In the last day, I’ve read a number of stories that blame Romney’s defeat yesterday in the Presidential election because he is a RINO. A RINO, as everyone who is reading this well knows, is someone who either doesn’t believe in Republican orthodoxy or, even worse, sometimes publicly acknowledges that he doesn’t adhere to the current GOP tenets.
Let me begin by talking about our political system. Because we have an electoral college, we have a two party system. A political party cannot long exist if it has no chance of winning the Presidency. Witness the sudden death of the Whigs and the rapid rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Many countries have a different system of choosing the head of state; many nations just elect legislators, then the different political parties form a coalition if they don’t have a majority.
But because we have a two party system, people have to choose which party more closely resembles their own views. Since some regions are more liberal or more conservative than others, in order to win political office, politicians take on views that differ from their party orthodoxy in order to win elections. Thus, we have politicians like Mary Landrieu in Louisiana who is much more conservative than Barbara Boxer. In Massachusetts, they had (until yesterday)a RINO senator named Scott Brown. He was much more moderate than Jim DeMint from South Carolina, but he had to be to win elections.
Many results yesterday I found particularly sad. Scott Brown was one example; Linda Lingle was another. She was as conservative as possible to win in Hawaii. In a normal year she might have had a chance; with Obama getting 70% of the vote there she was dead meat, through no fault of her own.
Because we have a two party system, we as voters have to compromise when we cast our vote. Very few Democrats believe exactly what Obama does; very few Republican voters believe in the same policies that Romney does. Everyone has to make these compromises. Congressmen and Senators have to choose how to vote on issues; sometimes they trade off something their state or district wants for their political party. Governors and Presidents have to compromise their own favored policies to get something accomplished, even if they don’t regard it as the best possible solution.
The only things that don’t have to compromise a lot are interest groups. They can be strident in their beliefs, because it is not eventually up to them if laws are enacted. So groups like Planned Parenthood or the NRA can claim to be pure in their advocacy to their members. But politicians all have to compromise. If we end up with Senators like Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe losing or resigning because the party demands rigidity, then we are all worse off.
So, if we expect our politicians to be ideologically pure, that’s fine, I guess. But don’t be surprised when we’re only electing people in rural areas or in regions where most people believe in GOP orthodox positions. We’ll be left with nothing other than an interest group representing 8 small states in the Deep South and others scattered throughout the country. Every four years, during Presidential election years, when most everyone votes, those who live in politically unpalatable locales will lose.
November 7th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Yep, and it’s been now 2 election cycles that the ideologically impure have been drive out of the GOP thru the primary system. Losing Richard Lugar’s seat is preposterous. Sadly, I don’t feel the GOP voters really understand what they have done to get a 55 seat Dem majority for no good reason.
Very few voters actually participate in primaries so the voice of these special interest groups, thru outside money getting injected into state political contests, is greatly, greatly amplified. It is handing seats to the Dems and wasting money in the process.
The other thing is one person’s RINO is another’s “true conservative.” Is a foreign policy neocon hawk like George Allen a conservative? Not traditionally. What is it about conservative ideology that demands we have Israel’s back? Nothing. Where in the conservative principles of self-reliance and fiscal accountability do we form an opposition to gay marriage?
November 7th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Yeah, Patrick, I remember when Scott Brown got elected, he was the darling of the Tea Party, until he cast his first vote that they opposed. He immediately became a RINO. How sad, to lose his seat.
I’m still pretty upset about yesterday’s election results in the Senate. Such a silly loss of seats.
November 7th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
More than last night, it’s two in a row. I was equally upset 2 years ago when we pissed away three seats in Nevada, Colorado, and the Christine debacle. This is just more of same. The Dems are wise to nominate center candidates that give them chances to win in places like the Dakotas and Indiana. They understand all power comes from a caucus majority, so they are smart enough not to knock out their ideologically impure incumbents. The Dems will now have a safe majority for a long long time until something radically different happens in the GOP.
The Dems once had a 30 year congressional majority that set up the Great Society programs and seeds of socialism that have finally sprouted from the roots into great big trees under Obama that choke all the underbrush. We could see another Dem congressional majority over the next 30 years, and if a strong candidate like Romney can’t win the presidency in this environment it’s really hard to envision a Republican president in 2016.
November 8th, 2012 at 6:18 am
As the ‘loyal opposition’, here is my take on this. A) Mitt was not a strong candidate. He lost to McCain in 2008 very early in the primaries. He hovered throughout most of this past primary season around 20%. On Election Day, he got 3 million fewer votes than McCain. Obama got about 9 million fewer than he did in 2008, yet Romney still could not win.
B) Romney’s campaign was still going nowhere even after winning the primary season. Not until he picked Paul Ryan as VP did his campaign start to come alive. Why? Because Paul Ryan actually did a better job pitching Romney’s agenda than Romney did.
C) Patrick mentioned the grip Democrats had for so long in Congress. Who led the fight to change that? Who had actual experience in fighting the good fight? Oh, and of the GOP primaries this past season, who won in the state which had the highest increase in voter turnout? Practically every other state, especially Florida, had lower voter turnouts. Naturally, you know who I am referring to. Our old pal, Newty!
November 8th, 2012 at 7:23 am
Romney was a flawed candidate.
The GOP wanted to target health care, but found the only candidate that really couldn’t really champion that agenda since he was the inventor of Obamacare.
The auto bailout was another issue that should have eliminated him as a candidate. The Midwest is often the tipping point and regardless of one’s views on the bailout it was obvious that someone that took the extra step of quashing that initiative would render him unelectable.
Gingrich? Really?
Personality matters and increased exposure would not have softened the edges. He simply rubs people the wrong way and let’s not kid ourselves, looks matter.
What did many people say after the debates? He “looked” presidential, much like Reagan, Kennedy, and in many quarters, Obama.
Policy positions are important, but a candidate has to be telegenic and one cannot discount the “I would have a beer with him” component.
Gingrich would always be viewed as remote.
I have to admit, the GOP is in a serious quandary.
November 8th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
So what you’re saying is that in the future there’ll be no distinguishing differences between parties except for title?
“I have to admit, the GOP is in a serious quandary.”
Not in four years.
In 2016, after the fallout settles from the most screwed up 8 years ever it’ll be decades before another dem sits in the White House.
I have no doubt the next four years will be the same as the last 4 years,(meager growth) if not worse.
The only quandary will be those on the public dole tryin to figure out what the hell to do now that the register is finally empty.
I’m tired of hearing how the right needs to change its brand when the only real thing confronting them is a majority that believes in big government holding everyones hand.
The only thing the people need education on is the fact that conservatives and republicans are not rich fat white racist males.
The left and the media have been very successful in portraying conservatives as such.
We need to stay true to what we are because the glue on the label wont last that long.
In four years when everyone is sitting on their pitty pot the light bulb will over their heads will light up and they’ll realize they have no choice but to elect those who judge and legislate by the principles of simple math and individual ownership.
I believe today theres more folks worried about losing their freebees, subsidies, and government sponsored goodies than there are those who care about more futures than their own.
The left is tearing this country apart and the one true viable solution is talking about re-inventing its brand ????
A Reaganite Republican may of lost this election, but he’ll win the next one blindfolded and tied to a chair.
November 8th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
“The auto bailout was another issue that should have eliminated him as a candidate.”
Not if you looked at the full context of Mitts position.
The media and dem candidates did a very good job of only telling half that story.
Mitt showed the transcript in its entirety at the debate and the moonbats still kept repeating the same garbage that Mitt wanted to dump and abandon American auto manufacturers, while at the same liberals continued the big fat lie about GMs progress always followed by more BS – “Al Queda is decimated”.
(except for the 10 plus branches that are now in almost every middle eastern and North African state)
November 8th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
It doesn’t matter what the “reality” of the auto bailout was, the perception in the Midwest would be negative, so choosing a candidate that was vulnerble on that issue was a mistake.
November 8th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“It doesn’t matter what the “reality” of the auto bailout was, the perception in the Midwest would be negative, so choosing a candidate that was vulnerble on that issue was a mistake.”
Thee would be no vulnerability or warped perceptions if liberals simply told the truth.
And since when does “reality” not matter ?
Answer– Only if you’re a liberal.
Sorry man, that was pretty lame.
Replacing “reality” with “perception” might of made your point worth 2 cents.
November 8th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Everyone, including even those on the far right, have openly acknowledged that the Republican Party, as currently constructed, cannot win national elections.
They lost this election on demographics, most specifically by not getting the Hispanic vote.
They need to “change their brand” and appeal to the new realities of who votes in this country.
If not, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, they will be a niche party.
Governorships? Sure.
The House? Yes.
Senate and/or President? Nope.
You can already see Boehner distancing himself from the Tea Party and you have to wonder if they peaked and will even be a factor in future elections.
They lost on women, Hispanics, Blacks and white people under the age of 65.
That is not a good model going forward.
November 8th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Elections are not based on reality and never were.
Consider the following about a possible Thomas Jefferson presidency:
A Connecticut newspaper warned that his election would mean “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced” — though the paper, which is now the Hartford Courant, did apologize some years later.
In 1993. “You turned out to be a good influence on America,” the editors wrote. Whoops! Never mind.
Neither side is going to be elected based on realities.
Each side has a “brand” and they advertise that brand.
The Dems did an incredible job of data mining and effectively targeting potential voters.
Even more troubling for the GOP is states they count on, such as Texas and Georgia now have rapidly growing Hispanic populations and will not automatically be counted in the “win” column for the GOP
November 8th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“Everyone, including even those on the far right, have openly acknowledged that the Republican Party, as currently constructed, cannot win national elections.”
Except for me, right ?
So muce for this bs reality of yours.
Theres an astounding amount of true conservatives that could educate you and this majority you speak of as to what a conservative really is.
Conservatives kicked ass in 2010, so spare me.
We are not that strange to todays demographics.
November 8th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Sorry bout the typos today, sticky puter.
November 8th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
“Even more troubling for the GOP is states they count on, such as Texas and Georgia now have rapidly growing Hispanic populations and will not automatically be counted in the “win” column for the GOP”
Jeez, you mean brown minorities cant think for themselves ?
Any part of a growing minority will vote dem ?
How the hell did Barry ever help these people?
Road block Brewer for a few months ?
WTF has he done yet for anyone ?
The right speaks to everyone, were just a little more realistic and dont lie, or tell everyone what they want to hear.
You’ll learn.
It might take 4 more years, but you’ll learn
November 8th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Sorry, that last paragraph wasnt so realistic. Republicans do lie, but more along social issues and not economic issues.
Heres an example.
My idol, Krauthammer, gave good advice on how republicans can win an electios.
Charles suggested that in the next election the right offer up an immigration policy that basically would grant amnesty for illegals.
I believe this would work.
The problem is that it would not be a true conservative principle based on conservative security and citizenship policy and would only garner votes previous to the next election where the left would bust out all the freebies again based on some faux bs that they’re victims.
Note, at the top of the paragraph I used the words “the right”.
You can only morph conservatism so much until it becomes liberal light.
And we’ve all seen what that gets us.
November 8th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
The comments here disturb me a bit. Obama ran a campaign on hate, division, micro market vote buying, and slander. Mitt smiled alot and repeated his 5 point plan because he realized the 59 point plan was too complex for the addled voter to understand so he simplified it. But he is a RINO, that is why he could not articulate a vision for America to rally around, because he didn’t believe in the smaller government he was pretending to support, as well as a liberty agenda. So the grassroots said, let retadman destroy the place and in 2 years it will be so bad we will have a 300 person majority in the house. At that point, so many people will be out of work and pissed off that there may even be a play at impeachment. So they simply said, F the RINO leadership. The Tea party is ascendant, don’t kid yourselves, they are winning 70% of elections in 30+ states and taking over the state legislatures. They may be quite but they are amassing a bench. After 8 years of the dems, gloating at the national level they will wake up one day and 35 states will be controlled by the tea party, you know what that means? Constitutional amendments. As in all political cycles there is a swing, and there is one coming my friends. and it will be in 2016
November 9th, 2012 at 7:33 am
Amen, Blatant! F the RINOs! F amnesty for illegals. F Chucky Krauthammer! F building a Big Tent to include baby killers and painted-faced floosies. F the appeasers be they wimps on taxes or national defense.
That is why Mitt got 3 million fewer votes than McShame. People are fed up with the lesser of 2 evils. The Establishment wants to blame the Tea Party and purists, but how many of those moderate Senate candidates won?
“Shame and eternal shame, nothing but shame!
Let us die in honour: once more back again;
And he that will not follow Bourbon now,
Let him go hence, and with his cap in hand,
Like a base pander, hold the chamber-door
Whilst by a slave, no gentler than my dog,
His fairest daughter is contaminated.”
- Henry V, Act IV, Scene V
November 9th, 2012 at 9:39 am
Hey hey !
Ease up on Chucky !
He was only stating how an election could be won with amnesty.
Not that amnesty would be good for the country.
I’m sure he realizes that soon thereafter the cost of harboring those legalized (and no
doubt mostly unemployed) would be astronomical.
Four years later, maybe two, there would be a new fight between parties on the basis that those 25 million are eligible or are not eligible to vote.
It would be a freaking mess that the neither party could win unless they promised freebies.
The freebie option is not born of conservative principles
If conservatism has to cater to todays demographics, it would no longer be conservatism.
November 9th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Didn’t Reagan grant amnesty?
November 9th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Yeah, he did.
How’d that work out ?
Like I said, but should clarify.
“Its my opinion” that Krauthmammer was only giving a hypothetical based on a suggestion of how to win an election.
The man is quite capable of looking at what the collateral damage of such an act would be.
You’d win the election, but we’d lose so much more at a humongous cost both to the economy and conservatives who would inevitably have to back out of the deal midway because its just not affordable. Consequently the right could kiss away any hopes of Latino votes in the future.
I’m a big fan of Krauthammer and can only hope he wasnt not a 100% serious
November 9th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Well, turns out I was wrong.
Krauthammer on Hannity just elaborated on his amnesty position, sounds like hes serious.
I’m kinda disappointed in him for not addressing the kind of collateral effects that would happen as a result of legalizing 12 million illegals in one pop.
Maybe a stipulation demanding they have jobs within 6 months of legalization would ease the impact, if they can find jobs.
Personally, we need to take care of our own before we employ any foreigners or candidates interests.
Amnesty without citizenship wont change a thing for these people or any candidate except that they wont have to look over their shoulder anymore. The Latino community and fresh new Latino Americans will still vote dem for a host of other social issues, better known as bribery.
We cant absorb such sweeping instant change and be functional.
Even though I have some problems with it,if we are to do such a thing I actually think the dream act makes more sense,and has already been in the works.