What's Your Definition Of A RINO?

[rightwinger]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......

"Worked across both sides of the aisle" is a euphemism meaning he's a RINO.

I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

A glaring example of why the Republican Party will ultimately fail

The ever smaller big tent, unwillingness to accept new ideas, ostracizing of those who do not toe the line

 

[candycorn]

There is no such thing. A Rino is anyone who steps out of lockstep with republicans. Period.

That may be the best definition.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

edit: He was persona non grata because he did not bow down and support Lamont like a "good little Democrat".[/COLOR]

So, he left the Democratic Party because they "treated him like shit", AND the reason the Democratic Party "treated him like shit" was because he left the party after losing the primary?

You're going in circles.

 

[Immanuel]

None of those things is true.

He lost the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont (I worked on Lamont's campaign).

He knew he would win in the general though, because Connecticutt has a large Republican base that are all supporters of Lieberman. So he left the Democratic Party, and formed his own party (it's really easy to do that in CT).

Then, in 2008, he supported McCain for Prez, which was looked at as a betrayal, and a lot of people were pissed, true. He was not "kicked out" of the party at that point, since he was no longer a member.

Lieberman still to this day caucuses with the Democratic Party.

Okay, I one, am not going to argue with you and two I did not say "they kicked him out of the party". I said they basically did so and that was because of the way they treated him.

He "left" the Democratic Party in 2006. They "treated" him badly after he endorsed McCain, in 2008.

The issue is that you got your timeline mixed up.

At least you do not deny that they treated him like shit at least some what so when you admit a lot of people were pissed at him.

Many, many people were pissed at him, including myself. But he wasn't "treated like shit" - he kept all his committee positions, and continued to caucus with the Democratic Party.

In their opinion he was what? Like I said... a DINO.

Immie

I think "DINO" and "RINO" are ridiculous terms, but I have certainly heard Lieberman called a "DINO". I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I am only pointing out an error in your timeline, one that is personally important to me, due to my own history with it.

I think I made my edit after you read the post.

I still contend that they were pissed at him for not bowing down and supporting Lamont like the good little Democrat he was supposed to be.

Yes, he left the party in order to win his seat but that is what angered the Democrats. That was why he was called a DINO. If I remember correctly and you stated something similar, he was still a "Democrat" even though he ran as an independent to get his seat back.

I don't think my timeline is off as you say. Yes, he had left the party but he was still "in" the party.

Immie

PS and thank you, for being willing to disagree with me, and correct me as you saw fit without being a jerk about it.

 

[Immanuel]

edit: He was persona non grata because he did not bow down and support Lamont like a "good little Democrat".[/COLOR]

So, he left the Democratic Party because they "treated him like shit", AND the reason the Democratic Party "treated him like shit" was because he left the party after losing the primary?

You're going in circles.

No, I am not.

They treated him like shit because he did not support Lamont like a good little Democrat.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Okay, I one, am not going to argue with you and two I did not say "they kicked him out of the party". I said they basically did so and that was because of the way they treated him.

He "left" the Democratic Party in 2006. They "treated" him badly after he endorsed McCain, in 2008.

The issue is that you got your timeline mixed up.


Many, many people were pissed at him, including myself. But he wasn't "treated like shit" - he kept all his committee positions, and continued to caucus with the Democratic Party.

In their opinion he was what? Like I said... a DINO.

Immie

I think "DINO" and "RINO" are ridiculous terms, but I have certainly heard Lieberman called a "DINO". I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I am only pointing out an error in your timeline, one that is personally important to me, due to my own history with it.

I think I made my edit after you read the post.
I still contend that they were pissed at him for not bowing down and supporting Lamont like the good little Democrat he was supposed to be.

Everyone WAS pissed about that, particularly the CT Democratic Party, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

Yes, he left the party in order to win his seat but that is what angered the Democrats. That was why he was called a DINO. If I remember correctly and you stated something similar, he was still a "Democrat" even though he ran as an independent to get his seat back.

He's still registered as a Democrat, but an interesting bit of CT election law says that you don't have to be a member of the party that you run under. It's an odd state. NY has a similar law.

I don't think my timeline is off as you say. Yes, he had left the party but he was still "in" the party.

It's not particularly off, just a little.

Immie

PS and thank you, for being willing to disagree with me, and correct me as you saw fit without being a jerk about it.

I apologize for jumping into a conversation with an aside (I agree with your point about the terms "DINO" and "RINO"), but it's a somewhat important part of my own personal history (the first election I worked on full-time as staff), and I have a tendency to be a know-it-all.

Anyway, cheers!

For all intents and purposes, you're completely right. I'm just being a stickler for details.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

edit: He was persona non grata because he did not bow down and support Lamont like a "good little Democrat".[/COLOR]

So, he left the Democratic Party because they "treated him like shit", AND the reason the Democratic Party "treated him like shit" was because he left the party after losing the primary?

You're going in circles.

No, I am not.

They treated him like shit because he did not support Lamont like a good little Democrat.

Immie

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Immanuel]

He "left" the Democratic Party in 2006. They "treated" him badly after he endorsed McCain, in 2008.

The issue is that you got your timeline mixed up.


Many, many people were pissed at him, including myself. But he wasn't "treated like shit" - he kept all his committee positions, and continued to caucus with the Democratic Party.


I think "DINO" and "RINO" are ridiculous terms, but I have certainly heard Lieberman called a "DINO". I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I am only pointing out an error in your timeline, one that is personally important to me, due to my own history with it.

I think I made my edit after you read the post.
I still contend that they were pissed at him for not bowing down and supporting Lamont like the good little Democrat he was supposed to be.

Everyone WAS pissed about that, particularly the CT Democratic Party, and in my opinion, rightfully so.


He's still registered as a Democrat, but an interesting bit of CT election law says that you don't have to be a member of the party that you run under. It's an odd state. NY has a similar law.

I don't think my timeline is off as you say. Yes, he had left the party but he was still "in" the party.

It's not particularly off, just a little.

Immie

PS and thank you, for being willing to disagree with me, and correct me as you saw fit without being a jerk about it.

I apologize for jumping into a conversation with an aside (I agree with your point about the terms "DINO" and "RINO"), but it's a somewhat important part of my own personal history (the first election I worked on full-time as staff), and I have a tendency to be a know-it-all.

Anyway, cheers!

For all intents and purposes, you're completely right. I'm just being a stickler for details.

Well, thank you for straightening out the details in my memory.

And for the record, I am no fan of the RINO/DINO terminology either. It just goes to show how biased too many people are in regards to their "party". It shows an arrogant attitude of "its my way or the highway".

Which is why over the last 25 years or so, I have actually left both parties and have no intention of becoming a member of one of them again.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think I made my edit after you read the post.
I still contend that they were pissed at him for not bowing down and supporting Lamont like the good little Democrat he was supposed to be.

Everyone WAS pissed about that, particularly the CT Democratic Party, and in my opinion, rightfully so.


He's still registered as a Democrat, but an interesting bit of CT election law says that you don't have to be a member of the party that you run under. It's an odd state. NY has a similar law.


It's not particularly off, just a little.

Immie

PS and thank you, for being willing to disagree with me, and correct me as you saw fit without being a jerk about it.

I apologize for jumping into a conversation with an aside (I agree with your point about the terms "DINO" and "RINO"), but it's a somewhat important part of my own personal history (the first election I worked on full-time as staff), and I have a tendency to be a know-it-all.

Anyway, cheers!

For all intents and purposes, you're completely right. I'm just being a stickler for details.

Well, thank you for straightening out the details in my memory.

And thank you for allowing me to be a know-it-all.

And for the record, I am no fan of the RINO/DINO terminology either. It just goes to show how biased too many people are in regards to their "party". It shows an arrogant attitude of "its my way or the highway".

Once again, we agree completely.

Which is why over the last 25 years or so, I have actually left both parties and have no intention of becoming a member of one of them again.


Immie

Up until I moved to California, I was a registered Democrat simply because in the part of Brooklyn I lived in, if you're not a registered Dem, you esentially don't get to vote. The Primaries are the only elections that actually matter. But I was also actively and professionally working in electoral politics for a independent third party in NY and CT, so I felt less guilty about it.

Where I live now has a non-partisan voting system, so I'm not registered in a party.

 

[Charles_Main]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......

"Worked across both sides of the aisle" is a euphemism meaning he's a RINO.

I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......

"Worked across both sides of the aisle" is a euphemism meaning he's a RINO.

I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

The problem with the terminology is that "Conservative" is entirely subjective (everyone will have a different definition - just like "liberal" or "progressive") - whereas membership in the Republican Party is a matter of fact - either one is, or is not.

Either way, terms like "RINO" and "DINO" (and "CINO") are high on the list of currently used political terms that are disgraces of the English language - up there with "thrown under the bus" and "Racist".

 

[Charles_Main]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......



I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

The problem with the terminology is that "Conservative" is entirely subjective (everyone will have a different definition - just like "liberal" or "progressive") - whereas membership in the Republican Party is a matter of fact - either one is, or is not.

Either way, terms like "RINO" and "DINO" (and "CINO") are high on the list of currently used political terms that are disgraces of the English language - up there with "thrown under the bus" and "Racist".

You are absolutely right about the meaning being to Subjective, and about disgraces of the English Language.

 

[uscitizen]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......

"Worked across both sides of the aisle" is a euphemism meaning he's a RINO.

I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

that is just plain silly. Everyone knows that partisanship is far more important than solving our nations problems.

 

[rightwinger]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......

"Worked across both sides of the aisle" is a euphemism meaning he's a RINO.

I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

Good point..

republicans should be willing to accept anyone who will consistently vote their position. That does not mean that an occasional compromise means you are no longer a Republican

Conservatives need to lighten up

 

[Immanuel]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......



I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

Good point..

republicans should be willing to accept anyone who will consistently vote their position. That does not mean that an occasional compromise means you are no longer a Republican

Conservatives need to lighten up

I agree with the middle part of that, but I must ask regarding that last statement... and liberals don't?

Immie

 

[DaGoose]

He "left" the Democratic Party in 2006. They "treated" him badly after he endorsed McCain, in 2008.

The issue is that you got your timeline mixed up.


Many, many people were pissed at him, including myself. But he wasn't "treated like shit" - he kept all his committee positions, and continued to caucus with the Democratic Party.


I think "DINO" and "RINO" are ridiculous terms, but I have certainly heard Lieberman called a "DINO". I'm not disagreeing with you there.

I am only pointing out an error in your timeline, one that is personally important to me, due to my own history with it.

I think I made my edit after you read the post.
I still contend that they were pissed at him for not bowing down and supporting Lamont like the good little Democrat he was supposed to be.

Everyone WAS pissed about that, particularly the CT Democratic Party, and in my opinion, rightfully so.


He's still registered as a Democrat, but an interesting bit of CT election law says that you don't have to be a member of the party that you run under. It's an odd state. NY has a similar law.

I don't think my timeline is off as you say. Yes, he had left the party but he was still "in" the party.

It's not particularly off, just a little.

Immie

PS and thank you, for being willing to disagree with me, and correct me as you saw fit without being a jerk about it.

I apologize for jumping into a conversation with an aside (I agree with your point about the terms "DINO" and "RINO"), but it's a somewhat important part of my own personal history (the first election I worked on full-time as staff), and I have a tendency to be a know-it-all.

Anyway, cheers!

For all intents and purposes, you're completely right. I'm just being a stickler for details.

And pos reps and kudos to both of you for civilized disagreement.

 

[Synthaholic]

A RINO is the opposite of a DINO basically a Joe Lieberman on the Republican side. Now come on, don't you guys tell me you forgot your hatred of Lieberman already! I mean really, you basically ran him out of your party.

Immie

By "ran him out of the party", do you mean "he lost the primary"?

Cause that's what happened.

Losing the primaries was not what drove him out of the party.

He left because Democrats treated him like shit because he was too independent. He wouldn't conform and they ousted him. He was basically persona non grata in the D party.

Immie

That is embarrassingly incorrect and uninformed.

 

[Synthaholic]

By "ran him out of the party", do you mean "he lost the primary"?

Cause that's what happened.

Losing the primaries was not what drove him out of the party.

He left because Democrats treated him like shit because he was too independent. He wouldn't conform and they ousted him. He was basically persona non grata in the D party.

Immie

None of those things is true.

He lost the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont (I worked on Lamont's campaign).

He knew he would win in the general though, because Connecticutt has a large Republican base that are all supporters of Lieberman. So he left the Democratic Party, and formed his own party (it's really easy to do that in CT).

Then, in 2008, he supported McCain for Prez, which was looked at as a betrayal, and a lot of people were pissed, true. He was not "kicked out" of the party at that point, since he was no longer a member.

Lieberman still to this day caucuses with the Democratic Party.

And the Democrats didn't even take away his committee assignments - he's still Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee.

 

[Synthaholic]

edit: He was persona non grata because he did not bow down and support Lamont like a "good little Democrat".[/COLOR]

So, he left the Democratic Party because they "treated him like shit", AND the reason the Democratic Party "treated him like shit" was because he left the party after losing the primary?

You're going in circles.

No, I am not.

They treated him like shit because he did not support Lamont like a good little Democrat.

Immie

Yes, because leaving him in charge of one of the most powerful Senate committees is equal to treating him like shit.

Fucking idiot.

 

[Synthaholic]

I recently saw this posted by Bripat9643.......



I have to wonder how many people would actually agree with that statement.

Does simply working in a bipartisan fashion on an issue automatically mean that a Republican is a RINO?

Now if you disagree with the above statement please state what YOUR definition of a RINO is.

IMO I would not only want, but would expect all members to work together to solve problems regardless of their political afffiliation.

Truthfully the better term is Cino. Conservative in Name only. Republican is a much Bigger tent than Conservative. Then you have your Divisions among Conservatives. Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, Limited Government Types, And those that Follow 1 or 2 but not all of those core Con beliefs.

To Answer your Question, No simply making Compromises and Being Bi-Partisan does not make one a RINO. To me a RINO is only someone who claims to be Republican but consistently comes down on the Side of Democrats on the actual Issues more often than not.

Good point..

republicans should be willing to accept anyone who will consistently vote their position. That does not mean that an occasional compromise means you are no longer a Republican

Conservatives need to lighten up

They are going to lighten up by a few Senate seats and a bunch of House seats.