RINO's and wing-nuts and bears, oh my!
I was catching up on my blog reading the other day, when I came across this one by the Radioactive Chief. You know, it's things like this that piss me off.
The "R" bomb. I hate the term RINO (Republican In Name Only). In South Dakota, I've only seen it dropped by people who have never participated in the process. I've attended as a delegate or had a role in nearly every state GOP convention since 1988, as well as the last National GOP convention. My point is, I have a good idea of who actively participates in Republican politics in this state. And the people who use that term are non-participants standing on the sidelines.
I might personally have a problem with some of the politics of more liberal Republicans, but I would never call them a "Republican In Name Only." It smacks of an addiction to cheap talk radio, as well as being arrogant. I know plenty of people who would have this label placed upon them because of some of their moderate to liberal social views. And some have been phenomenal Republican legislators, and made other contributions to the party.
The funny thing is, I remember a time - not that many years ago - when the shoe was on the other foot, and those with a more evangelical/conservative identification were derisively termed wing-nuts. And I didn't care much for that, either.
Ronald Reagan, who literally set the bar for conservative presidents, considered the party "the big tent." And whether you like it or not, you need the votes of those other people to win elections. If you didn't have RINO's, you wouldn't have any elected Republicans. And if you didn't have the wing-nuts, you would not get a Republican elected, either.
Part of winning an election is holding your base together and seeking out the swing voters. If you can't manage more than your base, you're kind of screwed.
Remember my earlier post about how many you can count as true believers? If you've polarized things so badly, all you may get is your 25% base. And I'm not cool with that. So, quit fighting about who's a RINO, and who's a wing-nut. And let's get Republicans elected.
The "R" bomb. I hate the term RINO (Republican In Name Only). In South Dakota, I've only seen it dropped by people who have never participated in the process. I've attended as a delegate or had a role in nearly every state GOP convention since 1988, as well as the last National GOP convention. My point is, I have a good idea of who actively participates in Republican politics in this state. And the people who use that term are non-participants standing on the sidelines.
I might personally have a problem with some of the politics of more liberal Republicans, but I would never call them a "Republican In Name Only." It smacks of an addiction to cheap talk radio, as well as being arrogant. I know plenty of people who would have this label placed upon them because of some of their moderate to liberal social views. And some have been phenomenal Republican legislators, and made other contributions to the party.
The funny thing is, I remember a time - not that many years ago - when the shoe was on the other foot, and those with a more evangelical/conservative identification were derisively termed wing-nuts. And I didn't care much for that, either.
Ronald Reagan, who literally set the bar for conservative presidents, considered the party "the big tent." And whether you like it or not, you need the votes of those other people to win elections. If you didn't have RINO's, you wouldn't have any elected Republicans. And if you didn't have the wing-nuts, you would not get a Republican elected, either.
Part of winning an election is holding your base together and seeking out the swing voters. If you can't manage more than your base, you're kind of screwed.
Remember my earlier post about how many you can count as true believers? If you've polarized things so badly, all you may get is your 25% base. And I'm not cool with that. So, quit fighting about who's a RINO, and who's a wing-nut. And let's get Republicans elected.
Comments