The "RINO" Thread

[Missourian]

Huckabee or Thompson would have lost in 2008 and not one of the conservatives would have done as well as Romney. In fact, Akin and Mordouch did very badly. Cruz did well because Texas is solidly red until at least 2020 when the Hispanic vote will make it blue forever. That's a point the far right won't get: the demographics have changed against it.

We'll never know what any of them would have done.

What we do know is we nominated two moderates, three, if you count Dole, and they all lost.

I wasn't thrilled with any of the candidates this election cycle...and THAT is the real problem.

Only Rick Perry had my true support. And he just wasn't prepared to jump into a presidential election.

Same story in '08, which is why Thompson jumped in...also unprepared.

So, it's 2012, we just lost...let's find someone who IS palatable, and let him campaign for 4 years.

How about Tom Coburn of Oklahoma?

 

[Sunni Man]

I was a huge fan of Rick Perry and hope he throws his hat in the ring for the 2016 election.

 

[Missourian]

I was a huge fan of Rick Perry and hope he throws his hat in the ring for the 2016 election.

It would be tough for him to come back from that senior moment he had in the primary debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course we can make well-sustained estimations and arrive at the very conclusive opinion that ultra conservatives would have got hammered in 2008 and 2012.

Tom Coburn has been mellowing and is willing to work with, understanding that politics is the art of the possible, not the art of want. He is not nearly as ultra as you think. On the downside, what markets in OK does not sell nearly as well in the purple states as well as in the red states.

Democrats

Huckabee or Thompson would have lost in 2008 and not one of the conservatives would have done as well as Romney. In fact, Akin and Mordouch did very badly. Cruz did well because Texas is solidly red until at least 2020 when the Hispanic vote will make it blue forever. That's a point the far right won't get: the demographics have changed against it.

We'll never know what any of them would have done.

What we do know is we nominated two moderates, three, if you count Dole, and they all lost.

I wasn't thrilled with any of the candidates this election cycle...and THAT is the real problem.

Only Rick Perry had my true support. And he just wasn't prepared to jump into a presidential election.

Same story in '08, which is why Thompson jumped in...also unprepared.

So, it's 2012, we just lost...let's find someone who IS palatable, and let him campaign for 4 years.

How about Tom Coburn of Oklahoma?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The national demographics are turning against evangelical candidates, I think. Perry would have a very rough roe to hoe.

I was a huge fan of Rick Perry and hope he throws his hat in the ring for the 2016 election.

 

[Missourian]

Of course we can make well-sustained estimations and arrive at the very conclusive opinion that ultra conservatives would have got hammered in 2008 and 2012.

Tom Coburn has been mellowing and is willing to work with, understanding that politics is the art of the possible, not the art of want. He is not nearly as ultra as you think. On the downside, what markets in OK does not sell nearly as well in the purple states as well as in the red states.

Democrats

Huckabee or Thompson would have lost in 2008 and not one of the conservatives would have done as well as Romney. In fact, Akin and Mordouch did very badly. Cruz did well because Texas is solidly red until at least 2020 when the Hispanic vote will make it blue forever. That's a point the far right won't get: the demographics have changed against it.

We'll never know what any of them would have done.

What we do know is we nominated two moderates, three, if you count Dole, and they all lost.

I wasn't thrilled with any of the candidates this election cycle...and THAT is the real problem.

Only Rick Perry had my true support. And he just wasn't prepared to jump into a presidential election.

Same story in '08, which is why Thompson jumped in...also unprepared.

So, it's 2012, we just lost...let's find someone who IS palatable, and let him campaign for 4 years.

How about Tom Coburn of Oklahoma?

This is where moderates jump the rails.

I don't need ultra...and most of us, IMO, aren't looking for ultra.

We just want OUR principles represented, too.

By someone who we believe actually holds them.

And speaking for myself, I am willing to compromise.

Like I said earlier, 80% of a loaf is better than no loaf.

This isn't a zero sum game...we gain more by cooperation than competition.

 

[Mac1958]

And speaking for myself, I am willing to compromise.

Like I said earlier, 80% of a loaf is better than no loaf.

This isn't a zero sum game...we gain more by cooperation than competition.

Yikes.

That's a terribly thoughtful, mature, pragmatic, reasonable approach.

I can only imagine how you've pissed off some people here with THAT one.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

 

[Mac1958]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

Yup.

And here's another thought the hardliners clearly haven't considered. Steal a strategy that has worked so well for the Democrats, incrementalism:

Take Missourian's approach and get more people elected. Use that bully pulpit to prove yourselves to the electorate. Then, as they come to realize that you seem to have their best interests at heart, they may be more open to ideas that they might otherwise be.

Then you have earned their trust and their votes without holding our legislative process hostage. You haven't held most of the country hostage with this simplistic, neanderthal "my way or the highway" approach.

But again, this would require marginalizing the crazies. I don't see that on the horizon.

Maybe start by turning off the radio. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin want to keep the hardliners angry and absolutist for the sake of ratings. They do not have your best interests at heart.

.

 

[Missourian]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

It's unacceptable whether it's the ultra right OR the moderate right.

The the clear losers in this no-compromise bunker mentality of the differing factions of the Republican party has been none other that the entire Republican party.

We are all going to have to accept some compromises if we are going to survive.

 

[Gadawg73]

Joe hates business owners as we do not work in his eyes.

If you are a business owner then... Well... Lets just say I think you are lying.

Edit: OH... You are damn near 60... I guess it is believable if unlikely.

I own 3 corporations.

 

[Gadawg73]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

It's unacceptable whether it's the ultra right OR the moderate right.

The the clear losers in this no-compromise bunker mentality of the differing factions of the Republican party has been none other that the entire Republican party.

We are all going to have to accept some compromises if we are going to survive.

Well said.

 

[Gadawg73]

I was a huge fan of Rick Perry and hope he throws his hat in the ring for the 2016 election.

Slick Rick needs to be prepared next time.
He would have done no better than Romney.
I have no problems with him on most issues but can HE compromise?

 

[Missourian]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

Yup.

And here's another thought the hardliners clearly haven't considered. Steal a strategy that has worked so well for the Democrats, incrementalism:

Take Missourian's approach and get more people elected. Use that bully pulpit to prove yourselves to the electorate. Then, as they come to realize that you seem to have their best interests at heart, they may be more open to ideas that they might otherwise be.

Then you have earned their trust and their votes without holding our legislative process hostage. You haven't held most of the country hostage with this simplistic, neanderthal "my way or the highway" approach.

But again, this would require marginalizing the crazies. I don't see that on the horizon.

Maybe start by turning off the radio. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin want to keep the hardliners angry and absolutist for the sake of ratings. They do not have your best interests at heart.

.

This is one of the places we really blew it.

When we had control of the white house and the congress we didn't stick to the principles that we campaigned on for years...fiscal responsibility.

Sure, taxes were cut...but instead of making an attempt to cut spending, we spent just like Democrats.

The argument has been successfully made that cut and spend is WORSE than tax and spend.

Is it any wonder nobody trusts us to cut spending?

 

[Mac1958]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

Yup.

And here's another thought the hardliners clearly haven't considered. Steal a strategy that has worked so well for the Democrats, incrementalism:

Take Missourian's approach and get more people elected. Use that bully pulpit to prove yourselves to the electorate. Then, as they come to realize that you seem to have their best interests at heart, they may be more open to ideas that they might otherwise be.

Then you have earned their trust and their votes without holding our legislative process hostage. You haven't held most of the country hostage with this simplistic, neanderthal "my way or the highway" approach.

But again, this would require marginalizing the crazies. I don't see that on the horizon.

Maybe start by turning off the radio. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin want to keep the hardliners angry and absolutist for the sake of ratings. They do not have your best interests at heart.

.

This is one of the places we really blew it.

When we had control of the white house and the congress we didn't stick to the principals that we campaigned on for years...fiscal responsibility.

Sure, taxes were cut...but instead of making an attempt to cut spending, we spent just like Democrats.

The argument has been successfully made that cut and spend is WORSE than tax and spend.

Is it any wonder nobody trusts us to cut spending?

I suspect the crazies here will be calling you a "commie" any time now...



.

 

[zeke]

I like Missourian's statement very much.

The zero-sum no-compromise approach by many of the ultra right is simply unacceptable.

Yup.

And here's another thought the hardliners clearly haven't considered. Steal a strategy that has worked so well for the Democrats, incrementalism:

Take Missourian's approach and get more people elected. Use that bully pulpit to prove yourselves to the electorate. Then, as they come to realize that you seem to have their best interests at heart, they may be more open to ideas that they might otherwise be.

Then you have earned their trust and their votes without holding our legislative process hostage. You haven't held most of the country hostage with this simplistic, neanderthal "my way or the highway" approach.

But again, this would require marginalizing the crazies. I don't see that on the horizon.

Maybe start by turning off the radio. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin want to keep the hardliners angry and absolutist for the sake of ratings. They do not have your best interests at heart.

.

Not sure if it was your intention (jk).......but I think you spoke the truth. When I have listened to the plans and policies as put forth by the Republcian party over the last several years, it seemed that the policies were intended to offer the ultra wealthy the greatest benefits while doing very little for me. People like me should logically be supporting the Repubs. Over 100k in income, multiple properties, college educated, long time married, kids, you know, what used to be the back bone of our country.

But todays ruling Repubs only seem to want to help the ultra rich, seems to me. And that's a problem if you can't get people like me to look at he Repub party. Hell, I was a registered Repub. But only to vote for the first version of John McCain. I used to really like him. Before he went old man crazy.

Repubs actually had another candidate I liked. The Gov from out west who was ambassador to China. Spoke Chinese. He got run out of Rethug town on a rail. Can't remember his name.

 

[Sunni Man]

I was a huge fan of Rick Perry and hope he throws his hat in the ring for the 2016 election.

It would be tough for him to come back from that senior moment he had in the primary debate.

He has 4 years to assemble a team and work on his communication skills if he is considering a run for the presidency.

 

[Paulie]

Most moderates describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal.

Interestingly enough, libertarians are closer to that than anyone else.

If the GOP opened its platform up to libertarian principles they could win elections.

People are tired of the authoritarianism and the fiscal recklessness. That's where libertarianism comes into play.

 

[Missourian]

Yup.

And here's another thought the hardliners clearly haven't considered. Steal a strategy that has worked so well for the Democrats, incrementalism:

Take Missourian's approach and get more people elected. Use that bully pulpit to prove yourselves to the electorate. Then, as they come to realize that you seem to have their best interests at heart, they may be more open to ideas that they might otherwise be.

Then you have earned their trust and their votes without holding our legislative process hostage. You haven't held most of the country hostage with this simplistic, neanderthal "my way or the highway" approach.

But again, this would require marginalizing the crazies. I don't see that on the horizon.

Maybe start by turning off the radio. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin want to keep the hardliners angry and absolutist for the sake of ratings. They do not have your best interests at heart.

.

This is one of the places we really blew it.

When we had control of the white house and the congress we didn't stick to the principals that we campaigned on for years...fiscal responsibility.

Sure, taxes were cut...but instead of making an attempt to cut spending, we spent just like Democrats.

The argument has been successfully made that cut and spend is WORSE than tax and spend.

Is it any wonder nobody trusts us to cut spending?

I suspect the crazies here will be calling you a "commie" any time now...



.

I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with these "crazies" of which you speak.

I only see people here whose opinions differ from mine...even on the other side of the aisle.

 

[bripat9643]

Most moderates describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal.

Interestingly enough, libertarians are closer to that than anyone else.

If the GOP opened its platform up to libertarian principles they could win elections.

People are tired of the authoritarianism and the fiscal recklessness. That's where libertarianism comes into play.

I'm also tired of all the conservative social issues. I'm tired of the drug war, I'm tired of hearing about abortion. I'm tired of attempts to legislation morality. I'm tired of the creationist idiocies of the Christian fundamentalists.