Not all republicans are RINO’s.

[NateRiver]

The Republican Study Committee is a group of over 100 House Republicans organized for the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda. They have introduced the Economic Recovery and Middle Class Tax Relief Act, legislation based on three main themes….

RFU

[formerlurker]

Who wrote this agenda?













Wait for it.....













Wait for it.............












Mitt Romney.   So by association (according to most "real conservatives"), it is a RINO agenda. 

[Rebel]

How is Mitt a RINO?

[formerlurker]

How is Mitt a RINO?

I don't think Mitt is a RINO.   

[TheSarge]

How is Mitt a RINO?

I think most people base it on the universial healthcare thing that got pushed through while he was Governor.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I think most people base it on the universial healthcare thing that got pushed through while he was Governor.

That, and the Second Amendment issue, where he is perceived as 'somewhat less than a pillar of strength.'

[USA4ME]

I've heard Rush comment on something related to this that simply doesn't make sense.  I'd love to have the time to hang on the phone for a day or two and ask him about it.

He's mentioned that the blue-blood Rockefeller Republicans don't like being associated with the social conservative religious types.  Why?  If both sides are in favor of less gov't economically, why quibble over social issues?  In order to keep the social conservatives on-board, let them control the social agenda of the party and both sides join hands in the economic and military strength part of the equation.  Seems like a simple enough solution to me.  It's not like the blue-bloods don't have the money to by-pass any social laws they might desire to partake, if that's their objection.  Otherwise, not wanting to be associated with "those people" is simply immature on their part.  Being a snob is no excuse for acting stupid.

.

[formerlurker]

I am assuming Mitt was involved in this.   On Fox and Friends a week or so ago he said he was invited to Washington by Republicans to help write a response package to Obama's stimulus package.   

I have not spent anytime looking at the site, or what their proposal is -- will try to do so later tonight. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

I've heard Rush comment on something related to this that simply doesn't make sense.  I'd love to have the time to hang on the phone for a day or two and ask him about it.

He's mentioned that the blue-blood Rockefeller Republicans don't like being associated with the social conservative religious types.  Why?  If both sides are in favor of less gov't economically, why quibble over social issues?  In order to keep the social conservatives on-board, let them control the social agenda of the party and both sides join hands in the economic and military strength part of the equation.  Seems like a simple enough solution to me.  It's not like the blue-bloods don't have the money to by-pass any social laws they might desire to partake, if that's their objection.  Otherwise, not wanting to be associated with "those people" is simply immature on their part.  Being a snob is no excuse for acting stupid.

.

Oh, it's pretty simple, really.  The 'Rockefeller Republicans' basically stand with the Liberal Democrats on all the social issues, morality, views of the world, socio-economic commonality, etc., and are only 'Conservatives' in the sense that their self-interest lies in not being taxed to pay for the Liberal agenda - it's not so much that they find it fundamentally objectionable, it's more like they are Liberals who actually realize they would be the ones paying for the programs.  Their involvement in national defense tends to be limited to the think tank, stockholder, and in a very few cases tradition-that-you-go-to-The-Academy roles, not as actual first-person participants.  They are the classic RINOs, EXCEPT on issues that are going to go directly to fiscal policy.  They are also the Ivy League and Old Money Republicans, by and large, which is why aside from points of enlightened financial self-interest they are largely indistinguishable from the Democrat elites.  They aren't big on foreign entanglements except to the extent they disrupt trade, because that hits the pocket book; nationalism doesn't figure into it much.       

The Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives don't like being taxed to pay for a bunch of stupid BS handout programs either, but far more important to them are social issues such as individual liberty, standing against abortion-on-demand, and Second Amendment rights, about which the RINOs don't give a damn because they can generally bypass the rules imposed on the rank and file if they decide they have a reason to do so.  They are far more likely to have a personal or family stake in the national defense 'issues' of the day.  Limited government is important to them, but not as tightly-held as their core values; actually they really don't care that much about government as long as it doesn't interfere with them and doesn't pick their pockets excessively for those BS Liberal social programs.  They find the Liberal social agenda disgusting and/or unfair, and except for a few hot-button issues (like evangelical convictions about the importance of Israel) have a more nationalistic and less economically-pragmatic view of those foreign entanglements.

So, on the day-to-day lifestyle and social context level, they are poles apart.  The common ground they share is indeed limited government, if for somewhat different but not-dissimilar reasons, however in both cases it really plays second fiddle to their basic social contexts.   

[Wretched Excess]

That, and the Second Amendment issue, where he is perceived as 'somewhat less than a pillar of strength.'

and the fact that he was pro-abortion for most of his life.

[Rebel]

and the fact that he was pro-abortion for most of his life.

..but he's not now. Besides, I didn't know abortion was THE main focus of the Republican party.

[formerlurker]

The social platform needs to take a back seat IMHO.   Economy, national defense and foreign policy are of critical importance and where I concentrate when supporting a candidate. 

[Rebel]

The social platform needs to take a back seat IMHO.   Economy, national defense and foreign policy are of critical importance and where I concentrate when supporting a candidate. 

Then what would be the difference between them and Libertarians?

[formerlurker]

Then what would be the difference between them and Libertarians?

HAHAHA.  No seriously.

The Libertarians yearn for things that just won't occur as their world is that of absolutes, and the only asbolutes we have in life are death and taxes.   Libertarians are isolationists also, a platform certainly not embraced by the Republican party.   

We just don't have the luxury right now to window shop candidates.   Give me one who is strong in the areas that are presently critical to our survival, and that is the candidate I will support.    You get the rest then praise God, but it is not a deal breaker for me right now.

[Rebel]

Guess that's why I'm an independent. Seems people who are beholden to a party aren't supposed to deviate from the group think OF that party.

[USA4ME]

Oh, it's pretty simple, really.  The 'Rockefeller Republicans' basically stand with the Liberal Democrats on all the social issues, morality, views of the world, socio-economic commonality, etc., and are only 'Conservatives' in the sense that their self-interest lies in not being taxed to pay for the Liberal agenda - it's not so much that they find it fundamentally objectionable, it's more like they are Liberals who actually realize they would be the ones paying for the programs.  Their involvement in national defense tends to be limited to the think tank, stockholder, and in a very few cases tradition-that-you-go-to-The-Academy roles, not as actual first-person participants.  They are the classic RINOs, EXCEPT on issues that are going to go directly to fiscal policy.  They are also the Ivy League and Old Money Republicans, by and large, which is why aside from points of enlightened financial self-interest they are largely indistinguishable from the Democrat elites.  They aren't big on foreign entanglements except to the extent they disrupt trade, because that hits the pocket book; nationalism doesn't figure into it much.

If that's the case, then it would behoove them to allow the social conservatives have their way so they will vote for the party that would allow the "it's not so much that they find it fundamentally objectionable, it's more like they are Liberals who actually realize they would be the ones paying for the programs" types to implement their agenda.  Seems like a rather inexpensive trade-off to win elections.

If both parties abandon the social conservatives, the country can kiss its booty good-bye.

.

[Redstatecka]

I've heard Rush comment on something related to this that simply doesn't make sense.  I'd love to have the time to hang on the phone for a day or two and ask him about it.

He's mentioned that the blue-blood Rockefeller Republicans don't like being associated with the social conservative religious types.  Why?  If both sides are in favor of less gov't economically, why quibble over social issues?  In order to keep the social conservatives on-board, let them control the social agenda of the party and both sides join hands in the economic and military strength part of the equation.  Seems like a simple enough solution to me.  It's not like the blue-bloods don't have the money to by-pass any social laws they might desire to partake, if that's their objection.  Otherwise, not wanting to be associated with "those people" is simply immature on their part.  Being a snob is no excuse for acting stupid.

Rush said that in the interview he gave to Sean Hannity. He mentioned specifically the New England GOPers.

Having lived years ago in the Northeast, for about two decades, including almost a decade in New England (Boston and its environs), to me, it makes perfect sense.

They even have problems within that region with each other, based on lineage and when you even got to America.

For example, in Marblehead, Mass., where the Continental Navy was formed, the descendents of the original settlers -- they're called Headers -- still look down their noses at everyone else.

BTW: I think Rush also said it was not just the social religious conservatives, but particualrly ones from the South. He did so by using a mocking "Southern" accent when he made the statement.

Again, he's right.

And even if they're not New England blue-bloods, IMO, there is now so much rergional/geographic racism in this country that it's no shock to hear what he said.

BTW: Recall that Obama had that chat in San Francisco with his high-rollers who were Democrats, liberals and leftists, when he called the Pennsylvanians clingers to their guns and God and full of resentment for people unlike them?

Snobbery and unease with people unlike one's self is not just a Republican issue.

[DumbAss Tanker]

If that's the case, then it would behoove them to allow the social conservatives have their way so they will vote for the party that would allow the "it's not so much that they find it fundamentally objectionable, it's more like they are Liberals who actually realize they would be the ones paying for the programs" types to implement their agenda.  Seems like a rather inexpensive trade-off to win elections.

If both parties abandon the social conservatives, the country can kiss its booty good-bye.

.

If people were purely rational creatures, something like that might be possible, but regional/class chauvinism and ego come into it to prevent that.