Topic: RINO Alert

If Norm Coleman's prediction comes true, kiss the Republican Party goodbye.

Norm Coleman – the former senator from Minnesota and a prominent advisor for Mitt Romney – suggested over the weekend in an interview that no matter who the Republican nominee is, they are unlikely to fully repeal Obamacare.

The conservative base of the GOP did not bust its butt to return Republicans to control in the House because we like pragmatism, bipartisanship, and tinkering around with Obamacare in an effort to "fix" it. The majority of Americans want it repealed. Obamacare is a malignant tumor on the Republic. If the GOP proves unwilling or unable to cut out that tumor before 2014 -- when it goes into full effect -- then we conservatives will eviscerate the GOP as a political entity and start over. The party cannot survive without us Google the sad fate of the Whig Party; it can happen again.

If the GOP doesn't bleed to get Obamacare repealed, we'll bleed the party dry. Bank on it.

Opposition research on Mitt Romney


The document below the fold is purportedly John McCain's opposition research report on Mitt Romney from the 2008 presidential campaign.

Romney as "Mr. Inevitable?"


This post by Steve McCann has fouled my mood much more than the clouds and rain could ever do.

Multi-mouth MittThere now appears to be an inevitability surrounding Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination for president.   Are the American people prepared to sit through another term of George H.W. Bush?   The chances are that Romney would be the last Republican president, as the Party may fly apart under his rule.  The country would then have to face another round of the Left-dominated Democratic Party in charge and the inevitable collapse that would bring about.


At no time in the past 150 years has the nation needed a bold and decisive leader that could not only initiate change but be honest with the American people.

Yet the current governing class and in particular the Republican establishment is treating this election cycle as if it were no different from any other during the past sixty years.   Their reaction to the Tea Party movement is indicative of this mindset, as they choose to denigrate and dismiss this grassroots uprising as just another passing crusade by conservative ideologues.   They fail to understand that the appeal of Ron Paul is that he is willing to stick it to the ruling class.  The primary concern of the establishment, either Republican or Democrat, is to retain power through the control of the purse strings, and to put off any difficult decisions while "compromising" with the opposition.

The campaign strategy of Mitt Romney mirrors that of all the past moderate nominees chosen by the Party.   The formula: speak the language of the conservative majority in the Party, claim only a moderate can get elected, divide the vote among the conservatives running for the nomination, mobilize the media to destroy any real conservative challenger, and overwhelm these same challengers with money from the deep-pocket establishment contributors.


If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise.   If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation's problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.

This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.

But hey, maybe I'm just a Romney Denialist or a Bitter Clinger or some such.

Thankfully, my copy of Mark Levin's newest monster bestseller Ameritopia arrives today. I'm going to read it with my highlighter in hand, just as I did with Liberty And Tyranny.

McCain's endorsement of Romney


There are many things I don't get. Here's one.

Mitt Romney and John McCain

Mitt Romney is Obama's dream opponent. He's a moderate, a squish, a watered-down statist, a Democrat Lite™. So why would voters elect an imitation leftist when they can have an authentic Marxist who'd like four more years to destroy the republic? If we're all forced to choose between driving off a cliff with the cruise control set, or launching into the abyss at top speed, the people egging on the drivers will choose the daredevil. Those of us who want to hit the brakes aren't going to work very hard for the wuss who wants us all to sit politely as we coast into oblivion.

We're not interested in playing by someone else's rigged rules. If the Republican Party establishment sticks us with Romney, we'll change the rules to our advantage. They should remember one word, and tremble.


The GOP Establishment hath spoken


Time to talk back, don't you think?

Echoes, not choices.

On the Boehner bill


GOP as Lucy with the football


8:00 PM Update: Hey, our dose of fiscal arsenic just got reduced from "rapid death" to "slightly less rapid death." Best we can do. Declare victory and drink up, boys.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker!

Josh Mandel, fan of ... Al Gore?


Good catch by the Coughlin campaign. This is going to require a solid explanation.

Josh Mandel & Al Gore in 2000   Josh Mandel & Al Gore in 2000

Ed Morrissey serves.

Jazz Shaw returns.

J.E. Dyer smashes.

Jazz Shaw whiffs.

Game, set, and match to the conservatives. Granted, the debate's an easy one to win if you're willing to think, but it's always nice to see a fan of tax hikes get schooled.

Huckabee?  Hell no!

We can do much better.


10:00 PM Update: Not running. Good.

Y'know who this helps?

I can't wait to read Tom Blumer's reaction to Mitt Romney's latest missive. Tom coined the nickname "Objectively Unfit Mitt" during the '08 primaries.


2:00 PM Update: "Insufferable" is right.


5:45 PM Update: And the hits just keep on coming.

Newt is shocked, shocked


Newt on Scozzafava:

As other Republicans threw their support behind Hoffman's momentum, Gingrich argued that the party needed to be more inclusive of moderates if it had a hope of retaking the majority.

He told The Associated Press he was disappointed, and "deeply upset" that Scozzafava endorsed Owens.

"How could she have accepted all that support?" he said, adding later: "I'm very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican."

Gingrich now backs Hoffman.

Gimme a break. Newt's a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

Good reporting on the NY-23 race


Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Erick Erickson are doing yeoman's work covering the rise of Doug Hoffman and the fall of RINO Dede Scozzafava in the special election for the vacant U.S. House seat in New York's 23rd District. Could it be that the NRCC is finally noticing the priorities expressed by GOP's conservative base?

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich still appears to be stuck in some alternate universe where you can slap an (R) on a ham sandwich and it deserves his hearty endorsement.


11:35 AM Update: Scozzafava quits. The Other McCain just doesn't quit.

Newsweek's Katie Connolly interviewed former Massachusetts Governor (and former GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney about his experiences with health care legislation yesterday. When she asked him "What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?", Romney replied:

After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes, but we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.

Multi-mouth MittThe states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It's been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I've received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There's a whole series of things I'd do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.

What's Obama supposed to ask Mitt to explain? How to screw up health care through rationing, high taxes, obscene spending, and over-regulation? Both men have mastered those skill sets already.

Connolly also asked Romney "In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?"

I'm not happy that the President wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I'm convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform healthcare. It's important for us to get everyone insured. It's important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the healthcare sector.

This is just rich. Mitt Romney, the man who orchestrated Massachusetts government's takeover of its citizens' health care, is warning about a government takeover of health care?

I think Mitt's been hitting the medical marijuana.

7:00 Update: We've got health care, yes we do! We've got health care, how 'bout you?

Voinovich ain't gonna like this


Rudy Giuliani keeps repeating variations of this nonsensical statement:

"I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion ... But ultimately I believe it is an individual right, and the woman can make that choice."

I want to know why he hates abortion, but nobody ever asks him that question. No matter how he responds, he'll make no sense.

  • If he hates abortion because it kills a human being, then he's arguing that although he hates it, women should still have the right to kill human beings. I'd love to hear him try to untwist that logical knot.
  • If he hates abortion because it ends a "potential life", then how can he justify any restrictions on abortion at all? A "potential life" by definition cannot be an actual (sacred?) human life, so why the objection? He also has to explain what that aborted thing actually is, if it's not a life. Calling it a "potential something" isn't enough. It has to already be something, because it's not nothing. So what is it?
  • If he doesn't actually hate abortion and just wants to preserve the legal status quo, then he's just another liar who'll say anything to fool the conservative base into voting for him. I would bet a lot of money that this is where Rudy actually stands, but I'd also bet a lot of money that he'll never admit it.

If there's any way to make logical sense of Rudy Giuliani's abortion stance without unmasking him as a liar, I'd love to hear it.


4/13 Update: Hugh Hewitt blew a golden opportunity today.

The following e-mail from Mike DeWine landed in my inbox today. The first sentence was enough to instantly seal my decision to vote against John McCain in the Ohio primary, but I can't resist a mild fisking.

Dear Friend,

You may have heard that I am heading up John McCain's Presidential campaign in Ohio. I'd like to take a few moments to tell you why.

I have known John McCain for almost 25 years. We both were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. I worked closely with him during our years together in the House and during my 12 years in the U.S. Senate. No one is more qualified to be our next President. [Ed.: Wrong. Fred Dalton Thompson is.]

While our Party is truly fortunate to have such a strong field of qualified candidates, I believe that John McCain has what it takes - the experience, knowledge, and foresight - to lead our Nation. He is decisive. He has guts. And, he leaves no room for ambiguity or uncertainty in his reasoned policy decisions. [Ed.: Yup, he's unambiguously a squish on everything but national defense.]

I don't agree with John McCain on every issue. [Ed.: That's supposed to reassure me that he's not a RINO like you?] But, I do know that when we elect a President, we elect the Commander-in-Chief. We elect someone who is going to be making life and death decisions every single day. There is only one person I want making those decisions - and that person is John McCain.

The fact is that the future and security of this country hinges on next year's election. The Presidency requires a person of sound judgment, with an extraordinary grasp of foreign and military affairs - someone who can navigate our country through very dangerous and unchartered waters. Again, that person is John McCain. [Ed.: No, it's Fred.]

Over and over, John has proven his leadership. He was right about Iraq and the need for more troops. He was also right way back in the fall of 1983. I remember John giving a courageous speech in the House against extending our military presence in Lebanon. He believed our presence would not be sufficient to keep the peace, nor were we prepared to exercise our full military capabilities. Less than one month later, 241 U.S. military personnel lost their lives in Lebanon.

John McCain, like he has so many times, stepped forward. He didn't sit back. He didn't cower. He knows both the strengths and limits of our military forces. That kind of understanding is vital if a President is to exercise measured judgment on when and where to use our military to defend and protect our country and our interests.

The bottom line is this: I've watched John McCain for years. I know him, and I'm for him. Please join me with your support. Whether it is through a financial contribution or your volunteer efforts, John needs your help. Visit to join the team.

Very respectfully yours,

Mike DeWine

P.S. Click here to make a quick online contribution.

Paid for by Mike DeWine for U.S. Senate and authorized by John McCain 2008. [Ed.: DeWine still has money in his campaign war chest, and he only spends it on McCain?]

Every time I think McCain can't be any more tone deaf to the conservative GOP base, he out-does himself.


Update: I'm not the only one wincing. Check out VikingSpirit, Nasty Brutish & Short, Return of The Conservatives, and PoliticsExtra.

Update 2: Jerid at the lefty Buckeye State Blog wonders just exactly where DeWine's disagreements with McCain lie. Good question.


I know that many of us on the center right are very unhappy with the Republican Party, both here in Ohio and on the national level. RINO-bashing is easy partly because so many of them surtround us (God knows I enjoy it myself). But let's not get carried away by sitting out the November '06 election in an attempt to "teach the moderates a lesson."

We conservatives can't afford to sit out elections when things don't go our way every time. We have to stay engaged. Our best bet is to neutralize liberals, change moderates into conservatives, and turn conservatives into activists. Our battlegrounds include county party organizations, primary races, and the new media. We won't win every fight, but if we keep pushing and making steady gains every other year we'll reinvigorate the center right in the Republican Party.

I usually think of the typical conservative as someone who stands athwart history yelling "stop" (thank you, Mr. Buckley). But if you think about it, that means that it's not the liberals who are fighting inertia. We are! Government's default behavior is to slide toward statism and socialism. The public has inevitably learned that it can vote itself largesse from the public treasury*, so it falls to conservatives to stop the slide and drag society back toward liberty.

When we disengage as Steven Kelso is tempted to do, we allow the socialist slide to accelerate. That's not the smart way to teach moderates and liberals a lesson. We need to constantly persuade and demonstrate and illustrate so that we can recruit enough conservatives to dig in and reverse the slide. We can't win over the DeWines and the Voinoviches, but we can eventually replace them with folks like Bill Pierce. Jim Geraghty summarizes the strategy nicely here and here and here and here.

I realize that it gets tiring to fight and lose as much as we do, but if we don't fight we'll lose everything. Pause and catch your breath, conservatives, but don't quit.

Cross-posted at the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance

RINO hunting season



Govern accordingly

I'm hunting big game.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the ultimate RINO


Things like this and this are why I contributed to Stephen Laffey's campaign.

In the recent past I've advocated support for Bill Pierce, a conservative challenger to incumbent U.S. Senator Mike DeWine. Well, chalk that up to stupid idealism. Pierce is roadkill in the May 2nd Republican primary, based on the results of the latest poll by the Columbus Dispatch, which has DeWine in front with 61% to Pierce's 1%. With only 34% undecided, RINO Mike is again our standard-bearer by default. I'll vote for him only because when compared to Sherrod Brown he's the lesser of two evils. It will still chap my backside to support DeWine, a gutless member of the Gang of Fourteen, but I know better than to let Brown (my current congresscritter) get involved in judicial nominations and foreign affairs.

George Will is watching us here in Ohio, and in his latest column he predicts a tight Senate race between Brown and DeWine. I'm not so sure it'll be close. DeWine's lead over Brown grew from 5% in January to a 9% margin in a February 18th Rasmussen poll. Here's hoping that trend continues.

Two key paragraphs from Will's column:

DeWine is seeking a third term in an inhospitable environment -- the middle of the second term of an incumbent president of his own party. That is when the electorate often experiences "the six-year itch," the desire to reshuffle the political deck. ... The redistricting done for incumbent-protection after the 2000 Census may have made the House almost impervious to the itch ... so voters might vent their restlessness in Senate elections. And "restless" hardly describes Ohio's dyspeptic mood regarding its Republicans, who hold all statewide offices. Scandals and tax increases drove Gov. Bob Taft's approval rating in one poll to six. He has bounced all the way back to 16. Richard Nixon's job approval rating was 24 on the eve of his resignation.


DeWine, one of only four senators who supported John McCain in 2000, is a moderate conservative with an independent streak -- for example, he has repeatedly voted against drilling in ANWR. This may be enough to annoy some conservatives without being sufficient to distance him from the state Republican shambles. We shall find out late on Election Night when, as usual, the nation will be watching Ohio.

I'm so very, very tired of the Ohio GOP establishment and its candidates. They campaign as center-right conservatives but govern as liberals. The current leadership of the Ohio Republican Party foolishly thinks this state's voters can be made to march in lockstep behind any old fool as long as the candidate hangs an (R) after their surname. Well, this primary makes me feel like the proverbial critter caught in a leg trap who's forced to gnaw off a paw to survive. I'll reluctantly march to the polls this year and vote for RINO Mike, but if the Ohio GOP fields another crop of liberals in 2008 and expects me to step out smartly with two gnawed-off stumps, I'll cheerfully tell them where they can put this year's leg.


Update (11:25 PM): Tom from points out that the poll is unreliable, and the Dispatch itself has a sorry history of shoddy polling practices. Here's the key paragraph I missed when I scanned through the article this morning:

The mail poll of 2,894 registered Democratic voters and 2,874 registered Republicans voters from March 15 through Friday has a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points.

Notice it was a mail-in poll; those are notoriously unreliable. Also, the respondents were registered voters, not likely voters. That makes a big difference, too. Dave at has more analysis that tracks with BizzyBlog's.

George Will on Ohio politics


George Will is watching the Ohio governor's race, and he likes what he sees in Ken Blackwell:

[Blackwell] annoys the establishment because he, unlike it, believes things. He believes that the establishment is proof of a conservative axiom: Any political group or institution that is not ideologically conservative will become, over time, liberal. That is so because, in the absence of a principled adherence to limited government, careerism -- the political idea of the unthoughtful -- will cause incumbents to use public spending to purchase job security.


He appeals to small-government conservatives by proposing a constitutional cap on state spending, and even leasing the Ohio Turnpike to private investors. His cultural conservatism has won him such intense support from many church leaders, some liberals are contemplating recourse to an American sacrament -- a lawsuit. It would threaten the tax-exempt status of churches deemed too supportive of Blackwell.

He appeals to blacks by being black, and because many blacks are cultural conservatives: George W. Bush won 16 percent of Ohio's black vote in 2004. In Blackwell's three statewide races, he has received between 30 percent and 40 percent of the black vote. If in November he duplicates that, he will win, and Democrats in many blue states will blanch because if their share of the black vote falls to 75 percent, their states could turn red.


Control of the U.S Senate in 2007 could turn on whether Mike DeWine, a second-term Republican, is re-elected. He does not thrill conservatives, so he needs Blackwell on the ballot to arouse the party's base.

Blackwell annoys the establishment, alright. More power to him.

I disagree with Will's remark about DeWine's reelection being neccessary to maintain a Republican Senate. With Paul Hackett gone from the Senate race, the Democrats are left with ultra-liberal Sherrod Brown. This lefty's only saving grace among average Ohio voters is his strong support from labor unions. Otherwise, he's far too liberal for Ohio-wide voters, and is almost certainly unelectable.

That could mean that there's a good chance that even a new Republican face could defeat Brown in the general election; DeWine isn't as essential as folks might think. I'm all for party loyalty when it's a close race, but when the Democrat is unelectable and the incumbent Republican is a RINO, it's a great opportunity to elect a more conservative Republican.

The conservative base would be wise to get behind Bill Pierce now in the primary election season, and unseat DeWine while the opportunity lasts.

Hat tip: Jack Fowler on NRO's Corner

Over in Pennsylvania, Lehigh County Commissioner Andy Roman is claiming his request for help with a railroad project was met with warmth from Senator Arlen Specter's staff. That is, until Roman said he's endorsing Pat Toomey, Specter's opponent in the Republican primary.

Roman insists that [Specter staff member Adrienne] Baker Green changed her tone the moment his support for Toomey was broached.

He said Baker Green chided, "If that is the case, your transportation issue will be a dead issue; you'll get no support from us."

Green denies it. Of course.

Soros-funded group runs pro-Specter ad


Yeah, that Arlen Specter's quite a conservative ... which must be why a group that takes donations from liberals like George Soros is running a pro-Specter TV ad, says Jim Geraghty on NRO today.

Give to Pat Toomey and send RINOs a message this November: "get in line or get out."

RSS   Twitter

SOB Alliance posts
Web Analytics