U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 13, 2006 11:17 PM UTC

RINO

  • 75 Comments
  • by: cctiger

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Republican In Name Only. I cringe whenever I hear this term. What does it mean? Is it a way for Republicans to say to other members of their party “you are a fake because you do not hold my exact opinions, or even worse are a dirty stinking moderate”?

Being a Republican can mean a lot of things. It can mean you think the absurd amount of government spending should be reigned in or cut dramatically, or it can mean you think we should CUT taxes while increasing our spending and being forced to borrow money because “our economy will rebound and save us”.

Being a Republican can mean you are a rancher who wants his water and land protected from oil, gas, and coal interests on your “split estate” land or neighboring public lands. Or, it can mean you think the government should eliminate the review process for the energy industry when they seek to harvest natural resources (or, as the 2005 Energy Policy Act states, remove “impediments and delays”), because our nation is thirsty for the resources.

Being a Republican can mean you believe in God and the Bible when it says not to kill or be sexually immoral (and that abortion and homosexuality fit that description). Or, it can mean you believe in the Bible when it says to care for the poor and to not leave debts unpaid (deficit spending and an exploding national debt, anyone?).

When I hear people say “RINO”, or see it written, I throw up a little in my mouth. Being a “Republican” is not definitive in this day and age. Being a “RINO”, therefore, is even less definitive and even more confusing.

Comments

75 thoughts on “RINO

  1. Being known as a RINO is actually quite liberating, albiet, not libertarian.

    Rinos:

    1. Never vote straight tickets, and everyone understands.
    2. Never contribute to RRRs (Repulsive Republican Radicals), and everyone understands.
    3. Think Rush Limbaugh’s a phony jerk, and everyone understands.
    4. Kinda agree with Mike Rosen, which nobody understands.
    5. Are strict constitutionalists, which RRRs certainly don’t understand.
    6. Are well read and think clearly, which RRRs don’t even to pretend to understand.
    7. Don’t like Democrats, which RRRs understand, but don’t appreciate.
    8. Put country before party, which RRRs and moveon.org would never do.
    9. Think for themselves, which all unaffiliated voters understand.
    10. Express their frustrations by voting against incumbent candidates and parties when such votes count, which neither RRRs nor moveon.org understands.
    11. Register as Republicans in districts where the elections are in the primaries, not the general elections, which is too complicated for RRRs to understand.
    12. Are true conservatives or libertarians, not liberals wearing RRR costumes and smoking pot.

  2. Having recently moved back to Colorado after a 25 year absence, I was stunned by how far-right Republicans dominate Colorado/El Paso county politics, and how a handful of insiders dominate/corrupt the Assembly/primary process.  Uutside of Colorado, except for Utah politics, I never heard Republicans call each other RINOs and fight for the title of “most conservative.”  There’s probably a correlation between religious intolerance in a state and whether there’s a RINO/non-RINO split among Republicans.

    I regularly get called a RINO for holding Republican views that would be mainstream outside Colorado/Utah.  Barry Goldwater would be considered a RINO in Colorado because of his beliefs on abortion, gays in the military and civil rights.

    If Republicans want to lose elections in Colorado, then fighting with each other about who is or is not a RINO is a good strategy for ensuring a Democratic victory.

    Historically, Colorado is far from being a conservative, Republican state.  Since Colorado became a state in 1876, there have been 39 governors, 18 Republicans.  The longest Republican tenure was only 12 years (the Love & Vanderhoof administrations); most Republican adminstrations lasted only 4 years.  In contrast, the Democratic Lamm-Romer tenure was 20 years.

    Unless Beauprez and Lamborn figure out how unify the party and include RINOs rather than exclude them, they’ll lose in November.

    Why is Beauprez’s seat in CD-7 predicted to be won by a Democrat?  When Nighthorse-Campbell left, why did people replace him with Democrat Ken Salazar?  My opinion is that people in Colorado are fed up with far right politics and the Republican party isn’t listening to them because they are worried about who is and isn’t RINO.

      1. I find it interesting how the Republican Party in Colorado has come so far from its roots.  The ‘conservatives’ are creating the split within the party and leading to more partisanship than before.  “RINOs” (and I hate that designation for Republicans or Democrats) are the true Republican party as far as I’m concerned.

        The Republican party fought for freedom, united the States, created essential parts of our modern government and (through a split in the party) began the first ‘Progressive’ movement in the US.  Now ‘conservatives’ claim to stand for a majority of voters in the state.  Bulls***.  What conservatives are doing is forcing more Republicans to be independent.  The results from the primaries a week ago don’t represent the interests of the majority, they represent the interests of the country club elite who have hijacked the Republican party in this state.

        1. But the relgioso republicans as well.  Christianity has been hijacked by the religioso republicans.  I am a Catholic and a Democrat.  I do not exchange one for the either.  However, there are Evangelicals who are claiming to be Republican that do not represent the view of the majority.  Just look at a few of the house races where preaches and Dobson look alikes won the primaries.  They force their churces to vote the republican line, and in turn they place evangelicals on the ballot.

          1. Again, historically, religion has played a major part of American politics.  Bush isn’t the first President or politician whose religion played a major part of his decision making in life.  Lincoln routinely quoted verse in his public speeches.  However, politicizing religion is different (as opposed to religious politicians) and you are correct saying the religioso republicans are part of the fight for the right. 

            Kinda like the Thrilla in Manilla – but not really.

            1. How can you say the primary last week didn’t represent the majority of the primary voters?  Did someone push people away from the voting booth?  How did a fraction of “country club elites” hijack anything?

              If you got beat, why do you think we somehow cheated?  What special advantage do conservative voters have over RINO voters?  Other than the fact they appearently vote and RINO’s appearently don’t.

              1. … this quote:

                “Did you forget about Tuesday before a week has gone by?  It would appear that you are not the majority of the party.  You lost.”

                … when you just said …

                “How can you say the primary last week didn’t represent the majority of the primary voters?”

                I’m not sure to whom you’re responding when you say this. I’m only posting this to point out that you didn’t say anything about “the majority of the primary voters.” The first time you apparently used the primary results to point out that your wing (the RRR’s, or my prefered term, wing nuts) is the majority. But from what I’ve read less than 30% of regsistered republicans turned out for the most contentious Republican primary in the state (the battle for CD5) and that those who did were overwhelmingly the hardcore righties. Apparently the rest either were turned off because all 6 candidates were doing the “I’m more of a wing nut than you” dance and no one was trying to run as a moderate. That, or they just didn’t care.

                In short, last Tuesday is hardly proof of how many Republicans are RRR and how many are RINO. If you have some numbers to back up your claim, I’m sure everyone reading this thread would like to see them.

                As far as this quote goes …

                “What special advantage do conservative voters have over RINO voters?  Other than the fact they appearently vote and RINO’s appearently don’t.”

                … If I were a RINO (and you should know that I’m a lefty independent) I’d say touche.

            2. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton?  They use religion in politics more than anyone else out there.  Open your eyes folks, people have been using religion to push a political agenda for years.  It was only when conservatives started doing it that people cried fowl.

              1. Jackson and Sharpton press a pretty secular agenda – civil rights. Unless you can point to them promoting merging of church and state like the fundies of the American Taliban do then your comparison is of the apples and oranges variety.

                1. Politicians have been using religion for hundreds of years.  It has been used to influence some of the most important decisions in the United State’s history.  The difference between then and now, and why I disagree with Robert, is that in the past politicians used religion as a personal belief system to help them make decisions to further America’s future.  Conservatives these days use religion to influence voters and get an agenda passed. 

                  When religion stands in the way of progress (i.e. stem cell research, equal status for gay couples, holy wars…) than voters should take a long, hard look at the agenda being promoted and begin to question their spiritual leaders that urged them to support it.

                  1. Your history is beyond way off.  Let’s get back to the basics.  The US war for independence was fought using religion.  Read the Declaration of Independence.  It has references to God in the first two sentences and uses belief in God as the source of the policy for independence.  Do you think that the Declaration of Independence should be scrapped? 

                    Then there is our legal code.  Did you know that our laws are based largely on the Biblical laws of the Old Testament? 

                    And finally what about the abolition of slavery?  That was religion influencing politics big time.  It was birthed in the belief that even members of different races are equal, a concept directly taken from the Judeo Christian beliefs, not from secular views of the day. 

                    People had no problem with religion mingling with government until it was the conservatives who mingled the two.

                    1. War for Independence was just that – for independence. If religion were an impetus we would have gotten some kind of state religion in the end.

                      Did you know that our legal code is also largely based on other, non-biblical traditions such as the Justinian Code, the Code of Hamurabi, and Roman Law? Biblical tradition is in the mix but it’s hardly solo.

                      Abolition of slavery was largely economic – the Civil War was about competing economic models, free market capitalism vs agrarian slavery. The abolitionists were a fringe group whose importance in history was elevated during the civil rights struggle, but their influence in their own day was quite limited. Not saying that they weren’t right…

                      Your last statement is correct. Religion is an important guide for most people, but the Founding Fathers, many of whom were descended from those who fled religious persecution in England, knew the importance of keeping it separated from government.

                    2. The Creator is in the Declaration; God is not.  Big difference if you know your Founding Fathers.

                      The Bible provides only a small source for our law, and is certainly not the main component.  English law is the main antecedent of our own legal code; it in turn draws on many other codes of justice.

                    3. Not true.  There was only one religion prevalent in the colonies that was monotheistic.  That was Christianity.  Creator, with a capitol C, referred to the God of the Judeo Christian belief.  There was no doubt about it.  The only people who dispute this are revisionists.  No true historian believes that Creator referred to anyone other than the Judeo Christian God. 

                      As for our law, where did England get their legal code?  Largely from the same code that all the civilized nations have gotten it.  From the Law of Moses. 

                    4. I was under the impression that many of out founding fathers were Diests (Franklin, Jefferson…).  And while this was Christian based Deism, it is significantly different ontologically than contemporary Christian fundamentalism.  And therefore would produce a different logical conclusions concerning what we aught to be doing with ourselves.

                    5. Monothiesm, yes, but many different religions:

                      Catholics
                      Quakers
                      Calvanists
                      Jews
                      Diests
                      Orthodox
                      Jesuits
                      and others
                      made up the orginal colonies. 
                      There was by no means an overarching religion that held the colonies together.
                      Colonies were formed as havens from other religions and other colonies, anti-Catholic, for example.
                       

                    6. You are partially correct, but you are looking at this from too narrow of a perspective.  You see those as different religions, but they are mostly sects of the same religion.  I am not aware of any Jews in the colonies, but I would welcome a post that references a number of them large enough to be considered a viable group in the New World. 

                      All the other “religions” you mentioned are sects of the same basic religion.  In the US, many people think of these as different religions but it just isn’t true.  In reality, they are all Christianity in one form or another.  They all use the accepted and conformed version of the Bible, they all believe in one God and that God is Abraham’s God.  They all believe in one savior named Jesus.  They are all the same religion, just different brands of it. 

                      This is further born out in the historical writings of the time.  The term “separation of church and state” came about over concerns that a denomination was going to become the official religion of the US.  It was assumed that this was a Christian nation, but there was concern that one denomination would become the official State sanctioned version of religion (as had occurred in England).  Thus the wall of separation doctrine arose so that states could determine their own brand of religion (yes it was approved for states to have religious laws), but the federal government would stay out of promoting one denomination over another. 

                    7. You’re ignoring the answers we gave. I already listed the many other legal traditions American law is based on, yet you still harp on just one. Are you being deliberately dense, or are you just hoping that we’ll go away if you keep repeating yourself?

                    8. Are you being deliberately illiterate, or are you not reading my posts before you blow your mouth off.  I answered your question, but since you accuse me of dodging it and you can not read my post, here you go.  Pretty much all of the systems you mentioned are based on the laws that come out of the Judeo Christian traditions.  Because all of those systems are based on the Judeo Christian laws, I attribute the foundation of our laws to Judeo Christianity.  It’s like quoting someone who quotes someone else, you give the credit to the person who came up with the idea.  In our legal system and in our laws, a large proportion of what we have is based on the Judeo Christian law.

                    9. You must have answered someone else on another thread. I sure don’t have any responses from you about this or find any on this thread…

                      By your logic the Code of Hammurabi (from circa 1750 BC, the world’s first legal code which included the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”) is part of “Judeo Christian law”; I’d say it greatly influenced Judeo Christian law in a completely secular sense. I’d also say that lumping them all together as “Judeo Christian” in a discussion on religion in government is disingenuous.

                      “The law is a human institution,” as Ulysses Everett McGill would say.

                  2. politicians have found a way to use religion as a vote-getting tool, thats what saddens me. as a result many Americans seek to avoid religion as though it is itself corrupt. Our Founding Fathers, however, clearly relied heavily upon religion.

                    They also were heavily versed in the classics, which our modern education system does not stress.

                    1. this must be the thin thread.

                      Ari, PR you beat me to the posts.  All agreed.

                      In our founding fathers’ time, elementary schools taught the ABC’s with “A is for Adam…”. One final point, for all of the religious piety people speak of in the early history of our country, there was just as much religious intolerance throughout the country.  It took us a very long time to find the ability for true religious tolerance.

                    2. I’d write a real reply, but it wouldn’t be readable.  Short answer: Deists were not Christian, but many respected Jesus.  Reference to the Creator is a Deist construct.

  3. TO:  cctiger and another skeptic
      Excellent postings…as a former registered Republican myself, I was shocked by what was required to be a Republican in Colo. when I first moved here…There was absolutely nothing like a Rudy Giuliani or even a Barry Goldwater type Republican in Colo….
      The ABC’s of the Colo. GOP consisted of John Andrews, Doug Bruce, and Jon Caldara…The people running the GOP in this state are a bunch of theocratic hypocrits (less govt. regulation in the market place but more in the bedroom or in every OB/GYN’s office)…
      And the number of Republican office-holders who actually tried to adhere to some intellectually-consistent libertarian ideology and had the balls to openly articulate that position you could count on one hand (Mark Larson, Bill Kaufman, Marcy Morrison, Martha Kreutz, and the late Gary McPherson)!
      I realize ecological preservation in general, and the Endangered Species Act in particular, are not popular subjects with most Republicans but I really think that RINOs need to be placed on the endangered species list before they become extinct!

  4. Those ultra right wing Republicans who disparage so called RINOS need to remember that it takes 50%+1 to win an election.  Trying to be ultra pure in some right wing doctrine guarantees a coming decade of election disasters for our Republican party.  What ever happened to the “big tent” idea? 

  5.   Well at least we can all sit here and tell each other how great it is not to be conservative. I won’t go into losses by moderates accross the state since they’ve been discussed quite a bit already.  However, I’m glad that the Rudy Giuliani’s and the John McCain’s of the world don’t have a home here.  I guess you guys can always hope for our failure in November, but for now it would seem that you are the fringe of the ‘R’ party and not the conservatives.

      The part that baffles me about the leftish wing of the Republican party is why you bother sticking around?  You don’t like conservatives, they don’t particularly like you, and most of the time it would seem you agree more with the other party.  Even the national platform is filled with references to supporting the war in Iraq, abstinence education, free trade agreements, prayer in schools, a constitutional amendment to keep the traditional meaning of marriage, and 3/4 of a page espousing pro-life issues.

      What makes a RINO want to be a Republican?  Where is the attraction? 
     

    1. I can tell you why I stick around, you don’t like us in your corner either, hell, look at what you guys did to Lieberman.  And what’s the point in being an independent, they’re unelectable. 

      1. What conservatives did to Lieberman?  You mean people that aren’t moderate in either party I assume?  At anyrate, I think that business about Lieberman being unelectable as an independent is nonsense.  My money says Lieberman wins in November.

        As to your reason for staying in the Republican party, am I reading that right?  You stay in the party because conservatives don’t like it?  Heh, that’s like the Seinfeld episode where he returns the jacket to the store and lists the reason for return as “spite”.

          Reporter:  “I’m here on the street asking people why they are involved in politics and why they are in the party they are in.  You there! Mr. Big Irishman, why are you a Republican?  Is it the values?  The issues of the day?”

          Big Irishman: “Oh no, I’m not a Republican for those reasons, I’m just here to aggrevate and annoy conservatives.  Mainly for spite I guess you could say, I just really don’t like conservatives.”

          1. Man O’ Action apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.  What I was saying is that if you’re a moderate/independent, then there really isn’t a good place for you.  If you’re a conservative Dem, you’re a DINO (Lieberman).  If you’re a liberal Rep, you’re a RINO (Larson).  Either way, both parties ostrasize (sp?) you. 

            1. I believe the Democrats WEST of the Mississippi listen better. I happen to agree with the Demos for ostracizing Lieberman for his actions AFTER the primary – I agree with both sides that running a spirited campaign prior to the primary is fine. But the DINO label appears to be more of a national thing than a local thing – though I will be interested to see what the backlash is for a Ken Salazar for supporting Lieberman on an independent run (I know the Republican voters would cut him off at the knees if he did the same thing for – let’s say – Mark Holtzman if he made a write in run). I think the one place I respect party loyalty from ELECTED members of the party is campaign unity.

              1. He has 4 years for voters to forget about this. From what I hear the CT Republican candidate has very little chance of winning, and that’s the one outcome that would really haunt Salazar. A victory for Lamont will render Ken’s support nil, in terms of potential backlash; a Lieberman victory is a little cloudier but I think only lefty Dems would be angry about that, and again Salazar has 4 years to worry about making it up.

                1. According to the first post primary poll, Alan Schlesinger, the Ct. GOP Senate candidate, is getting 6% in a three way race with Lieberman at 46% and Lamont at 41%. Schlesinger dropped from 13% to 6% after reports came out that he might have a gambling problem (he denied a problem but admitted visiting casino under an assumed name), and state GOP leaders incvited Schlesinger to drop out.

    2. had the courage to come clean. You’d rather not share the republican party w/ moderates.

      The right wing has spent the last several months using tactics that are far from honorable, truthful, or ethical to destroy not only the election chances but the reputation of any of their moderate challengers. The day after the election they rush back to their “fellow republicans” to preach unity as a party.

      You’ll get back the RINOs that refuse to think. You’ll lose that majority of republicans who despise the ugliest faction in Colorado politics today.

      As you said, what do you care? You don’t need the majority of the party anyway. They’d only dilute your message.

      1. Favorite part…
        “You don’t need the majority of the party anyway. They’d only dilute your message.”

        Did you forget about Tuesday before a week has gone by?  It would appear that you are not the majority of the party.  You lost.

        I don’t want you ejected from the party or anything, but I am curious why you stay.  It would appear that you agree more often with Democrats that with Republicans.

        1. Your faction doesn’t mind lying to and about their own party in order to eke out a win for their candidate. When the deception succeeds you claim that the means are justified.

          No, I didn’t forget about Tuesday. Neither did the rest of the republicans that look at their candidates and see our democratic system under assault.

          I think it’ll be you that remembers Tuesday when you see Dems taking the oath of office in January. 

          1. Ms. Ive will be voting DEMOCRAT in November.  The funny thing…  She will be blaming the conservatives for making her vote Democrat.  Then, after the Dems take over and do not allow Ms. Ives a seat at the table she will whine that the Dems are in control.

            All the while she will never realize that the reason the Dems are in power is because she and her friends voted for the Democrats. 

            Simple math Ms. Ive.  When you convince others of your twisted logic and you take enough votes with you to get over that 50 + 1 = the Dems win.  And you know what? 
            They laugh their butts off at your stupidity.  You make a mockery of the party.  You are a joke to both the Real Republicans and the Democrats.

            How rational is your behavior???

            1. So, if the moderate Rs vote with the wing nut Rs we’ll get a seat at the table? Yeah, right. The wing nuts woo the moderate vote with moderate talk (i.e. the last National GOP convention). The less informed fall for it and vote with the Rs. The Rs win and go about their wing nut way, locking the flap to the “big tent” behind them.

              Sorry, j. crawford, but the wing nuts don’t invite the moderates to sit at the table. Why do you think we walked in the first place? I have gotten further with the centrist Dems on a few issues than I ever got with the wing nuts on anything.

              If the Rs lose in the November, they can’t blame the moderates because they never asked us to play in the first place.

    3. History has given me the impression that people who despise big government spending as the solution to all problems fit better in the Republican party. Maybe history needs to be rewritten, or maybe our present state needs to be changed.

      I bother “sticking around” because I believe the party will need leadership in the future. I also “stick around” (I think “grace you with my presence” would sound better but I digress) because Ronald Reagan’s ideas will only last so long before we have to think for ourselves. I also believe the idea of passing on large amounts of debt onto the next generation is an issue  the next generation will eventually be forced to deal with if the United States of America is to remain a great nation.

      1. Oh sweet, you are out conservating the conservatives on this one.  Frankly if your big issue is spending and you are in it to kick ass and take names on that issue, we would probably get along great. 

        However I doubt your sincerity if you think Crank, Hall, and Traylor would spend less than Lamborn, Renfroe, and Kopp.  Referendum C seemed like wastful tax and spend nonsense but it wasn’t the hard right of the Republican party pushing for it.

        1. before I leave, CD5 was pretty uniform when it comes to republicans. pro-fam pro-marriage pro- blahblahblah. Ref C is a big issue, one that few people actually dissected, just oversimplified. I’ll leave it at that for now.

          and yeah i get a major kick out of the reagan deal, glad i got some extra points. rule #27 in republican rulebook: mention reagan’s name every 5th sentence or you are out of touch with your roots.

    4. For years I remained a Republican despite my disagreement with the RRRs over social policies. The reasons:

      1. I liked Reagan and W and didn’t like Clinton, Gore or Kerry and don’t like any of the current Dem leaders at the national level.
      2. I’m a conservative, but not a RRR.
      3. I don’t believe in turning the country over to government employees who do what their hard left unions tell them to do. That’s like putting unions in the corner offices at GM and Ford, which are the captives of their unions.
      4. Dems victimize and exploit minorities and use scare tactics and social programs to win their votes.
      5. National security and military preparedness are important to me. I have no confidence any Dem will do better than W, who’s doing a terrible job of running the war in Iraq and the war against Islamic fascists.
      6. Liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court frequently rub me the wrong way, but I want enough of them to keep the RRRs from taking over.
      7. I believe in low taxes.
      8. I believe in regulated free markets, not centrally planned and price controlled industries, which is what the Dems would give us.
      9. I believe in the Constitution, but neither party seems to.

      So, it’s been hard to leave the Republican Party. But the RRRs have made it clear that I’m not welcome, and they’ve stolen the party, or had it given to them by complacent RRs (Real Republicans).

    5. Preach it…the conservatives fight to limit government, limit taxes, cut wasteful spending.  The RINO’s who have hijacked the Republican Party are catering to the unions, unaffiliates, and media types who will never vote for them on any day.

      RINO’s believe that if we spend a little more than the Dems, people will like us.  If we show compassion for the hardened criminal, the media will know that we care.

      Baloney I say.  If you are going to be acussed of being a right wing conservative, take the stand and at least you’ll be criticized for something you are doing.  Not what you haven’t done.

  6. Excellent post BPilgram although true to my RINO form, I don’t agree 100% ;o)  As for CD5, there is no way Lamborn will appeal to me ever…he proved that in the primary.  I live in his senate district which is enough to make me want to move.  His thinking is rigid and hardcore…nothing open about it.  This RINO will be voting for Fawcett in November because I honestly don’t think Lamborn will accomplish anything productive that will be in the best interest of the district.  Fawcett at least is open minded and can think outside of the special interests. 

    1. Brownstain (love the name by the way),

        That is a great idea, the Democrats obviously represent your views more than Republicans.  This is why you baffle me with your party choice.  I’m not really wanting to chase people away from the party, even though it probably sounds like that, I just wonder why you are a Republican.

        That would actually be a pretty cool thread, everybody could post why they are in their party, what’s important about it to them.  This stems from curiousity rather than any sort of debate motivation.  I want to be the Jane Goodall of the RINO’s.  I’ll come over to your house and just sort of sit behind the couch and take notes.  Maybe then I can figure out why Fawcett voters stay in the Republican party.

        Was it your parents?  Your friends and neighbors were R’s and you are trying to reclaim your party?  Did you want to change Colorado’s slightly larger party from within?

        I’d like to hear about cctiger’s and brownstain’s(I feel like I’m insulting you when I use your name) motivations for being Republican.  Big Irishman said he likes to be Republican because conservatives don’t like it.  Now let’s hear about you.

      1. read my post. a part of every paragraph is why I am an (R). On the most basic of levels, I believe politicians have the greatest say when it comes to budgeting. Budgeting is their most important job. While I certainly have my views on abortion and family issues, I believe politicians are guaranteed to have an impact on the budget every year.

        Sorry if that is too basic regarding why exactly I am a Republican, but I can’t spend all day blogging today. Rest assured I do have my reasons for not being and Independent (too little influence, and idealistic because like it or not we are a two-party system) and Democrat (they harp on issues and problems, but the presentation of feasible solutions is lacking in Colorado and the nation).

  7. Man O’ Action: 
    I guess I should be flattered that you what to know so much about me.  I suspect there are more of “me” than you realize.  Raised by both parents (dad in the military), I went to public schools, worked my way through college to earn my degree.  I registered republican to vote in my first presidential election for Reagan.  Proud to say I have never missed a primary or general election.  AND, I always attend my caucus (do you?) I have always believed in the “live and let live” thinking that made the West (and Colorado) such a great place…though that has changed over the years unfortunately.  I have lived in El Paso County since 1981 and while it’s been hard to not get discouraged with all the ultra-conservative thinking, I refuse to give up on the traditional beliefs that lead me to the republican party.  I do not have blind faith and never vote party line.  I vote for the person and/or issue that more reflects my thinking – accepting the fact that I won’t 100% agree with everything.  I have worked as a volunteer on numerous campaigns at various levels.  I deplore the “hate speak” of many politicians.  The “us versus them” mentality doesn’t work on me.  Stick to the issues and how you live your life will speak volumes.  Social issues have been and will be the downfall of the Republican party.  Following that route will lead directly to religion – another issue that is clouding the party (and yes, I attend church on a semi-regular basis but will miss a game or two when the Broncos have the early game).  I may not be able to effectively answer your questions to satisfy your curiosity.  It’s how I live and how I vote.  The fiscal issues usually are the reasons why I vote republican as opposed to democratic.  I may have to soften my thinking on why I won’t register independent; it always appeared to me that being an independent was making a decision to not decide.  The people I’ve met and the books I have read have made me a republican….albeit a little disenfranchised at the moment.  As for the CD5, I did not vote for Lamborn for obvious reasons.  So now, when faced with voting for him “for the party”, I would be selling my principles short by voting for him now.  I’ve heard Fawcett speak and have researched his website.  And while I have talked to those that will vote against Lamborn by voting for Fawcett, my vote for Fawcett will be because I feel he can better represent me and the views that I hold close.  As for the name Brownstain, it came from a long weekend of deck refinishing…but it made you think twice, eh? 

    1. I have wandered the political landscape even further – going to high school in the sixties causes that. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the reason I have been a republican – I have found that many of the Democrats couldn’t add. I also grew up with a Republican Party that championed civil rights – something many people forget. The Republican Party used to believe in State’s and Individuals Rights. I see a number of El Paso campaigns (look at the one in HD-21) where the Democratic candidate has publicly stated “I have to listen to Republicans, I have to understand their concerns and work to represent all of my constituents – not just those in my party.” In Hd-21, the Democrat has addressed public education;  accountability, more efficiency but – and I agree – no access to the public funds from vouchers (as an aside, I was part of electricty deregulation, don’t tell me privatization of a market ALWAYS reduces costs); health care – more private-public cooperation like “silver Sneakers” – an insurance company funded program for seniors that increases fitness, reduces medication costs and increase quality of life with NO public funds; and alternative energy – creating jobs and resources in Colorado that cannot be outsourced, that reduces the flow of funds to foreign countries and dependency on oil in unstable places. The Republican is running on school vouchers and “family value” – compare and contrast. My favorite quote there is “If you keep electing people to office who believe government and public schools can’t work, they’ll continue to prove you right.”

      1. question, but damn if Another Skeptic didn’t beat me to the punch again.  And you’re so thorough too!!

        I think the hope of every good RINO is that the social Wingnuts will eventually tire of politics and return to pulling legs off of crickets.  Then we can focus more on lower taxes, smaller bureaucracy, less government regulation, etc. etc.  We certainly don’t fit in the party of over regulation, high taxes, and big government, so if we hang in there and stay involved, maybe the tide will turn and we will gain back power.  Not being involved assures far right domination, does it not?

        1. Lauren,

          Can you answer why the hell the RINO’s vote for democrats rather than the limited government conservative Republicans in the General Elections?  RINOS give great  lipservice to lower taxes, limited government etc., etc., etc. until I am ready to puke.  But then the RINO’s turncoat on their own professed values and vote Democrat and then wonder why the state is keeping the extra TABOR dollars rather than having them rebated back to the taxpayers or why the Democrats don’t develop a rainy day fund.  Or why the Democrats will come back at a later date and ask for more tax dollars or higher licensing fees so they can create duplicate services that employ more inefficient “public servants” or create more services that benefit low-income families at your expense and mine.

          But I don’t expect RINO’s to think too deeply over the implication of their stupid decisions at the polls, because the only thing driving their irrational decisions is retribution.  RINO’s just can’t vote for Conservative republicans, because after all their conservatives…on a lot of issues…including those icky social ones that tend to prick at the conscience…

          Again, it’s not rocket science here. 

          It’s the RINO’s own damn fault that they vote Democrat.  They just don’t want to take ownership of their own decisions. When RINO’s vote democrat, democrats win!!!

          1. “Can you answer why the hell the RINO’s vote for democrats rather than the limited government conservative Republicans in the General Elections?”

            Maybe it has more to do with the Republicans desiring less government, tax rebates and fewer serivces during a time when the majority of Colorado entered a recession.  They are out of touch with what most Coloradoans want for themselves and their families…

            – ability to earn money in a good job
            – abiliity to afford health insurance for loved ones
            – desire to see proactive solutions to those “icky social issues” rather than pay more for reactive solutions.

            RINOs are not traitors, neither are RRRs.  Not all peoples’ beliefs fall into such clear cut categories as conservative Republicans would have us belive.

            That is why the RRR candidates will lose in November.

            1. RRRs suddenly are realizing that after kicking real Republicans out of the party, they will lose in November.

              Now they’re begging us to come back.

              Sorry, but fascist tactics don’t win votes, and RINOs are more interested in the welfare of our country than in economic issues that may affect them personally. RRRs would never understand that. They are about their issues, not the country and the Constitution.

    2. Seems like cctiger and brownstain both favor the fiscal issue as their driving force for being Republican.  More power to you there, I can’t stand tax and spend nonsense either.

      However, it seems like Ref. C, the states biggest tax increase in the history of money, isn’t a motivator for you.  Bob Beauprez supported giving more money to it and Holtzman opposed it, but you don’t look like a couple of Holtzman supporters.

      Kikki Traylor said she supported C at a rally, Jeff Crank was the lobbyist for Colo. Spg. Chamber of Commerce who supported it, and Dale Hall voted for it.  However their opponents who have sworn against it Kopp, Lamborn, and Renfroe respectively are the ones you are vilifying.

      I’m expecting you to say that Ref. C is too complicated to be considered a tax increase or that the state really needed it this time and cutting spending wasn’t the answer, but if fiscal issues are what drive you, it doesn’t seem that middle of the road republicans are going to get the job down.  They are by definition, not fire breathers on any issue.

      1. Like it or not — we are a democracy and something over 50% of the people of this state believed “C” was a good thing — and that it is the ilk of Andrews and Caldara that are out of touch.  I happen to be a “RINO” as defined by Man of Action — who supported C.  My kids have attended public universities, my parents need the property tax exemption — and we live in one of the lowest-taxed states in the nation.  If our Republican legislature hadn’t spent money like a drunken sailor while we had all three houses we wouldn’t have been in this mess.  Lauren B — great post.  I’m going to dream of those poor legless crickets all night.

        1. If we want to talk about the biggest tax increase in the state of Colorado — let’s talk about the increases that all Xcel Energy ratepayers are about to be subjected to — the $1 billion+ coal plant in Pueblo — which we could have done without.  Xcel ratepayers will be bearing the entire cost of this plant, plus over-runs, plus future contingent liabilities of emissions — meanwhile all of their money will be going directly to the pockets of Xcel shareholders.  Wake up people — if you aren’t outraged at this you aren’t paying attention.  Let’s quit talking about the tax increase that VOTERS approved — and start looking at the ones that no one but our governor-appointed PUC gets to put in place without a single vote being cast.  This is our beloved Republican “free market” at work — NOT!

          1. Farmboy, our RINO has said that C was necessary because he didn’t want his kids to pay higher tuition, and as much as said that the government should step into Xcel Energy in order to price fix his electric bill.

            Speaches like these make me skeptical of RINO’s who say they are big fiscal conservatives except when it comes to their kids, their parents, or their electric bill.  In those cases the government needs to raise taxes and do something about it.

          2. Xenophon posted this below speaking about his beliefs:

            “Have at least as much distrust of big business as you have of big government.”

            I agree but he said it better than I could have.

  8. Wrong Man O’ Action:
    I supported Holtzman at the State Assembly as a delegate.  Again, it wasn’t that I agreed 100% with him, but more that he seemed to be in synch with my thinking.  It saddened me that Beauprez had to take legal action in order to assure his spot on the ballot.  I voted against C for various reasons…none that would satisfy your enquiring mind.  It was the right thing to do and I’d do it again.  And I’d like to think that my breath is minty fresh, as opposed to torched by fire.  You can’t pigeonhole me and if you look at the turns the party has taken in history, I dare say I track right along with how the ultimate outcome will turn out.  May I suggest you read “It’s My Party Too” – you might find it enlightening. 

  9. The real problem with the “I’m more conservative/liberal than you” debate is that it takes eyes off of who’s more competent and transparent. It takes character out of the question. Especially for executive branches.

    In Chicago, city politics are corrupt. Everyone knows that. It’s a VERY Democratic city — and so there’s really no question about which party anyone who has any aspirations will align themselves with. It’s a Democratic city. Mayor Daley’s staff has had lots of indictments, and only a fool thinks he’s clean. But, he’ll keep being elected because he plays to the crowd as being a “real” Democrat and keeps pushing his city beautification initiatives.

    Compare that to Denver. Denver is also solidly blue, but the city politics are far less corrupt. That’s because not every contest is about who’s “more liberal” — Ritter, a conservative Democrat, won in Denver… not based on his liberal credentials (he doesn’t have any), but based on his transparency.

    Want Republican examples? Tom Delay is a Republican, and his district (Sugarland, TX) makes El Paso County look downright liberal. Because he only had to prove, for years, how much of a wingnot he was — as opposed to how accountable he was — he always won. Contrast this to the GOP-leaning western slope, and you can see the difference.

    So really, I think if you throw around DINO/RINO, you’re in danger of ignoring the overall competence and transparency of the candidate. I’d say Lieberman is an exception — he might be clean’ish, but you have to keep in mind that he represents a state where Bush’s approval rating hovers around 7%. I doubt he’ll win.

    1. the RINO’s is that they believe that we are a party of inclusiveness.  How can we say we accept abortion, when our platform says that we are opposed.  How can we say we are tough on illegal immigration as our platform says) and then lets the illegals run all over America?  How can we say we are the party of less taxes, less, government, and continue spending our children and grand-childrens futues?

      The “BIG TENT” is symbolic of a circus.  Without leadership, circus music becomes our theme song.  When we fail to take a stand, when we continue to contradict ourselves, we are looking more and more like the “South-End of the North-Bound Elephant Parade.”

      Conservatism is a philisophy backed by principals.  They are engrained in our being.  Political philisophies will always change from time to time…such is the case of RINO’s and Rebublicanism. 

      So too is Liberalism and the Democrat Party.

      1. The flaw there is that an anti-abortion stance really has no place on the Republican platform.  It’s a personal and faith-based issue, so by forcing it on the platform you are restricting who can *be* a Republican.

        The abortion issue really is a red herring, it’s basically a vote-getting ploy.  Nothing more.

        There are prominent, pro-choice Republicans (Olympia Snowe) just as there are anti-choice Dems (Harry Reid). It really doesn’t factor in to what counts most:

        Governing.

        1. ZaBlanc,

          With your line of reasoning, abolition shouldn’t have been an issue that caused the formation of the Republican party, because after all, it too was a personal and faith-based issue.

          Replace the word “abortion” in your post with the word “abolition” and don’t think too hard how it would sound during the time when slavery was legal.

          Maybe we should never have worked to abolish slavery.  God forbid that the Republican party should stand for equity of every human being…including the preborn.

      2. The Big Tent is symbolic of the old tent revivals, in the South, where Republicans were huge and Dems were hated.  It is supposed to symbolize the great gatherings of towns to hear the word, not circus music.

        You wrote about political philosophies changing and the Republicans have definitely become less inclusive over the years, but if you think that the conservatives today are better because they’re more principled in their beliefs, then that is just wrong.

      3. Do you remember when abortion issues were *added* to the platform?  The Republicans haven’t always been the party of anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, and anti-functional government.  “RINO”s used to run the party, until the Christian Coalition took it over.

        It’s kind of like the bullies coming along and taking over the playground.

        1. Hmmm…I don’t believe that abortion really became an issue until the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.  Before then, there were no “RINO’s” let alone “RINO’s who ran the party”.  Get your facts straight!

          1. There also weren’t a bunch of Dominionist wingnuts in charge of the party back then.  The original abortion plank was added in ’76 (at the same time, they defeated a plank supporting the Equal Rights Amendment); that plank was mostly about banning Federal funding for abortions.  The plank was strengthened over time, including the 14th Amendment language you apparently are using to justify calling Roe “Unconstitutional” (added in ’96).

            But the fact remains that today’s “RHINOs” are the true inheritors of last century’s Republicans.

  10. the RRR didn’t have a lingering taint of corruption….

    I am more (R) and less (D), but the RRR is free to raise its  blood pressure hating me:

    Markets work, and central planning doesn’t, but markets shouldn’t set national priorities.

    Legislate centrally, implement locally.

    Appeasement simply doesn’t work, but the military always screws it up (I have friends that I served with that are now flag rank that tell me the same thing, so all you retired lifers from the Springs – stick it).

    Rock musicians make poor defense strategists, but they have better press agents.

    Very little that govenment does can’t be done better by the individual, but there are some things, and also, it’s hard to get that many individuals together.

    Government expands to consume all the available dollars, plus one.

    Have at least as much distrust of big business as you have of big government.

    Most of our allies aren’t, nor do they care.  That includes the Israilies.

    Public education is not the cause of public ignorance, and vouchers won’t solve that.

    Neither the government nor the church has any damn business in your bedroom.

    The promise of democracy includes equality of opportunity.  All men are created equal, even those that aren’t born rich and white.

    There is a thin line between abortion and infanticide, sometimes only a few days, and yet no one supports infanticide.  But rational discussion of this is impossible. 

  11. > or it can mean you think we should CUT taxes while increasing our spending and being forced to borrow money because “our economy will rebound and save us”.

    Good one.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

60 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!