Republican is whatever those who are a majority of the “Republican Party” claim it to be. While it is quite ocnceivable that, in a particular election at a state or local level, the majority who choose that candidate could well choose someone who, on a national level, would be outside the norm for the “Republican Party”, you simply cannot argue that the person chosen nationally by the representatives of that party is not, in fact, the “norm” for that party.
Your premise is also largely wrong, btw, in this matter, but we are prohibited from that discussion.
Further, even if you assumed that the national nominee of a party might not actually be a member of that party (the definition of “RINO”), it is absurd to suggest that casting a vote for the person listed as “Republican” would make someone a “RINO” (as if voting for an OPPONENT of the “Republican” on the ballot would make one a real republican).
In fact, even endorsing a RINO doesn’t make one a RINO. It can be a piece of information that might indicate that someone is a RINO, but it is not what defines someone as a RINO.
After all, lots of conservatives voted in the 2008 democratic primary — voting for actual liberals. Somehow they managed to avoid a conversion to a non-Republican.
On an anecdotal note, there are dozens of clear conservatives (not the same as republican), who are clearly solid members of the republican party, supporters of the party, committed to the platform and advancement of the party (and therefore clearly by proponderance of evidence NOT “republican in NAME ONLY”) who have endorsed RINOs in the past.
Newt Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafosa, who was so clearly a “Republican in Name Only” that she turned around within weeks of that endorsement, dropped out of her OWN republican nomination, and endorsed the democrat in the election.
But, by the clear statement of a majority of Free Republic, including the site owner, Newt Gingrich is NOT a “Republican in Name Only”, despite that endorsement and others.
Of course, RINO has become pretty much a meaningless term used as a cheap, lazy insult.
As always is the case in our online debates Charles, you duck the questions I asked and answer questions I did not. Try again.
But I will say this. When ‘Republican’ candidates and elected officials campaign ...
AGAINST
...the party platform, they are not Republicans at all and so cannot logically represent the ‘mainstream’ of the party.
The Republican platform exists as the guide for what the party represents. That is not debatable. If the party does not follow it, they can call themselves anything they wish, but it isn’t ‘Republican’ by definition and it is not a mainstream for the ‘Republican’ platform.
The excuses being made to support Romney are every bit the magical thinking employed by Democrats.
Now will you address my questions or will this turn, yet again into a multi page exercise in avoidance?