Posted on 01/07/2008 2:03:00 PM PST by jmc813
There’s an obnoxious and destructive term that’s begun to do real damage to the Republican Party. That term is “RINO,” or “R.I.N.O.” – an acronym for “Republican In Name Only.” Angry conservatives use the term to attack purported moderates in their own party. Recently, Mike Huckabee and John McCain have been attacked as “RINO’s” –Governor Schwarzenegger of California regularly draws that denunciation. Those who make war on RINO’s, however, ought to confront an obvious question: would you really prefer that such people drop the Republican designation? How does it help if politicians or office-holders with whom you disagree leave your party and join the opposition? When alleged “RINO” Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP and joined the Democrats, it gave them control of the US Senate. When another RINO, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, lost his Senate seat in 2006, it also gave the Democrats control; if Chafee had won, we’d still have a Republican majority and GOP committee chairs. The truth is that no successful political party has ever been built on ideological purity. You can construct a majority coalition by bringing people into your party, not by driving them away. It’s childish and self-destructive to wage war based on some notion of “real conservatism” with those who want to align themselves with your side. Ronald Reagan himself used to say that “if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy.” Democrats understand this principle--- they never attack “DINO’s,” Democrats In Name Only. In fact, they understand the usefulness of such figures: they put forward several conservative Democrats in key Congressional districts in 2006, and those “DINO’s” helped them win a majority in the House. If Republicans continue to express contempt and hostility for those they consider “RINO’s,” they’ve got to get ready for “DIMO’s” – Democrats In the Majority Only.” It’s time, in other words, for sane GOP partisans to call off the silly and suicidal RINO hunt.
“Medved is spot-on.”
Arlen Spectre has done more damage to the conservative cause as a GOP senator than a half dozen junior Dem senators could have.
McCain and his “Gang” have also done enormous damage.
Having an R beside their name does not make everything perfect.
While just about any of the Republicans can beat any of the Dems this time around, I suspect we're going to see a dem in the white house in 08 anyway. Republicans have too much self-hatred to get together and fight a common enemy.
Here on FR there's a contingent that *wants* the democrats in the white house mainly because no amount of damage to the country is too much if it means they think it will teach some kind of "lesson" to all the "other" Republicans they hate so much.
I've got no time for people who want to lose. Medved is spot-on.
BRAVO !
Would Medved "allege" that Jeffords is a conservative? What a retard this guy is. Just like his liberal counterpart Frank Rich, he should have stuck with movie reviews.
To say either Jeffords or Chafee agree with even 20% of the Republican platform would be a big stretch.
“I wouldn’t even call him a RINO, he needs a new defining acronym.”
Huck’s a member of the Christian Socialist party.
He is DU and hates Rush. Sent me a private mail saying Rush is a drug addict.
I am surprised the troll is still here.
Can we all at least see the MSM and Faux GOP are pushing whatever candidates can divide the party.
They are pushing liberal RINOs, not a candidate that can unite this party.
The more left this party moves, the more inclined I am to stop voting.
Please, do not tell me to hold my nose. I have done it, and absolutley nothing changed. Y’all want a socialist? Have at it. Probably be best if you can pin the misery on a Democrat.
Obviously no one can agree completely on every issue, it just depends on how it is handled, what words and deeds are used, and what their ultimate goal may be.
Medved is such a total jerk.
It’s funny, because most people don’t even know the history of the Republican Party. It was originally a very liberal party in the 19th Century, and only became “conservative” recently, with people like Herbert Hoover and Barry Goldwater.
You are missing the point. If a Rino like Chafee had been reelected, the GOP would be running the Senate, not Harry Reid.
Who would you rather have running the Senate, Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell?
Score another one of Medved.
Multi-party system allows for more narrow defined political philosophies and cohesiveness of views. While nobody escapes factioning, smaller parties do provide a more uniform voice. During elections people vote for their party, and coalition building starts later. It results sometimes with a smaller party having disproportional influence and sometimes no real voice at all. Coalition building produces a fun spectacle but results in some unstable governments (Italy and Israel, for example, rarely had a government surviving until the next scheduled election).
In US its another way around. Various factions of the major parties go through the bickering infighting process before elections, during the primaries, not after. And its not an orderly negotiation done by the parties' representatives (somewhere in an European smoke room), but looks more like an urban warfare in the heavy fog - sometimes its everybody against everybody.
Of course, its silly to expect a small-party unity on the scale of Republican or Democrat behemoths. I can make a claim that more than 2 parties of a significance are needed (badly!), but we have what we have. It might change eventually, but now we have to work within our reality, regardless that we hate it or not.
It means that a faction needs to build a support base within a larger party and put its people into the offices on different levels. Until you can replace chafees and jeffordses with your own people its better to have them as allies in the larger coalition, even as a shaky allies, than to have them in the opposing camp. If you want the whole coalition to be your own mirror, you have to work long and hard, and still maybe unable to have a half of the country to share on your views.
Like many here, I also have Hunter and Thompson representing my views the best way, and will vote in primaries accordingly, but in November will vote for whoever was left standing on our side.
So you actually wish that Bustamante had been elected? He may run again, perhaps you'll get your chance.
It's possible that you're not very familiar with the full record of Mr. Lieberman.
And our Federal Bureaucracies are a giant bulging nest of commie vampires, who suck the lifeblood out of this country.
They have made our fellow Americans wards of the state, literally and emotionally.
Chafee and Leiberman voted virtually the same.
You’re making an interesting and useful point.
I would submit that the multi-party alternative is more unstable— if not destructive— in the long run. One of the basic weaknesses of democracy in general: a lack of continuity, is exaggerated in its affect. Nobody is in power long enough to do anything for good or ill.
What point? Chafee was soundly defeated with the full support of the GOP, including a grossly disproportionate tranche of resources provided by Liddy Dole, to the fatal exclusion of the Senate races in Virginia and Missouri.
I have been following your posts.
You fit the bill.
I don’t care what Medved has to say about movies and I sure has hell don’t care what he has to say about us calling some republicans RINO’s!
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.