Posted on 01/22/2012 10:29:03 AM PST by US Navy Vet
...who will be/should be PANICED and why. Be verbose if need be.
TX senators Hutchison and Cornyn.
I like Jindal.
Heck, I ended up on that list for posting something involving Romney without including a disclaimer that I hate everything about him!
Boehner the boner. He will be replaced next year.
Boehner the boner. He will be replaced next year.
You can start with those who supported SOPA ... found here: http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith
27 Co-sponsors: Mark Amodei (NV), Joe Baca (CA), John Barrow (GA), Karen Bass (CA), Howard L. Berman (CA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Mary Bono Mack (CA), Steven J. Chabot (OH), Judy Chu (CA), John Conyers Jr. (MI), Jim Cooper (TN), Ted Deutch (FL), Elton Gallegly (CA), Robert W. Goodlatte (VA), Tim Griffin (AR), Tim Holden (PA), Peter T. King (NY), John B. Larson (CT), Ben Ray Lujan (NM), Tom Marino (PA), Alan Nunnelee (MS), Bill Owens (NY), Dennis Ross (FL), Adam B. Schiff (CA), Brad Sherman (CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Melvin Watt (NC)
And then there’s PIPA ... found here: http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call
Sponsor: Sen. Patrick J. Leahy
34 Co-sponsors: Lamar Alexander (TN), Michael Bennet (CO), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA), Thad Cochran (MS), Christopher A. Coons (DE), Bob Corker (TN), Richard J. Durbin (IL), Michael B. Enzi (WY), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Al Franken (MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Charles E. Grassley (IA), Kay Hagan (NC), Johnny Isakson (GA), Tim Johnson (SD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Herb Kohl (WI), Mary L. Landrieu (LA), Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), John McCain (AZ), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Jim Risch (ID), Charles E. Schumer (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tom Udall (NM), David Vitter (LA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
See post #75.
p.s. Texas is more than welcome to have him.
Uh, uh!
The term implies that, despite party affiliation, RINO politicians are not true Republicans. The label is usually acquired because a politician's voting record or positions on certain issues are considered to be at variance with some part of modern conservative ideology.[1]
liberal or independent-minded Republican: a member of the Republican Party, especially a member of Congress, who usually does not vote the party line and who disagrees with colleagues on issues ( slang )
We’re going to need a good many spools of rope.
You are quick and concise. Thanks for that.
Rush Limbaugh, everyone else is iffy.
Thanks for starting an excellent thread. This could be a great resource.
My idea of the “GOP establishment” figures is two part.
In government:
I can only say that my definition of an “establishment” Republican, in terms of what’s happening in the government, is based on what I observe in legisaltion and/or policies and/or executive actions more than (in a 100% sense) in individuals, because sometimes some individuals have offered/produced “Conservative” decisions/solutions even though they may not always do/have done so 100% of the time.
In government, an “establishment” Republican ACTION is one that is NOT sufficiently trying to deconstruct the Federal government establishment as it is; an establioshment that has largely been the creation of Progressive and Marxist inspired ideas, working as a virus into the body politic since the start of the last century, and as it is constructed today serves, by its very construction. as a vehicle for further growth of Progressive/Marxist/Liberal ideas and policies and political support for those seeking election in agreement with them.
Establishment Republicans are as enthralled as Liberals with the political power over the nation that the massive tentacles of the Federal government establishment gives them. They are willing to just tinker with the policies the Federal government establishment carries out. They are willing to suggest they can “make it work better” or “make it more efficient” or “make it cost less”, but they are unwilling, as Conservatives are not, to challenge “why are we” (the Federal government) “in the business of doing what we’re doing in the first place”, when it comes to anything the Federal government is doing.
Just like Liberals they just want, in their own way, to make the Federal establishment “work better” in some way, not actually challenge some aspect of the very existence of some edifice of the Federal establishment itself as it is.
In terms of the operations of the GOP:
The “establishment” Republicans work to preserve the establishment of themselves, in power (over the party) in Washington D.C., and to that end they fail to refrain from using their official GOP organizations to interfere, organizationally and financially, in the primary election processes where the GOP people of the states are trying to select their Congressional candidates. They are drunk on their “national”, “Federal” GOP power and cannot allow the complexion of the party to be chosen by the people of the party in the states. They take-in, in their Washington GOP party offices, election campaign money from the grass roots of the party, ostensibly for “the party” and then without waiting to use that money for whomever becomes the GOP candidate in the general election, they use their official GOP offices and money to interefere in who it is the GOP people in the states want to be their candidates.
That behasvior of the “establishment” Federal GOP offices has increasingly led to many Conservastives in the GOP, including some in Federal congressional offices, to stop contributing to or working with the Washington “establishment” GOP offices, when it comes to helping get GOP election candidates selected to be our general election choices. There are some GOP office holders, particularly in the U.S. Senate who are 100%, never wavering members of the “establishment” when it comes to this issue.
Who fits either of those two conditions outlined above:
I think I could place some names on a list, on the basis of either of the two main conditions I outlined above, but I think what is more important is those two conditions and our (everyone’s) use of them to notice and object to ACTIONS of ANYONE in the GOP, when the actions fit either of those conditions.
Consergvative Republicans need to support candidates who desire to shrink the power in Washington D.c., not simply “make it work better”, “make it more efficient”, “make it cost less”.
An establishment Republican may believe they are seeking our support by agreeing to simply shrink “the cost” of some edifice of the Federal establishment, but will seldom agree that the particular edifice itself - the mission (it’s very purpose) - should be shrunk, and will never suggest it should be demolished altogether.
We could make a scale, weighing - based on a list of Conservative goals - just how far a GOP office holder or office seeker has their head up the butt of the Washington D.C. Federal establishment.
Just like any other “rating” in politics, we are likely to find GOP office holders and office seekers who fail to be 100% in or out of the establishment, and some who will be.
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.