I think the term RINO has been overused so much, that it has lost its potency as a pejorative. Especially when it is used to describe any Republican/conservative that doesn't show 100 percent, one way loyalty to Donald Trump. I don't agree with Paul Ryan on everything, but what I like about him is that he is an ideas driven guy with a deep interest in policy. I don't think performative displays(which Gaetz and MTG engage in regularly) interested him. That among other things, is probably why he is called a RINO by many on the right.
They really need to stop using RINO, and instead use TINO, meaning Trumpist in Name Only. Some accuracy in these pejoratives would be nice! As a Trump-skeptic conservative, I'll gladly concede to being a TINO.
I agree that RINO has come to mean less than 100% agreement with the views of whoever is doing the rating. I, for one, do not care about whether someone supports Trump so long as he supports the majority of Trump's policies and does not pretend that voting for politicians with completely opposite polices will end well.
It would be nice if we could get one conservative or republican who admits they need a return to truth. Oppose democrats all you want but it would sure be nice for you to do that with arguments based in reality. Growing up in the Clinton era this was always the best line of attack republicans had against democrats and its why I supported them the first election I could vote in(Dole/Clinton). Since then too many people on the right have been either tricked by the sham media that controls the right or by their desire to live in a world that caters to them. That's not reality.
Paul Ryan was one of the republicans who gave into the lies being told.
I'm not sure Ryan has defined the problem well enough or completely enough. Republicans lost with McCain who was not particularly nice and whose principles were iffy but better than Obama's. Republicans lost with Romney who was nice but his principles were lukewarm to the base. There are not enough Republicans who agree with Ryan and are willing to compromise on things they think are important. Today's Republicans are far more populist and far less willing give up their earnings and freedoms to support a nanny state favored by new generations who know nothing except ideology taught by the education system and the "woke" programming and advertising seen on TV. Banking and financial institutions who produce nothing except access to capital are now basing that access on political considerations.
They are resentful of the influence exerted by big business who are no longer supporters of America first. Neither Conservatives nor Republicans will win unless the Biden/Harris administration continues to destroy America's economy and industry and its military. Even then, there may not be enough votes to overcome the democrats and the never-Trumps who will continue to criticize and punish the party for a previous presidential
"Today's Republicans are far more populist and far less willing give up their earnings and freedoms to support a nanny state favored by new generations who know nothing except ideology taught by the education system and the 'woke' programming and advertising seen on TV."
I'd argue that the bulk of today's Republicans are perfectly comfortable with a nanny state, as long as the nanny tilts in their cultural direction. They're perfectly willing to have the State infringe on others' freedom of speech, association, and religion as long as they are not the ones impacted. (See agitation around Section 230, the Florida GOP attempting to compel speech by private social media companies, the fight around teaching yoga in schools with big disclaimers about Hinduism, etc.) The average mainstream Republican may not be "woke" in the same way as the leftist activist, but they seem to be as eager to interfere with lives and private businesses as the BLM/CRT crowd.
The Woke crowd may try to cancel folks for one microaggression or another, whereas the mainstream Republican sees issue with disenfranchising voters wholesale when an electoral contest doesn't go their way. The two sides are more alike that either would be willing to admit. And the conflict isn't about ideology, it's about who gets to steer the nanny state that both would be happy to have.
If the GOP wants to start winning again and bring back those who are questioning what exactly is "conservative" about the party in its current form, it needs to start arguing for destroying levers of power, instead of forging ones longer than the ones the Democrats have. That would demonstrate a commitment to freedom that's presently lacking.
Maybe you and I should lobby for an edit option. But, to the point, I do not approve of disenfranchising voters and do not know anyone who does. I do know dozens of people who feel that invalid votes steal our rights.
I’m pleased that we both agree that disenfranchising voters is bad and edit buttons are good.
As an election judge who has worked my local precinct for the better part of a decade now (I wrote up my experiences working the local general election polling place in 2020[1]), I’m genuinely curious where dozens of your acquaintances “feel” that their votes are being invalidated by improperly-cast votes. Let me know what they are worrying about, and odds are pretty good I can point them to the relevant portion of their local election code and procedures that will put their hearts at ease and they won’t have to be afraid anymore.
On the topic of “disenfranchisement”, let me be clear that I’m less worried about individual-level laws and regulations like mandatory voter ID (which I’m a fan of), and more worried about laws like the one being proposed in Arizona[2] that would allow legislatures to choose their electors instead of its voters when the will of the voters diverge from the statehouse, as well as Senate knuckleheads voting to disregard electors from other states[3]. (And for all his claims about only wanting to bring attention to PA and AZ not following the will of the local state legislatures, Hawley was *remarkably* quiet about Texas’s Greg Abbot’s unilateral executive interference in Houston.[4])
On what constitutes the opinions of mainstream Republican voters on this topic, there seem to be two camps: those that believe the GOP went too far on behalf of trying to rescue Trump’s 2020 lost election (e.g. Kinzinger, Cheney, Sasse), and those that feel that they didn’t go far enough (e.g. Cruz, Hawley, Gaetz). The opinion of the mainstream party voter is expressed every two years in primary elections, and I expect the anti-disenfranchisement crowd (who accept the election as valid) is going to get shellacked by the pro-disenfranchisement crowd (who "feel" that the election was stolen). Rather than move on from Trump after the election and find a better path forward, the GOP is doubling down on his Big Lie (as evidenced today by the Senate filibuster of the independent bipartisan commission on Jan. 6th), allowing him to entrench an electoral litmus test of whether the 2020 results were valid or not.
Let me know if my assessment of the mainstream Republican is off-base.
We lose nuance in website posts. My county and nearly all in the geographic area voted 75% or better for Republican candidates. My acquaintances and I do not feel we know for sure who won the election. We do feel that any invalid votes are bad and that allegations of voting irregularities were not properly investigated. The courts would not deal with the matter until after Georgia votes were certified. Now, in one of the ten most populous states that had extremely tight senate and presidential election tallies, a court has decided that that votes in our most populous county should be audited - but the audit is still in the hands of Fulton County officials. The order does not apply to other counties in the metro-Atlanta area nor the Columbus, Augusta, Macon, Savannah and Athens areas or to the smaller democrat strongholds. Biden's vote count exceeded Trump's by less than 13,000. Absentee ballots integrity in many of those places is suspect.
Pennsylvania state administration officials are documented as unconstitutionally changing voting rules and the courts have either ignored or said "too bad, you should have complained sooner". Arizona is currently conducting an audit of voting in it's largest county. There were questionable practices in other states that I have lost track of. I'm not one of them but some people are convinced that voting machines have been rigged. I personally think that any problems with voting machines are glitches or careless security errors.
In summary, I believe the election was close enough to deserve more scrutiny and that there is some reason democrats are fighting it. I think democrat officials are dishonest. Maybe Republicans are too but democrats are better at it.
I don't know if Republicans went too far in trying to save the election for Trump. I believe that challenging the certification was useless but the only thing it could have done would be to trigger a debate won buy the side with the most votes. All constitutional and peaceful unless the losing side started a war. Unfortunately, a group of hotheads started a riot during the process.
I do know most of the Republicans who objected to pursuing election challenges are never-Trumps who will do anything to punish the rest of the GOP for electing Trump in 2016.
A couple of comments stood out in your response. Feel free to let me know if you think I'm using them out of context:
"My acquaintances and I do not feel we know for sure who won the election."
"Biden's vote count exceeded Trump's by less than 13,000. Absentee ballots integrity in many of those places is suspect."
"In summary, I believe the election was close enough to deserve more scrutiny and that there is some reason democrats are fighting it."
A couple of questions:
1. (The easy one.) How many votes does a candidate have to win a state before you're able to feel confident in the election? It sounds like it needs to be more than 13,000. Would you be more comfortable if it was 20,000? 50,000? Some other margin of victory?
2. (The harder one.) In 2016, Trump not only lost the national popular vote to Clinton, but he won the following states by small margins[1]:
* New Hampshire: 2,701 votes.
* Michigan: 13,080 votes.
* Maine: 19,995 votes.
* Wisconsin: 27,257 votes.
Did any of these close races in 2016 give you or all the folks in your area the same level of discomfort that you're feeling about Biden's close wins? I'd like to give you and your worries the benefit of the doubt and establish that you're worried *in general* about close elections, not just the close elections where a Republican loses. I can pretty easily put Senator Hawley and his "concerns" about election integrity in the latter bucket (despite his position as a Senator capable of introducing legislation since Jan. 2019, he didn't introduce ANY election integrity legislation until AFTER his political patron lost). What evidence can you give me that you're not like Sen. Hawley and had these concerns all along? Any posts or comments around the 2016 election that echo similar fears when Trump won?
I’m not asking to question your consistency as an individual, but I’ve lost track of the number of Trump-supporting friends and family that thought 2016 went off without a hitch (despite the similar small margins), but when the numbers go the other way, then they think that our electoral system must be completely broken and the election was stolen. Faced with that observed behavior, I don’t have a lot of choice but to see the dominant independent variable predicting whether an election is trustworthy not being the size of the margins, but which party those small margins favored in a given election.
(And for all the crap that I give Hawley about being insincere, he’s also not wrong that some Democrats in the House objected to 2016 on similar grounds that you are, but we were fortunate that they haven’t had corresponding Useful Idiots in the Senate [yet].)
If I were a visitor from Mars watching this all from the outside, what would you show me to help me believe what you’re telling me?
Very well said Chris. I concur with your points. This op-ed in foxnews.com sums up what you've been saying about many of today's Republicans wanting a right of center nanny state. This guy, David Marcus, I think is a columnist at the Federalist, which is one of the most Trumpy right of center sites out there. He's calling for the government to regulate fact checkers. If I didn't know who the name of the author, and this column was written a few years ago, I would've thought a progressive leftist penned it.
I agree with some of what you say. Not enough Republicans agree with Ryan, but not enough Americans agree with the Republicans. Ryan is out of step with the GOP, but the GOP is out of step with America.
When your party holds a minority viewpoint and won't compromise, it's probably going to lose.
Sorta I guess. America is definitely out of step with Republicans. But, at some point, we have reached the limit of compromise. The point of no return. Further giving in will turn us into democrats.
Sorry about coming late to this party David, hopefully i can get your thoughts. There's been a hundred commentary's about what is in store for the right as they move forward, all of them leave me scratching my head. Where do you even begin?
The new litmus test is to eat the turd sandwich that trump has served up or else. I read the comments from seemingly intelligent people who have swallowed the "big lie" hook, line and sinker. If you won't buy into the bs you can't join the party. It's utter insanity because they have become fixated on the lie he won to help him get over the fact sleepy joe beat him.
To make matters worse, entire red states have devoted their agenda to placating him. Living in Arizona, one can only smile. Kelli Ward, chair of the republican party won a closely contested election for that position. The balloting was done away from the media and under strange circumstances which resulted in the two other candidates filing objections and asking for an audit of the results. Bless Kelli's heart, she went to court to prevent it...only in Arizona.
You posted a column on the latest mass shooting. I stay away from the discussion only because it's hopeless to expect change. I'd rather focus on the great state of texas where the solution is to arm everyone. No permits, no training...no nothing. God help us all.
Now we see other states wanting to suck up to trump with Arizona type recounts. Nothing to be gained by it, because they cannot overturn the election. No matter how many times the orange guys tells you it can, it cannot. By the way, just keep sending him money to further the stupid.
Last and certainly not least, the vote yesterday regarding a bipartisan commission should live on as a stain on anyone who refused to support it (dem or rep). John F Kennedy allegedly wrote Profiles In Courage and documented amazingly strong positions taken over the years by politicians who were willing to stand against their party and do the right thing. These days, there's no such thing. Simply weasels who don't have any backbone and live only to get re-elected.
I think you have a uniquely bad gun violence problem when wisdom demands you that you have your phone, wallet and gun on you before leaving the house. No other country not in the middle of a civil war requires that.
I think the term RINO has been overused so much, that it has lost its potency as a pejorative. Especially when it is used to describe any Republican/conservative that doesn't show 100 percent, one way loyalty to Donald Trump. I don't agree with Paul Ryan on everything, but what I like about him is that he is an ideas driven guy with a deep interest in policy. I don't think performative displays(which Gaetz and MTG engage in regularly) interested him. That among other things, is probably why he is called a RINO by many on the right.
They really need to stop using RINO, and instead use TINO, meaning Trumpist in Name Only. Some accuracy in these pejoratives would be nice! As a Trump-skeptic conservative, I'll gladly concede to being a TINO.
I agree that RINO has come to mean less than 100% agreement with the views of whoever is doing the rating. I, for one, do not care about whether someone supports Trump so long as he supports the majority of Trump's policies and does not pretend that voting for politicians with completely opposite polices will end well.
It would be nice if we could get one conservative or republican who admits they need a return to truth. Oppose democrats all you want but it would sure be nice for you to do that with arguments based in reality. Growing up in the Clinton era this was always the best line of attack republicans had against democrats and its why I supported them the first election I could vote in(Dole/Clinton). Since then too many people on the right have been either tricked by the sham media that controls the right or by their desire to live in a world that caters to them. That's not reality.
Paul Ryan was one of the republicans who gave into the lies being told.
Or you know: actually advance competing ideas.
I'm not sure Ryan has defined the problem well enough or completely enough. Republicans lost with McCain who was not particularly nice and whose principles were iffy but better than Obama's. Republicans lost with Romney who was nice but his principles were lukewarm to the base. There are not enough Republicans who agree with Ryan and are willing to compromise on things they think are important. Today's Republicans are far more populist and far less willing give up their earnings and freedoms to support a nanny state favored by new generations who know nothing except ideology taught by the education system and the "woke" programming and advertising seen on TV. Banking and financial institutions who produce nothing except access to capital are now basing that access on political considerations.
They are resentful of the influence exerted by big business who are no longer supporters of America first. Neither Conservatives nor Republicans will win unless the Biden/Harris administration continues to destroy America's economy and industry and its military. Even then, there may not be enough votes to overcome the democrats and the never-Trumps who will continue to criticize and punish the party for a previous presidential
"Today's Republicans are far more populist and far less willing give up their earnings and freedoms to support a nanny state favored by new generations who know nothing except ideology taught by the education system and the 'woke' programming and advertising seen on TV."
I'd argue that the bulk of today's Republicans are perfectly comfortable with a nanny state, as long as the nanny tilts in their cultural direction. They're perfectly willing to have the State infringe on others' freedom of speech, association, and religion as long as they are not the ones impacted. (See agitation around Section 230, the Florida GOP attempting to compel speech by private social media companies, the fight around teaching yoga in schools with big disclaimers about Hinduism, etc.) The average mainstream Republican may not be "woke" in the same way as the leftist activist, but they seem to be as eager to interfere with lives and private businesses as the BLM/CRT crowd.
The Woke crowd may try to cancel folks for one microaggression or another, whereas the mainstream Republican sees issue with disenfranchising voters wholesale when an electoral contest doesn't go their way. The two sides are more alike that either would be willing to admit. And the conflict isn't about ideology, it's about who gets to steer the nanny state that both would be happy to have.
If the GOP wants to start winning again and bring back those who are questioning what exactly is "conservative" about the party in its current form, it needs to start arguing for destroying levers of power, instead of forging ones longer than the ones the Democrats have. That would demonstrate a commitment to freedom that's presently lacking.
"whereas the mainstream Republican sees issue with disenfranchising voters"
should be
"whereas the mainstream Republican sees NO issue with disenfranchising voters"
Maybe you and I should lobby for an edit option. But, to the point, I do not approve of disenfranchising voters and do not know anyone who does. I do know dozens of people who feel that invalid votes steal our rights.
I’m pleased that we both agree that disenfranchising voters is bad and edit buttons are good.
As an election judge who has worked my local precinct for the better part of a decade now (I wrote up my experiences working the local general election polling place in 2020[1]), I’m genuinely curious where dozens of your acquaintances “feel” that their votes are being invalidated by improperly-cast votes. Let me know what they are worrying about, and odds are pretty good I can point them to the relevant portion of their local election code and procedures that will put their hearts at ease and they won’t have to be afraid anymore.
On the topic of “disenfranchisement”, let me be clear that I’m less worried about individual-level laws and regulations like mandatory voter ID (which I’m a fan of), and more worried about laws like the one being proposed in Arizona[2] that would allow legislatures to choose their electors instead of its voters when the will of the voters diverge from the statehouse, as well as Senate knuckleheads voting to disregard electors from other states[3]. (And for all his claims about only wanting to bring attention to PA and AZ not following the will of the local state legislatures, Hawley was *remarkably* quiet about Texas’s Greg Abbot’s unilateral executive interference in Houston.[4])
On what constitutes the opinions of mainstream Republican voters on this topic, there seem to be two camps: those that believe the GOP went too far on behalf of trying to rescue Trump’s 2020 lost election (e.g. Kinzinger, Cheney, Sasse), and those that feel that they didn’t go far enough (e.g. Cruz, Hawley, Gaetz). The opinion of the mainstream party voter is expressed every two years in primary elections, and I expect the anti-disenfranchisement crowd (who accept the election as valid) is going to get shellacked by the pro-disenfranchisement crowd (who "feel" that the election was stolen). Rather than move on from Trump after the election and find a better path forward, the GOP is doubling down on his Big Lie (as evidenced today by the Senate filibuster of the independent bipartisan commission on Jan. 6th), allowing him to entrench an electoral litmus test of whether the 2020 results were valid or not.
Let me know if my assessment of the mainstream Republican is off-base.
[1] https://www.notesfromthevoid.cc/p/note-10-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-chicago
[2] https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/proposed-law-would-allow-arizona-legislature-to-overturn-presidential-election-results/article_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.html
[3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/01/02/republican-senators-join-josh-hawley-election-objection/4113152001/
[4] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Abbott-mail-ballot-drop-off-harris-county-election-15612991.php
We lose nuance in website posts. My county and nearly all in the geographic area voted 75% or better for Republican candidates. My acquaintances and I do not feel we know for sure who won the election. We do feel that any invalid votes are bad and that allegations of voting irregularities were not properly investigated. The courts would not deal with the matter until after Georgia votes were certified. Now, in one of the ten most populous states that had extremely tight senate and presidential election tallies, a court has decided that that votes in our most populous county should be audited - but the audit is still in the hands of Fulton County officials. The order does not apply to other counties in the metro-Atlanta area nor the Columbus, Augusta, Macon, Savannah and Athens areas or to the smaller democrat strongholds. Biden's vote count exceeded Trump's by less than 13,000. Absentee ballots integrity in many of those places is suspect.
Pennsylvania state administration officials are documented as unconstitutionally changing voting rules and the courts have either ignored or said "too bad, you should have complained sooner". Arizona is currently conducting an audit of voting in it's largest county. There were questionable practices in other states that I have lost track of. I'm not one of them but some people are convinced that voting machines have been rigged. I personally think that any problems with voting machines are glitches or careless security errors.
In summary, I believe the election was close enough to deserve more scrutiny and that there is some reason democrats are fighting it. I think democrat officials are dishonest. Maybe Republicans are too but democrats are better at it.
I don't know if Republicans went too far in trying to save the election for Trump. I believe that challenging the certification was useless but the only thing it could have done would be to trigger a debate won buy the side with the most votes. All constitutional and peaceful unless the losing side started a war. Unfortunately, a group of hotheads started a riot during the process.
I do know most of the Republicans who objected to pursuing election challenges are never-Trumps who will do anything to punish the rest of the GOP for electing Trump in 2016.
A couple of comments stood out in your response. Feel free to let me know if you think I'm using them out of context:
"My acquaintances and I do not feel we know for sure who won the election."
"Biden's vote count exceeded Trump's by less than 13,000. Absentee ballots integrity in many of those places is suspect."
"In summary, I believe the election was close enough to deserve more scrutiny and that there is some reason democrats are fighting it."
A couple of questions:
1. (The easy one.) How many votes does a candidate have to win a state before you're able to feel confident in the election? It sounds like it needs to be more than 13,000. Would you be more comfortable if it was 20,000? 50,000? Some other margin of victory?
2. (The harder one.) In 2016, Trump not only lost the national popular vote to Clinton, but he won the following states by small margins[1]:
* New Hampshire: 2,701 votes.
* Michigan: 13,080 votes.
* Maine: 19,995 votes.
* Wisconsin: 27,257 votes.
Did any of these close races in 2016 give you or all the folks in your area the same level of discomfort that you're feeling about Biden's close wins? I'd like to give you and your worries the benefit of the doubt and establish that you're worried *in general* about close elections, not just the close elections where a Republican loses. I can pretty easily put Senator Hawley and his "concerns" about election integrity in the latter bucket (despite his position as a Senator capable of introducing legislation since Jan. 2019, he didn't introduce ANY election integrity legislation until AFTER his political patron lost). What evidence can you give me that you're not like Sen. Hawley and had these concerns all along? Any posts or comments around the 2016 election that echo similar fears when Trump won?
I’m not asking to question your consistency as an individual, but I’ve lost track of the number of Trump-supporting friends and family that thought 2016 went off without a hitch (despite the similar small margins), but when the numbers go the other way, then they think that our electoral system must be completely broken and the election was stolen. Faced with that observed behavior, I don’t have a lot of choice but to see the dominant independent variable predicting whether an election is trustworthy not being the size of the margins, but which party those small margins favored in a given election.
(And for all the crap that I give Hawley about being insincere, he’s also not wrong that some Democrats in the House objected to 2016 on similar grounds that you are, but we were fortunate that they haven’t had corresponding Useful Idiots in the Senate [yet].)
If I were a visitor from Mars watching this all from the outside, what would you show me to help me believe what you’re telling me?
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election
Please provide some plausible explanation for the GOP gains in the House and local/State-level seats alongside the Biden win.
Very well said Chris. I concur with your points. This op-ed in foxnews.com sums up what you've been saying about many of today's Republicans wanting a right of center nanny state. This guy, David Marcus, I think is a columnist at the Federalist, which is one of the most Trumpy right of center sites out there. He's calling for the government to regulate fact checkers. If I didn't know who the name of the author, and this column was written a few years ago, I would've thought a progressive leftist penned it.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/social-media-fact-checkers-david-marcus
I agree with some of what you say. Not enough Republicans agree with Ryan, but not enough Americans agree with the Republicans. Ryan is out of step with the GOP, but the GOP is out of step with America.
When your party holds a minority viewpoint and won't compromise, it's probably going to lose.
Sorta I guess. America is definitely out of step with Republicans. But, at some point, we have reached the limit of compromise. The point of no return. Further giving in will turn us into democrats.
"for a previous presidential election."
Sorry about coming late to this party David, hopefully i can get your thoughts. There's been a hundred commentary's about what is in store for the right as they move forward, all of them leave me scratching my head. Where do you even begin?
The new litmus test is to eat the turd sandwich that trump has served up or else. I read the comments from seemingly intelligent people who have swallowed the "big lie" hook, line and sinker. If you won't buy into the bs you can't join the party. It's utter insanity because they have become fixated on the lie he won to help him get over the fact sleepy joe beat him.
To make matters worse, entire red states have devoted their agenda to placating him. Living in Arizona, one can only smile. Kelli Ward, chair of the republican party won a closely contested election for that position. The balloting was done away from the media and under strange circumstances which resulted in the two other candidates filing objections and asking for an audit of the results. Bless Kelli's heart, she went to court to prevent it...only in Arizona.
You posted a column on the latest mass shooting. I stay away from the discussion only because it's hopeless to expect change. I'd rather focus on the great state of texas where the solution is to arm everyone. No permits, no training...no nothing. God help us all.
Now we see other states wanting to suck up to trump with Arizona type recounts. Nothing to be gained by it, because they cannot overturn the election. No matter how many times the orange guys tells you it can, it cannot. By the way, just keep sending him money to further the stupid.
Last and certainly not least, the vote yesterday regarding a bipartisan commission should live on as a stain on anyone who refused to support it (dem or rep). John F Kennedy allegedly wrote Profiles In Courage and documented amazingly strong positions taken over the years by politicians who were willing to stand against their party and do the right thing. These days, there's no such thing. Simply weasels who don't have any backbone and live only to get re-elected.
Shameful.
I think you have a uniquely bad gun violence problem when wisdom demands you that you have your phone, wallet and gun on you before leaving the house. No other country not in the middle of a civil war requires that.