It may come down to voting for one of your "RINOs" or O'Bama. Or you could just sit this one out. WE have known for a long time we did not have much of a choice. For me it looks like I will have to pick from the best of the worst.
RINO is a weird term to begin with. Everyone has different opinions on the intricacies of what it means to be conservative (despite what Patrick might suggest), which makes the term subjective.
Specific to this election, Republican voters have shown that electability is very important to them and Romney almost undoubtedly is a top choice from those we have when it comes to electability. By appealing to a more moderate crowd, he draws votes from the thicker part of the normal curve and with electability being such a big thing with GOP voters right now, he can still pull a lot of the tail votes on the conservative side. A candidate who is a "real conservative" whatever that means to Patrick would likely not be able to pull the moderate vote as well and would have lower electability.
Agreed! There are not enough "real conservatives" to elect Newt, Perry, or Brother Santornm.
I am not sure we want to elect them anyway
(and Newt leans somewhat in too).But this is really not a "problem" that the more conservative GOP faces- it is one that the more "liberal" Democrats face too. If you believe that the center of the normal curve is what matters in elections (there are theories that suggest the tail ends matter in which case I would be all wrong here
) then the real task in bringing about change might be trying to move that center of the curve. Hard to do given people generally don't like change.What makes a conservative is clear to conservatives. Anyone who thinks RINO is weird would be UTTERLY clueless about the last 60 years of the republican party. Why don't you go to a meeting of ANY conservative organization, stand up on the stage, and say "Duuuuuuuh, what's a RINO?"
That's simply false. Romney has only gotten a plurality of GOP voters, and only because the conservative vote remains split. Conservatives (OBVIOUSLY) do want some one who can be elected, but that that implies a "moderate" is a well-circulated lib media myth, in service to their boy obama. In 2008, a "moderate" LOST - remember? remember??
And why doesn't this "moderate" myth apply to democrats? In 2008 they elected the most leftwing candidate in US history. With Romney, many conservatives will stay home on election day, and we'll have four more years of obama.
Ron Paul and his supporters consider themselves conservatives. You would probably call his foreign policy as being that of a "RINO". One of many many examples.What makes a conservative is clear to conservatives. Anyone who thinks RINO is weird would be UTTERLY clueless about the last 60 years of the republican party. Why don't you go to a meeting of ANY conservative organization, stand up on the stage, and say "Duuuuuuuh, what's a RINO?"
And guess what? I've been to conservative organizations. I am a registered Republican for one, have been to several College Republicans events and I've been to CPAC where I've met and seen some of your RINOs and your demigods in person.
Sorry "sparky" but you can't make things like that up. Look at the numbers, the polls. The entrance and exist polls from Iowa and New Hampshire as well as polling numbers in S. Carolina, Florida, etc. Electability is important and they think Romney can win and they will vote for him to do it (if they vote for him in the primaries over the other Republicans than clearly they'll take him over Obama in the general [minus the small minority that might change their mind]).
What it's an example of is your distortion of what I've said. I never have nor never would call Paul a RINO OR a conservative - he's a libertarian.
OOOOOOO!!!! WOWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!! WHOOPEE DOO!
Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed. The polls show that Romney is, on overall average, supported by a small percentage of republicans - no ifs, buts, or perhapses.
He considers himself a conservative as do his followers. And therein my point is supported.
That's why he won Iowa, won New Hampshire, and is polling highest in S. Carolina, and by a longshot highest in Florida? He is also polling highest nationally among Republicans.
That was not to impress you, I could care less what you think. It was just to show that I have been to a "conservative organization's meeting"
I don't care if he calls himself Napoleon II, his positions are libertarian.
He is supported by a plurality that is a small minority, and wouldn't get many GOP votes in the election. He's the dems' dream GOP candidate because he's a RINO and will lose - just like RINO MC Cain in 2008. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.
Where you stood up and questioned the exiatence of RINOs?
No, it is subjective. Are you insisting that him and 1000s of his supporters are wrong in identifying THEMSELVES? Were the founding fathers wrong when they identified themselves as liberals?
That makes no sense. If he is getting votes against Perry, Newt, Paul, and Santorum, why would he not get them against Obama, especially from those who are unhappy with Obama? And again, do you have the numbers? Because most polls regardless of source suggest he is the frontrunner vs. Obama.
Paul is a libertarian - no serious observer doubts this.
No matter how hard you try to ignore it, the fact remains that Romney is only getting a plurality, the majority are voting for conservatives. If Romney is nominated, many conservatives will stay home on election day. They remember the Bush RINOs - pro big government, pro illegal alien invasion, and not interested in doing anything about the Abortion Holocaust. To a conservative, a Bush is an obama is a Romney.
And they have every right to stay home and bitch. I considered doing that too. But then I realized that it is no different than voting for O'bama. If I sit on my ass and don't vote I will have no reason to complain about who the "voters" elect.
So Ron Paul is wrong in identifying himself? You realize that Paul, his supporters, and most of the Austrian school believes that he is a real conservative right? They believe that conservatism means being anti-war among other things and they are for leaving Iraq and all the other places we are altogether. And that moniker of conservatism that they apply to themselves dates back to past conservatives who felt the same way. In fact, for not wanting to get out right now they might even label you a neoconservative. Again, this is why these monikers have subjectivity to them.
And you what about the founding fathers who called themselves liberals?
Either way Romney right now appears to have the best chance on the national stage. I again point you to the polls- even those from Fox.
Similar threads
