Sunday, November 4, 2007

The Trouble with RINOs

October 27, 2007
Joseph Farah

The pressure on Republicans to vote for "the only guy who can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton" continues.

That's what the political know-it-alls are telling the grass-roots GOP voters about Rudy Giuliani.

He's the only one. He's the best they can do in 2008.

I have a few problems with this line of thinking:

What difference does it make if Giuliani is president or Hillary? I ask this as someone who knows first-hand the repressive instincts of the former first lady. I was public enemy No. 1 in the media during her reign of terror. Nevertheless, the fact remains, Giuliani isn't much different from the Clintons in substance. He said so himself in an interview with the Village Voice a decade ago: "Most of Bill Clinton's policies are very similar to mine."

In fact, I'm not even sure he is eligible to run as a Republican. To run for the Republican nomination, you have to be a Republican. Giuliani denied he was really a Republican shortly after winning the race for mayor of New York – insisting that he was a "liberal."

Was he lying then or now? I think he's lying now.

He's got a long and undistinguished track record of support for liberal Democratic politicians – including Mario Cuomo in his bid to become governor of New York over George Pataki.

Where does he stand on the great issues of the day?

  • pro-abortion

  • anti-gun

  • special rights for homosexuals as a class, including same-sex union

  • pro-amnesty and fought federal government as mayor of a "sanctuary city"

Does that sound like a conservative to you?

"But he can win!" insist the pragmatists.

To which I say, "So what. Who needs him?

Why work hard for Hillary light when you can get the real deal with no sweat at all?"

And, I might add, I don't even believe he can win – not with a record like that.

I'm reminded of what the pragmatists told California voters when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor.

"He's the best Republicans can do in this state," they said.

And now, as a result of that foresightedness, we have so-called "anti-discrimination laws" in place in the Golden State that many believe will make it illegal to use "biased" terms like "Mom" and "Dad" in the public schools.

Schwarzenegger signed those bills after promising not to do so. That's the kind of character and commitment you get from these RINOs – Republicans in name only.

As for me, I won't vote for people like Rudy and Arnold and Mitt. No more phonies, no more pretenders. No more "compassionate conservatives." No more flip-floppers. No more men who govern like sissies and claim to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I've had it. I'm done, through, finished, completed.

I understand I am a minority. I understand Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and other celebrities disagree with this position. I don't care. I'm not compromising. I'm not going to be a part of electing an immoral and corrupt president – not again.

Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off with Al Gore as president in 2001.

If we had, I am confident the country would have rebelled by now.

With a weak-kneed RINO in the White House, nobody is quite sure whom to blame – there's so much to go around.

Don't get fooled again.
No more Bushes.
No more Schwarzeneggers.
No more Romneys.
No more Rockefellers.
No more Fords.
No more Nixons.
And no more Giulianis.

There's still time to demand better from the Republicans in 2008.


Kurt said...

In retrospect I think we actually might be better off at this point if Gore had been elected. I doubt if it could be much worse, anyway. But then, we would now have high hopes that some Republican would soon be elected to save the day and set things right again. We know better than that now. The Republicans and Democrats are basically the same, chosen by the same shadow government.

apackof2 said...

I can't say I agree that "I doubt if it could be much worse" if Gore had been elected.

However I can agree that "we know better now"

Although I never looked for a "Republican" to set things right as I don't consider myself a Republican but a conservative.

Two very different "animals" now days it seems...