Friday, September 17, 2010

RINO Murkowski can't accept the choice of Alaskan voters

I save the term RINO for real Republicans in name only. Olympia Snowe is not a RINO. She's a liberal republican. Lisa Murkowski is a RINO. She is running against a Republican as a write-in.

If you want to know why there's little tolerance for people the media calls moderates right now, it's because of this crap. If you lose, suck it up and come back six years later in the primary. Arlen Specter was not acceptable in the primary, he left to become a democrat. The democrats kicked that asshole to the curb. Specter got fired. Good riddance. Charlie Crist became a RINO and is running as a supposed independent because he couldn't take a primary. Wayne Gilchrist in 2008 lost his primary, endorsed the democrat and backed Obama. Lincoln Chafee backed Obama. Jim Leach backed Obama. Chuck Hagel backed Obama. Joe Schwarz backed Mark Schauer. Bob Inglis and Bob Bennett are having hissyfits and threatened 3rd party votes. Leftist Bill Milliken backed Obama and Kerry. We'll wait and see what Mike Castle does.

The NRSC and the DC establishment backs these RINOS in primaries. When they lose, these people, with republican money do a little hissyfit and back the democrats, run as supposed independents, or fail to accept that they lost because of their policies which were bad for their state in the eyes of their voters. Don't support TARP, dumbasses. You back things like TARP and support incompetent fools like Obama over your fellow "moderate" John McCain, and then expect us to support you? Go to hell.

What the US Senate Republicans need to do first is to kick Lisa Murkowski off of all committees unless she abandons the write in campaign. Announce that she won't get any committee seats if she wins her write in campaign. The people have spoken, and Joe Miller is our guy. If Murkowski wins as a write-in and caucuses with the democrats, we will all vote 100% against any bill she sponsors, and she will have no bills heard in committee if the Republicans take over the senate.

With the exception of THREE people (maybe four depending on what Doug Hoffman does), no "conservatives" turned RINO when facing defeat. The two exceptions are Colorado's Tom Tancredo, Texas's Ron Paul who I usually like (backed Constitution party candidate Chuck Baldwin), and John Kerry supporting Bob Smith in New Hampshire. The rest, when defeated, take one for the team as they are supposed to do. This is almost purely a liberal republican phenomenon. When Rick Snyder won, the other GOP candidates for governor gave him their support. All of them. Cox, George, Hoekstra, and Bouchard. Mark Kirk's opponent in the primary lost, and took it for the team. Chuck DeVore took one for the team when he lost to Fiorina. New Hampshire's race between a center-right and conservative candidate ended amicably.

There needs to be a sore loser law in all 50 states. If you lose your primary, you're out. No write-in. No third party. If you are running an election at one party, you can not switch in the middle of election season (Charlie Crist).

These punks need to get destroyed in politics, PERMANENTLY, by any legal means necessary.


Angela said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angela said...

Actually, Ron Paul backed Chuck Baldwin, not Bob Barr. And he flat out refused to run as an independent.

Daniel said...

Another local RINO you could add to that list is former state rep. John Stewart from Plymouth. He is on the ballot as an independent candidate for the 7th state senate district this fall.

Republican Michigander said...

I'll change that. I like Ron Paul and I voted for him in the primary, but I didn't care for that endorsement. If you can't make an endorsement for the nominee, stay quiet.

John Stewart is another ex-RINO who later admitting to supporting Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, as well as Obama. I forgot about that clown. Too bad Jonathan Grant didn't knock him out when he had the chance.

BlueDjinn said...

As a Democrat, I'm curious about whether your philosophy here carries across the aisle, when it comes to Joe Lieberman?

Republican Michigander said...

I was never a Lieberman fan, and would not have voted for him as an "independent" if I lived in Connecticut. He lost, and should have stepped back to Ned Lamont.

Between Lieberman and Lamont, I would have left it blank. Lieberman's a nicer guy, but he's still a gun grabber who supports higher taxes, censorship, and more government regulations.

BlueDjinn said...

Hmmm...interesting. OK, so it sounds like we agree on one thing: "Bipartisanship" for its' own sake is crap. Each side should take a strong stand on the issues & policies; let the voters pick which side they prefer, and then see how it goes.

The voters didn't like what you guys did for 6 (or 8) years, so they gave you the boot. This time around it's looking likely that they don't care much for what our guys have done the past 2 years either.

The question is, are they prepared to turn the reigns back over to you guys again because they hate Dem policies more than GOP policies, or are they doing it because they wanted *stronger* Dem policies and were disappointed that our guys watered stuff down?

In other words, is it an anti-Dem wave or an anti-incumbent wave (which would still hit the Dems harder anyway, since there's more of 'em in Congress at the moment)?

Republican Michigander said...

I support bipartisanship if we gain from it. I oppose it if we lose. Bipartisanship for bipartisanship sake usually means we get the worst of both parties inflicted on us in a compromise. The Patriot Act comes to mind.

I think the 2010 election is anti-incumbent, anti Keynesian economics, and anti-big government. I've been quite a critic of so called "big government conservatism" about as much as I am of the democrats, and primary voters have had enough.

The deficits and big government hurt us in 2006 and 2008. 2010 is here, and we have even more bigger government and bigger deficits than the Bush years. TARP and the Keynesian Stimulus bailout, and the health care mandates were the straws that broke the camel's back. The arrogance of "we know what's best for you" is still there.

The big government incumbents are getting tossed. What do these republicans getting fired have in common? Establishment and TARP. This is a delayed rebuke of the Bush (A Keynesian) years as well as a rebuke of Obama policies.

The irony is that I think if Obama is smart (and the jury's out on that), he can use this to help win in 2012 like Bill Clinton did in 96. Clinton was a lot of things, but dumb he was not, except on the gun issue which became personal to him as the NRA was a big part of 1994.

The biggest offenders, once again, is the US Senate, and I think they're finally getting a lesson of the level they need to be taught. I just wish Levin and Stabenow were up this year.

Angela said...

Why do you think we lost the 2006 elections? The economy wasn't tanking then.

BlueDjinn said...

In 2006 it was mostly because of the rampant corruption throughout the GOP (Jack Abramoff and sex scandals for the most part, if memory serves), plus a protest vote against the Bush administration as people finally began to realize that the Iraq invasion was completely unnecessary and pointless.

2008 was more about getting swept up by Obama's coattails.

Randy said...

I don't think the scandals had nearly as much to do with it as the Iraq war did. And I think that the GOP could not have done a better job at handing Obama the win. Refusing to back down from their aggressive foreign policy, when 2/3rds of Americans were weary of war, spending like drunken sailors...the GOP deserved to get whacked with a reality stick, since they refused to get the message in 2006.

Republican Michigander said...

Iraq was an issue in 06, less so in 08. I think it was the perceived lack of progress there. There's a lot in hindsight that could be said there. Personally, I would have voted against the Iraq war, but for the surge. I don't think it was a good idea, but once the decision is made, take the politics out of it and win at any cost. Then go home. Afghanastan is still going on, so I'm not going to comment as I believe politics stop at the border, whoever is in the white house.

Katrina was the big issue in 06 (overall competence). The incompetence in its handling, along with the massive handouts given in a panic, was the straw that broke the camels back.

Not much changed from 06 to 08. What was bad from 05-08 didn't change from 09 to present, but was more of the same and then some.

I think whether Obama survives 2012 depends on how he adapts and if the GOP hands him another easy opponent or a 2008 retread. If the GOP is smart, the nominee will either be a governor (Mitch Daniels, Hayley Barbour, maybe Tim Pawlenty?) or one of the intelligent rebels like a Mike Pence. If it's Bob Dole 2.0, then we're in trouble.

BONIFACE said...


Sorry for posting on an unrelated post, but my friends and I just put together this video that we were hoping would get spread around before the election. Any chance you could feature it on your blog and/or send it to your mailing list?

You might recognize me as the singer - we've met several times and were at the convention together.