[Al Simmons]

I found this thought-provoking piece last night. Since 'Common Tator' has apparently ceased posting on FR, I have taken the liberty of reproducing it here, unabridged.

Frankly, I have never thought about the issues he brings up from the angle he discusses.

And, YES, I have heaped verbal brickbats upon "RINOS" in the past with the same vitriol some of you recently heaped upon me and others who are supporting a Giuliani candidacy for reasons that have been discussed on the Rudy threads.

Please - we do not need a repeat of that here.

This thread is not about Rudy, but about the though-provoking analysis that Common Tator penned above, just before the 2002 election.

So let's refrain from name-calling, and discuss his points rationally.

I hope that is still possible around here.

This is my attempt to return the discussion to a more civilized level.

Lets discuss ideas instead of personalities.

Does he make some good points? I have to admit that I believe he does.

Especially the point that the way to gain power is to include RINOS in the party, knowing that once we have a majority the more conservative party leadership will follow a more conservative course.

Common Tator was definitely correct about one thing: The 'Rats learned this lesson long ago - as we just saw in 2006; they elected a bunch of new 'DINOS' like Jim Webb - who will give the true leftists the majority votes to implement the leftists agenda.

Seems to me it wasn't so long ago that RR basically did the same thing for the conservatives - in his first term to be precise.

It seems to be a historical lesson lost on some of the "I'll take my marbles and go home if I don't like a candidate crowd."

I'll repeat what I said earlier - until 2006 I was as equally dismissive of the RINOS as any of you were.

Could it be, however, that we got so complacent with our electoral successes, 1994-2004, that we lost sight of the forest for the trees?

Kindly ping whoever you believe would be interested in this discussion.

And lets try to get this thread as much attention as the flame-throwing threads we've seen lately - and right the tone of discourse here on FR for everyone.

Once again, if you come here to continue the verbal donnybrook of the other threads, you're doing a disservice to FR.

Please lets discuss these point rationally.

Thank you.

[Tolkien]

Is the GOP based upon principal or compromise?

[colorado tanker]

The center-right Republican majority in presidential politics and eventually in congressional elections began when in the 1968-72 time frame the Democrats split over Vietnam and sent their hawks, now derided as "neo-cons," over to the Republicans. From 1968-2008, forty years, the Dems occupied the White House for twelve years and the pubbies for 28. And they only got eight of those years because Ross Perot split the vote and put a Dem in as a minority president.

They paid a heavy price for expelling those folks.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Conservatives say RINO = Rudy Is Not Ours!

[DreamsofPolycarp]

So let's refrain from name-calling, and discuss his points rationally

You sure you have the right bulletin board?

[Artemis Webb]

Nice work Al.

[ctdonath2]

Those that demand the defeat of RINOs are doing all they can to enact the leftist agenda.

Rudy is NOT the nominee yet! How about finding a candidate that has broader appeal than one that dramatically contradicts with the base?

[arthurus]

IS DRIVING RINOS OUT OF THE GOP GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY

Yup.

[sam_paine]

The concept that "conservatism wins every time it's tried" is mostly Rush Limbaugh's fault. It's something he's conspicuously stopped claiming after the recent election, and Santorum and Terry Schiavo proved that the public is no longer what it was in 1980.

The Clinton years have deteriorated our republic in many ways, and I believe they have rotted out a good part of the electorate.

[airborne]

I'll keep campaigning for and voting for people who represent me and my personal beliefs.

Rugdy does not, and to ask me to turn my back on my principles is unworthy of a Freeper.

[Sensei Ern]

We allow and in fact welcome anyone in our church service. They can even add to the offering plate, should they desire...even wiccans can attend, as long as they obey the rules, but we won't let Antione Levy preach in the pulpit.

Rinos are welcome to vote Republican, just don't ask to be the leader.

[Old_Mil]

Al,

You're looking at this the wrong way. Let's face the facts that unless most of the Rudy supporters are at heart social liberals, all they care about is low taxes and a pro-business climate. With a conservative like Hunter, they get that - in other words, they get 100% of what they want. So do social conservatives. With a candidate like Rudy, the RINO types get all of what they want, but the social conservatives get none of what they want.

Now there's one scenario under which this simple logic breaks down: the Rudy supporters are in fact social liberals who *want* to live in a world where abortion is legal and we have an openly gay military. If that's the case, the issue is altogether different.

But that's not the case, given that the Rudy supporters have been denying such, right?

[AppyPappy]

If Hillary decided to become a Republican, I still wouldn't embrace her. I see Guiliani as basically a Democrat.

[Sensei Ern]

A major error in CT's calculations is that he is assuming 100% of each group vote.

Even in the most contended races, the normal turn out is 50% of the eligible voters.

That means, if any of the three groups could get 100% of their group to vote, it would effectively increase their votes by nearly 100%. Thus Repubs could get nearly 66% if all of the Repubs voted.

Example:
Let's say we have 100 voters.
33 Repub
33 Dem
34 Middle

Time to vote, only half show up:
16 Repub
16 Dem
17 Middle - Half go to Dem and Half go to Repub

Making the vote:
25 Repub (One Middle guy really hates Hitlery)
24 Dem

But, let's say it went the other way:
24 Repub
25 Dem

Now, let's say the Repub gets a real conservative, that pulls out all the Repub vote, but the Dem is asleep believing the polls:
42 Repub
25 Dem

We win.

Now, let's run the same scenario with Rudy:

Half the would be Repub voters go third party because Rudy is not acceptable:

8 Repubs go Constitution Party
17 Repubs (8 Repubs + 9 Middle)
24 Dem (16 Dems + 8 Middle)

Dems win. and don't get 50% of the votes. It happened in 1992, and gave us BJC, and people who think like you tried again in 1996 by forcing us to take Bob Dole, who turns anti-life and lost the Christian vote.

Don't feed us another RINO.

[LibKill]

Rudy--------------------Hillary!

Anti-Gun----------------Anti-Gun
Pro-Abortion------------Pro-Abortion
Looks awful in a dress---Ditto

I could go on but the Rudy-lickers will continue to be in love with the smell of him no matter what.

If he gets the nomination I'm staying home for the first time ever or voting libertarian for the first time ever.

It won't make a nickel's worth of difference who wins.

[jordan8]

Driving RINOs out of the GOP? What a laugh! The greater societal trends are driving conservatism out of existence, soon the only candidates the GOP offers will all be as "conservative" as Jacques Chirac, and the Politics As Horse Race crowd and the Wall Street Flacks will still be saying, to an ever shrinking audience, how we have to vote for them to keep the Democrats out. In a democracy those who control the media will control the culture and dominate politics, and if you can't compete with that all the tactical victories in the world won't save you from strategic defeat.

[Sunsong]

Good find. Thanks for posting it.

[Texas Federalist]

This so-called "thought" provoking article fails to address the reality that (1) members of the ideological "base" of each party are more likely to vote; and (2) people in the middle are focused more on candidates, rather than issues, and can be persuaded to vote for a more ideologically pure candidate who articulates well-reasoned policy positions. It is more difficult to alienate a group that doesn't know enough about the issues to form a coherent ideology, than it is to alienate your base.

[zbigreddogz]

I agree with the article, but I don't think it's thought provoking. To me, this is a big huge "Duh!". I can't figure out why more freepers don't understand this.

[kidd]

A republican becomes a RINO when he/she institutes or supports actions that are distinctly unconstitutional.

Providing support to, or even tolerating a RINO, only legitimizes their unconstitutional activities.

But it's even worse...

Leftists are blatantly un-Constitutional, and their positions are unattractive to the undecided American. The RINO is not quite so blatant; often they sacrafice the Constitution for some temporarily-perceived "greater good" or for some set of generic morality. This position erodes the support of Conservatives, whose steadfast support of the Constitution begins to look unreasonable to the short-sighted undecided American.

Thus, RINOs are responsible for the erosion of the respect for the Constitution.

No, RINOs are not good for this country.

[Poser]

At least they are admitting that Rudy is a RINO. The next step is to nominate real Republicans.