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.

I'm sure your a fair man Spiff so i expect you to post those graphics on all Duncan Hunter threads.

Yet, on the Fox News show, Giuliani said that he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the mother.

"If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it," he told the Fox News program.

Washington, D.C. – The House of Representatives yesterday passed H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, by a margin of 282-139. Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52), who is a cosponsor of the legislation, proudly voted in favor of this measure which prohibits medical doctors, except in situations where the LIFE OF THE MOTHER is threatened, from utilizing certain procedures that involve the partial delivery of a living unborn baby, killing the child, then completing the delivery

To think they are now tying their activities to our political machinations is naive (their rhetoric, yes, their blood lust no). The desire of the terrorists in Islam is to manipulate our nation into paroxysms of indecision and feckless posturing, the only posture democrats know.

Well, I've been accused of a lot worse than naivety. But I also believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has an end goal, supported by much evidence, which is the establishment of an Islamic empire. They are now closer than many realize. Yes, they live for blood lust, but they are also politically aware. If they want us out of the Gulf area, a major attack on us will have the opposite effect. Even Democrats will realize that this WOT is real. You may be absolutely right, and I may be in outer space, but I believe they will wait until we are no longer positioned militarily like we are today. They no longer have Afghanistan, but they are still receiving support from Iran, Syria, and more secretly, other nations.

I am not hopeful at this point because the democrat party has so divided US in order to manipulate voting blocks, it has made us impotent.

That's my whole point. They understand American politics, and how the Democrats have become their useful idiots. Why would they throw that away with a direct, major attack on us?

The clinton goons wants Rudy as their main opponent, IMHO, and that tells me they know how to soil his image in order to promote her lowness to the white whorehouse.

Believe me, Rudy is the last opponent they want. He is, at least now, the only one who can defeat either Hillary or Obama. I don't think they want to chance a backlash by overdoing it on the baggage issues he carries. Hillary especially would be vulnerable to such an attack. No, they are very content to let the social conservatives chew him up, and remain "above" the fray. But they want any other candidate as their main opponent.

The democrap party doesn't get it, the war with Islamofascism, and Republican politicians are too focused upon their political negatives to act out of principles ... those intangibles of conservative character.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, with the Hillary-Obama fracas going on now, and some signs of progress in Iraq, I'm surprised and troubled that the President doesn't go on the offensive with major speeches giving the other side. But he has failed many times before to use his bully pulpit, as Reagan was so effective doing. He is missing a great opportunity right now.

Rudy is not a unifying figure though he may be tough. Without unity of purpose in the nation's politicians, we are disarmed and totally vulnerable, split in half on resolve ...

To the contrary. Only he, Mitt or McCain would willingly include the other side of the aisle in the development of major initiatives. The others, Brownback, Newt (though I respect him), Tancredo, Hunter, et al, are polarizing figures, and would do nothing to try and unify the Nation.

just the way the democrat party wants this nation so we the people fall at their socialist feet to beg for government to care for us not just protect us.

The Democrats understand that only half as many people consider themselves liberal compared with conservative. But most analysts consider the defeat of 2006 was less a rush to liberalism as it was a rejection of the social agenda in favor of moderation.

I fear that is Rudy's strategy also, to so tie his future to protection as to ignore the fundamentals of what conservatism is. Rudy Giuliani is no conservative.

I'm not going to get sucked into a discussion of Rudy per se, but the fundamentals I discussed with you earlier do not rule him out as a conservative. The social fundamentals that many here on FR believe represents conservatism (though I've explained why they don't) would obviously exclude him. So be it.

Would it not seem that a vote for Rudy is a vote for Roe vs. Wade? I can't imagine voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Who will he nominate to the Supreme Court, anti-abortionists?

What do you think will happen when Roe v. Wade is finally overturned?

And do you think that, before Roe v. Wade was announced, that all those abortions in New York and Oregon were permissible under the Constitution?

The Roe decision can be and should be opposed because it is completely ungrounded in the Constitution, and represents an extreme power grab by the USSC which, if not reversed, undoes the whole Constitutional system. A court which can issue the Roe ruling is a court which recognizes NO limits on its own power.

This is more or less unrelated to what the states will legislate after Roe goes away. For myself, I think the number of abortions after Roe is reversed will not change at all, and that if you want abortion to end, that Roe and Constitutional Law is the wrong place to look.

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.