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.
I'll never put an X in a box next to the name of a person that is pro gay marriage.
Nominating socially liberal Republicans hurts the interests of social conservatives. Any other claim is pretense. The Republican party should never nominate anyone who isn't conservative on social issues in specific.
That's a special breed of wisdom that many on FR simply can't cope with.
Shooting yourself in the foot is not as bad as blowing your foot off with a shotgun blast. Just my 2 cents worth. But what do I know, anyway. I'm just a geezer living in Oregon.