Monday, April 26, 2010

Conservatives vs. RINOs vs. Fiberals - One Man's Opinion, YMMV

Earlier this evening I wrote a response to a post over at Smash Mouth Politics (damn right I do, why don't you?) regarding the upcoming mid-terms, and what Tea Party conservative vs. RNC/RINO vs. DNC/ Fiberal really means.  I thought that the two or three of you reading this blog might be interested in my thought, so here they are.

I support the choice of the truly Conservative candidate - but not at all costs. It is becoming time we profoundly consider every situation, sometimes considering each race in different light. For instance, I would always prefer the Conservative candidate over a RINO.  But if the choice becomes a pretty conservative RINO against an Obamaniac, then to me it becomes an entirely different issue…

Let’s use a California race I recently dissected as an example. We have Barbara Boxer (take her, Please!) being challenged by Carly Fiorina, Chuck Devore and Tom Campbell. My first choice, ideologically, is Chuck Devore and I continue to support him toward the GOP primary. I consider Carly to be closer to RINO - the most moderate of the three choices. So if by chance Carly wins the GOP nod, would I vote for Carly against Boxer? Damn right I will.

As we approach the mid-term elections, we have a responsibility to inject pragmatism into voter education. It is short-sighted of us to consider a vote for every RINO as analagous to a vote for the Fiberal. And I don’t think it’s dishonorable to admit this.  We need to recognize there are two primary objectives this election:  regain traction for Conservative values, and defeat Obamaniacs.  In the Blogosphere, we want to embrace out ideology at all costs - that's not a bad thing.  But when it comes to putting our voice to work in real-world application, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  We should not allow a single Fiberal to backdoor into another term in office because we help divide the vote.

In the end (IMHO) we need to – at all costs – defeat the Obamaniacs. I am willing to embrace and support a candidate who is closer to Conservative ideals (even if technically a RINO) to achieve that end. To me, that’s not the best win – but a win nevertheless.

Just this man’s opinion – YMMV.



  1. How's that RINO Guvanator workin out for you Caleefornyans?

    I gave up my last vote for a RINO when I voted for McCain for President. Never again. Some said it would be better to have Obama win, so that the country could see what scoundrels liberals really are. I believe it will turn out to be true. I believe conservatives will trounce democrats come November. Now is not the time to voluntarily go with the supposedly more electable moderate. Look at the governor of Joisey--who woulda thunk it.

    Maybe if the republicans see conservatives sitting home on election day they will get the message that moderates should not be selected as candidates.

    I realize that I may be cutting off my nose to spite my face. I was elated when Sen Brown won Kennedy's seat (even though I'm afraid he will turn and not even be a RINO). I can afford to be more selective, living in Virginia, where conservates are electable. Not sure they are in Cali and The Peoples' Republic of Massachussetts. So I can't really blame you for being pragmatic. Just sayin' I'm done being a dupe for RINOs.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Well, therein lies the quandary for those of us in states more left leaning. What is considered a RINO in many parts of the country is practically a neo con in Californistan. But I do believe Conservatives - and certainly Republicans - can win here. But much as Massachusetts, successful candidates here will have some centrist positions. At least today.

    And at the risk of public ridicule, let me momentarily jump to for Arnie. The Governator came to office a fine fiscal Conservative. Socially more moderate, but a candidate I could live with. Arnie's undoing was the California State Assembly - a collection of Fiberals Bill Ayers could be proud of, and the abandonment of the state GOP. Arnie was faced with two roads - play ball or die on the vine - alone. He chose the former, and this is what his legacy will be. Arnie could have been much more than he was with support of the GOP (who all but abandoned him)and the Legislature. But for all his shortcomings, he was world better than Grey Davis - the Bleeding-Heart Fiberal he replaced.

    There is a moral to this story. The Californistan Republican Party has all but abandoned the Conservative vote. The national GOP has as well - declaring California "unsustainable" in 2008. Without strong national and state-level support, many candidates who are good and viable Conservative replacements for the Fiberal wonks in Sacramento will never win - not so many have Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman type of money to self fund.

    I live in Cali because it is a truly blessed land. Few other places in the world can you snowboard in the morning, trout fish at lunch then surf in warm Pacific waters as the sun sets. That, and because Ms. T. Bagg says we will live here...

    It damn sure is not because of the leadership...


  4. I loved Cali the one time I visited (1981 ish). I am not against her. I love her. I envy you. I could put up with a lot of political bull shit in order to live there.

    I question whether Cali is worse off with The Governator than Grey Davis. I don't follow local politics out there, so I'll have to take your word for it. But Ahnold sure seems to be fuck!ng things up from what little I do notice.

    I know that New Jersey is smaller, but I shudder to think what Arnold could have done, if he'd had 1/2 the balls of the NJ Governator.