for enough dollars to convince people with those handful of talking points that they are genuine. A debate with Newt in it would eliminate most of them right off the top.

[politicalwit]

You know...all of this is moot unless the Republicans gain control of at least the Senate. A republican president can nominate all the conservative judges in the US for the Supreme Court but if the Senate doesn't confirm it really doesn't matter. I had rather see a majority in the House and Senate even if it means forgoing the White House.

[BigSkyFreeper]

That's why I object to the Republican party dumping the pro life plank from its platform by nominating a pro abortionist candidate for president.

They haven't nominated anyone. That happens at the convention which is more than a year away.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware the Republican party dumped the pro-life plank from it's platform. There's no evidence to even back that up. None of these candidates are the party, they are members of the party.

[fabian]

I found out from a friend who listens to the Bill Bennett show early in the morning that Rudy has appointed a bunch of liberal judges in New York; the opposite of what he is saying he will do as president. If people can't count on Rudy appointing conservative judges than his support for legal abortions becomes a whole lot worse.

[youngjim]

At least the Class of '98 understands what has happened to the Republican party..

Do not include me in yer sanctimonious cant.

And before you haul off and call me a RINO, etc. I've been a paid member of the Republican party for more than 20 years. I think I know what a RINO is. And I submit, withholding your vote from the party of Lincoln for whatever silly reason you proffer, is probative for thee being the RINO.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Then don't vote for Rudy.

[MACVSOG68]

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:

Permit me to offer a counterpoint. The poster whose posts I am quite familiar with made absolutely no effort to mitigate the effects or meaning of the term he used. A later poster upped the ante by referring to us as treasonous cretins. Others, several of them, agreed with the original with such thoughts as "the truth hurts"?

Every use of the word traitor on this forum to my knowledge has been to refer to those who work to bring aid and comfort to the enemy, such as many Democrats and especially the MSM. It was not until about a thousand posts into the thread that someone other than the poster looked in a dictionary and found an out for the poster. That dog don't hunt!

Even using that definition (which was not the definition intended), one can betray his Country, his family, his religion. But he can hardly betray something called conservatism when in fact there are a dozen "kinds" of conservatism. That I don't accept all of your particular social values, nor want them brought into a campaign is hardly betrayal of anything.

Having said that, the meaning of the original poster still stands with many of us. Looking at the language used against those one disagrees with politically, even reinforces that belief as to what the original intent was.

I immediately challenged the original poster, and he refused to comment back to me, thereby accepting my accusations. Nor, to my knowledge, has he yet clarified his position.

[youngjim]

Rudy simply praised Margaret Sanger. You don't see anything wrong with that?

Well that you've conveniently left out the context of the statement--an appearance before NARAL--is still more deceit on your part. I don't suppose you've ever had the opportunity to speak before a hostile crowd? An oblique reference to a putative hero is a common rhetorical device to ease the tension before a speech. Rudy is a politician; not a tent revivalist. But to answer your equivocation: No.

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

[Candor7]

You got that right Tommy, because conservatives have been driven from office and influence by RINOs all over the country. Witness John McCains conduct in sinking conservative local candidates in the 2006 Arizona election. That has earned him the disrespect and anger of the entire Arizona Republican party.

The RINOs began a turf war, and now they cannot handle the answer that is now issuing forth from the conservative wing of the Republican party?

If the RINOs think they can win without 20 to 30 percent of the Republican electorate, then let them continue in their folly and may the best candidate for the nomination win! Let the competitions begin!

The RINOs want a pre-primary undertaking from the conservative Republican community that we will vote for Rudy? That is idiocy.

Conservatives will support conservative candidates for the nomination, and will do everything in their power to have a conservative candidate for president.

That's what primaries are about. And if the Rudy Rotorooters can't take the heat inherent in the contest, then they can simply take their toys and leave, AND , Republicans will still win the 2008 election without them.

[jmc813]

And yet Jim wrote a vanity before the November elections telling us that the WOT was the most important thing.

Rudy's not the best candidate to execute the WoT.

[American Quilter]

I found out from a friend who listens to the Bill Bennett show early in the morning that Rudy has appointed a bunch of liberal judges in New York; the opposite of what he is saying he will do as president. If people can't count on Rudy appointing conservative judges than his support for legal abortions becomes a whole lot worse.

A caller (same one?) to Laura Ingraham this morning said the same thing. I was in the car, and missed his name and what he said his job was, but he'd evidently worked in NYC during Rudy's years, and said Rudy had appointed very liberal judges.

[Peach]

In your opinion. Clearly as the frontrunner, large portions of the American public disagree with you.

[MACVSOG68]

You asserted, "They (the social issues) are religiously and morally based, not conservatively based." Gee, perhaps you would educate me as to what is 'true' source of conservative values.

There are several versions of conservatism, some of which are classical, paleo, neo, social, and a handful more. A history of conservatism reflects an acceptance of religion as a pacifier, but not a linkage with it. A conservative does not have to be religious to be conservative, nor is a religious person a de facto conservative.

Conservatives believe in the value of institutions, and cherish traditions; do not fear change, but demands slow, methodical change. A conservative is cautious about unforeseen results of change. Security and possession of property and the rights thereto are paramount to a conservative. Capitalism and its protection through nonmarket institutions is important. Human rights whether considerd as having been provided by God or by the nature of man are paramount and must always be protected, leading to the conservative belief that governments must exist and must be strong enough to protect those rights and provide the structure for a free society.

Currently, conservatives look at national security first and foremost, government control of the budgetary process, reducing those government institutions to those absolutely necessary, and moving as many functions as possible to the lowest level of government feasible, including the private sector. Conservatives believe that religious institutions must be protected, but do not wish those institutions to otherwise impact the functions of government.

There are many more characteristics, but as I said earlier, many variations. Extremism of any type is not found in any legitimate definition of conservatism. I could go on, but as you see, for most, specific religious convictions are not a prerequisite for a claim of conservatism.