Saturday, November 6, 2010

Attention All RINOs!

You know who you are!  You're the "country-club", ever-so-sophisticated inside-the-beltway elites who don't mind being the minority as long as you get a generous supply of crumbs from the table.  You are all too willing to throw conservative principles in the trash can in order to secure those plumb crumbs.  Well, despite your bumbling, you made significant gains in the Senate and won control of the House this past week.

Besides the good graces of God, who else should be credited for your success?  C'mon!  You know damned well who that might be!  Might it be that great unwashed mob of hayseeds, hacks and country bumpkins who call ourselves the Tea Party Movement?  The fact is, without our involvement and our energy, the GOP didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of coming as close as it did on November 2nd.  However, not a week has gone by, and some of the RINO bigwigs are already seeing fit to trash the very people whose sweat and money delivered one of the biggest Republican turn-overs in history.

This Politico article shows Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham whining about the losses in Delaware and Nevada.  Commenting about Chrisine O'Donnell of Delaware, Lott plainly (and stupidly) said, "we did not nominate our strongest candidates."  Question, Mr Lott!  Who is "we"?  Last time I checked election protocol, it was the registered voters of a particular locality who elect their representatives.  Do you presume to scold the Republican citizens of Delaware?  Who do you think you are?  What makes you think that Castle would have won that election, if he lost the primary?  What nonsesne!  Moreover, I propose that RINOs did much to hurt O'Donnell's chances of election.  I speak of Karl Rove's despicable treatment of her.  Read this transcript of a Hannity/Rove interview.  Hannity defends O'Donnell, but Rove insists on bad-mouthing her.  Then she gets blamed for losing the election?  With folks like Rove throwing GOP candidates under the bus, no wonder the GOP is called the "stupid party".  Mr. Lott, you're not helping!

As another "case-in-point", Missy Smith ran as the Republican candidate in opposition to Eleanor Holmes Norton.  The DC GOP chairperson asked her not to run.  Mind you, there was no other Republican candidate that he favored!  He didn't want his little boat to be rocked by the pro-life ads that Missy was running in the course of her campaign.  Right in my own back yard (Montgomery County MD), I have it on good word that the GOP candidates for local offices received very little, if any, money for their campaigns from state or national headquarters.  They were solid conservatives too, and I hope we haven't seen the last of them.

No doubt all this is being done to kow the Tea-Party freshmen into towing the party line and shutting up about their conservative and prolife principles.  That may have worked in 1994, but many of us activists are going to do our darnedest to ensure that such stifling will not be repeated.  If the RINO effetes don't want to be releaved of their positions (as were Castle, Murkowski, etc) they will stop backbiting courageous Republicans who stand up to liberalism: O'Donnell, Angle, Palin, DeMint, etc.  They will correct their dismissive attitudes towards us and let the newly-minted senators and representatives do what we sent them to do.


  1. In all honesty, Republicans did not nominate our strongest candidates in some races. Why did Nevada Republicans nominate Angle? She was a total disaster. Was it because they wanted to shake up the "establishment"? (Who cares about the "establishement" as long as they are conservative!) Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, Angle's former opponents, are just as conservative as she is, but they were considered part of the establishment. They were also much more electable as all polling showed them 5-10 points ahead and the first poll after Angle's nomination showed her down 7. Nevada Republicans chose to nominate the weakest, extremely gaffe-prone Sharron Angle! Does that make sense? Mr. Reid's senate seat should have easily flipped to the GOP. He is deeply unpopular in Nevada because he advanced the deeply unpopular Obama agenda in a state with 14% unemployment. But by nominating Angle, we threw away an oppurtunity.

    "Country-club" Republicans are not at all anti-Tea Party. They are anti-bad Tea Party candidates. The "establishment" Republicans love Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Allen West, etc, and they are all loved by the Tea Party as well. It is the bad candidates, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, that they dislike. (I consider them bad candidates because of the many gaffes they committed, not because of their positions.)

  2. Michael, you may be right about some of the candidates not being the strongest, but I would rather see a loss (Mike Castle) than to see a fake Republican continue to advance in politics. He was no "moderate."

    As for the establishment loving the tea party, that's patently absurd considering the bad-mouthing that's gone on. Most establishment Republicans would rather see an Arlen Specter elected than to support a Pat Toomey. Well, Toomey's in and Specter is out no thanks to the RINOs. And Rick Santorum paid a heavy price because of abandoning principle for politics. I think Janet has the better argument here.

    If Miller loses in Alaska it will be due to democrats supporting the Murkowski write-in. Let's face it, she's no Republican. And if she ends up back in Congress and the establishment Republicans give her back her committee assignments, they will anger a lot of grassroots folks. No more business as usual inside the Beltway!

  3. Regarding Specter and Toomey, Mary Ann's point is well-taken considering the 2004 debacle in PA, when Toomey was thrown under the buss big-time by cowardly Republicans. Recall at that time, Toomey opposed Specter in the primary. For reasons defying common sense, Bush wanted Specter, so he instructed Santorum to endorse Specter over Toomey. In toad-like fashion, he did so. Santorum knifed in the back not only Toomey, but every pro-life Pennsylvanian who worked to get Toomey elected. Despite Santorum's betrayal, Toomey almost pulled it off. Two years later, those pro-life Pennsylvanians remembered - and sent Santorum packing. And how did Specter repay Bush and Santorum? He turned "dem" - no great loss, come to think of it.

    Agreed. No more business as usual. It's long past time for the GOP to stand behind its candidates who actually run on the GOP platform, rather than openly treating them with condescending disdain. We simply will not stand for it. Period.

  4. I agree with you, Mary Ann, about Mike Castle, which is why I did not cite that as an example. And Sen. Murkowski had an opening in part due to some of the major gaffes committed by Joe Miller, namely the incident in which his security staff acted like thugs. Not completely sure, but I read a article saying that Murkowski said she would caucus with Republicans but would not seek to retain her leadership post if she is reelected. I would also argue that this election, unlike in 2004, Toomey was embraced by the establishment. Money was spent for his campaign and many national party leaders campaigned with him. The 2004 Pennsylvania Senate race and Rick Santorum's reelection bid were pre-Tea Party, so I fail to see how they relate.

    The GOP cannot possibly fund every candidate out there. There is only so much money to go around, which is why Christine O'Donnell in Delaware received little to no funding. Her race was pretty much a lost cause from the start due to the nature of Delaware politics, and the GOP had to make a decision (and I believe the correct one) not to throw money down the drain. For the same reason, this is why Missy Smith received no funding. While the DC GOP chairman was wrong to ask her not to run, just about any Republican in DC will lose, so the national GOP would have been unwise to spend money there. The same reasoning applies to many local races; the local demographics are just too difficult for a Republican victory, so money needs to be allocated to closer races.

  5. Michael, what you said about the money now leads into what many of us do. We never give money to the GOP offices. Rather, we give it directly to those candidates whom we favor. I now reiterate my suggestion that the party itself receive not a penny, becaue it may literally go clear across the country and won't do diddly-squat for your local political situation.

  6. Michael, you wouldn't be Michael Steele by any chance, would you?

  7. Nope, just a political junkie :)

  8. what does being a member of the redneck party have to do with being catholic ?

  9. Anonymous from Nov 12, compare the platforms of the two major parties as they relate to intrinsic evils such as abortion, same sex marriage and the such. Then you figure it out. This is not rocket science.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.