It's no more for me. I will not blindly vote Republican just because I often canvass with them. I will not be a fool for the party while getting nothing in return. I am not a Republican first. I am a conservative.
That's right, you read the title to this piece correctly. I am admitting that I am a RINO. I admit it openly, freely, with relish even.
For those unfamiliar, RINO is not only shorthand for rhinoceros, that great beast of the African plains, but it is also an acronym. It stands for, "Republican In Name Only" - RINO.
Now, I am not going to pull a fast one here and spell RINO out with other words. No, I'm happily sticking right with the words "Republican In Name Only." So, there it is. I am a RINO.
Some of you reading this may already be feeling your stomach curdle at the very mention of the word RINO. After all, it's really gotten some bad press. Rush Limbaugh and his brethren have really done a disservice to this fine descriptive word. Heck, even I have hurled it as an epithet when confronted with a politician who hasn't lived up to my standards.
But, after reflecting on recent events, I realized that I myself am a RINO. At first I bristled at my own thoughts. But, after a time it appeared obvious that I am, indeed, a RINO.
I'm just going to have to accept it. Own it, as our pop psychology spewing friends on the left so earnestly say.
I am a RINO and here's why…
I will vote Republican only when the situation is favorable to me.
I will not go with my party when I don't like what is going on.
I will sometimes refuse to agree with my party on certain issues and will do so vocally.
If I find someone of another party that suits me, I will vote for them even if it is in lieu of voting for my party representative.
So, there you have it. The perfect definition of a RINO. That's me. But, I am not going to lower my head in shame, no sirree. I am proud of this and am glad that I have finally come to terms with it. A little introspection never hurt anyone, ya know?
Let me explain further why I now feel ready to accept my RINOness. (Or is that RINOcity?)
Yes, I am proud that I won't vote for a candidate who happens to claim the mantle of Republican if he does not support keeping the Guantanamo Bay terrorist holding facility open.
I am proud to oppose a Republican who thinks our troops are torturers as bad as Saddam Hussein.
I firmly stand against any Republican who is for open borders, opposes a border fence, and refuses to believe that this country faces self-destruction through cultural dilution.
Further, any Republican who works with Democrats to place moderate judges on the bench, or doesn't want judges that are "too conservative" will not get my vote.
If the GOP candidate is for quashing free political speech, that candidate will find me ready to quash his vote totals.
If a candidate is only picked because the party "says so," or because he is pals with the "right" people and not because of what he actually stands for, that candidate will find that no vote from me will go his way.
You see I won't support a Republican just because he somehow was able to affix the appellation Republican to his name. I will not automatically vote for a Republican merely because he claims to be one.
I vote for candidates that happen to be right on the issues, not the ones that happen to just be a Republican. Mere Republicanism is not my way.
I support life. I support the Second Amendment. I support English as the national language. I support religious freedom. I am for school choice. I am high on defense and tough on crime. I am for smaller government, fewer regulations, less government spending and low taxes. I am for untrammeled national sovereignty and would love to see the UN cast into the ocean.
I oppose union thugs, socialist programs, unconstitutional powers, abortion for any reason, the so-called doctrine of a "living Constitution," open borders, unearned paths to citizenship, anchor babies, high taxes, uncontrolled regulations on businesses and bans on religious expression in schools… any schools.
And, I am really against working with Democrats just to "prove" I am "reasonable" so that the liberal media establishment will love me.
Also, I will not vote for a Republican, merely to stop a Democrat from winning. The reason for that is, that such a practice leads to candidates the feel no compunction to buck the principles that the electorate wanted him to observe when he ran for office. After all, why would a candidate hold himself to such stringent standards if he won't lose his votes anyway? Why not just do what is easier, or might benefit his wallet - or campaign coffers - more? Since there wouldn't be any consequences
for belying his claimed principles, what stops him from doing so?
If there are any candidates running for president on the GOP ticket that once said they did not want to seem like Ronald Reagan or once supported abortion, even if only tacitly, then he won't get my vote. If there is a candidate who freed more criminals than any other governor in the country and was very weak on illegal invaders of our country, well that man is not for me. If there happens to be a candidate, say running for president maybe, who said that Samuel Alito was "too conservative" for
him, or once supported amnesty, well he is also out for me.
I really don't care if he claims to be a Republican or not.
I also don't care if there are so many people just like me that the Democrat wins the White House (nor do I care which Democrat). My non-vote is NOT a vote in favor of someone else. I am a man of principle, not a man of convenience.
Certainly, our nation is built on compromise and sometimes the proverbial half a loaf is better than none. It is an undeniable truth and one that we shouldn't try to destroy with unbending spine. But, here is the thing: compromise implies that both sides get a little something out of the deal. And, let's face it, there isn't much gettin' for a conservative out of the GOP these days.
Oh, they claim to be conservative during the campaign. They say all sorts of comforting things, stand on lots of first principles and pretend that without them in office all sorts of things will go awry.
And then as soon as they take office they begin to forsake nearly every position upon which they ran. Then they start palling around with the Democrats and hobnobbing with denizens of Hollywood and skulkers in the press. And, then it's all over. They've become Washington. Suddenly, being liked by the illiterati of the left becomes more important than principle.
And we, those who were foolish enough to vote for them the first time, are left wondering what happened? Yet but a few years later, we vote for that same apostate politician all over again.
After these last few primaries, I finally came to realize that I just cannot vote Republican just because. It turns out that I have realized that my loyalty lies with my conservative principles, not a political party. If there happens to be a candidate here and there that agrees with me and they happen to be a Republican… well, then that candidate will get my vote.
So, it's no more for me. I will not blindly vote Republican just because I often canvass with them. I will not be a fool for the party while getting nothing in return. I am not a Republican first. I am a conservative.
And I am a RINO, remember?
Read more articles by Warner Todd Huston
Bravo!! I wrote a response to RWN, (see http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/top_ten_reasons_to_be_optimist_1.php), that I wish was half as clever! What is the reference to the "I am proud to oppose a Republican who thinks our troops are torturers as bad as Saddam Hussein" point? I REALLY need that!
- musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | February 6, 2008
This is an interesting contrast with Philip Jackson's recent pieces on pragmatism when selecting which candidate to support. Phil is right to say that we have to be pragmatic by understanding that not voting for the Republican is, practically speaking, handing the election to the Democrat. It is important to decide which is worse. Compromising tax cuts for conservative SCOTUS justices, as opposed to left wing activist justices, may make sense. It's a matter of balancing what specific things you are willing to compromise. Giving amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens is going to be one of the most impactful decisions in recent history, with incalculable repercussions for generations to come. If our candidate supports it, and their candidate supports it, is it worth tacitly endorsing it when it comes from our guy because we might get lower taxes or more conservative judges? Phil would say absolutely. And from a purely pragmatic standpoint, he's right. If you have a list of 10 demands, the Democrat is going to give you 0. You might get 1 or 2 at least with the Republican. Pragmatically speaking, 1 is better than 0. But I think ideology has to trump pragmatism at some point. A more thorough analysis would weight each of your 10 demands. If the Republican can fulfill only one demand, but it is of almost no weight, is it worth lending him your support? An example I used in a discussion of Phil's article was a Joe Lieberman Republican candidacy (which, given that he is a likely contender for the Republican vice presidency this election, isn't an outlandish idea). We all know Joe Lieberman is going to appoint the exact same judges as a Republican. He's pro amnesty. He's pro abortion. The only thing you'll get out of a Joe Lieberman Republican president that you wouldn't get out of a Hilary Clinton Democratic president is assurance of further execution of the Iraq war. Is it worth it? To me, no. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Lieberman just because he had an "R" by his name. As I said in the same discussion, parties exist to reflect ideology. I vote for a party because it, to one extent or another, represents my ideology. If it ceases to, then that party has no utility for me. Why should I support it?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
Ditto to every word!
One small point, the short for the African beast is rHino, not rino. Also, RINO is an acronym, not a shortened word like rhino (short for rhinoceros).
Other than the minor grammar gaffs, a great manifesto for all Conservatives.
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 6, 2008
I have a post pending, and realized that I made an error in it. Where it currently reads: "Lieberman is going to appoint the exact same judges as a Republican", it should read "as a *Democrat*"
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 6, 2008
[…] But I'm not alone in these sentiments. For all the anger by Conservatives over RINO's, it just takes a moment to discover that in-fact, disenfranchised Conservatives are probably better served with that acronym. I Am A RINO By Warner Todd Huston […]
Pingback by Running With The RINO’s « Sword At-The-Ready | February 7, 2008
Regarding McCain's position on Guantanamo - you might find the exchange I had with Jeff Osonitsch on this very site, about a month ago, interesting (starts at comment #6): http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/01/09/if-gop-runs-a-rino-for-president-the-party-will-crash-and-burn/
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 7, 2008
Good summary of my position as well. We disagree on some of your points but that is why I have never voted a party line. Finding the candidate that best meets my interests is difficult therefore I don't care what their party affiliation is. Beyond that when I can find no one for an office that meets my minimum criteria I do a write in of someone that does meet those criteria.
Comment by Mickey G | February 7, 2008
Patrick,
The idea that McCain will appoint conservative judges is a fairy tale. Much as it was when Hannity and others said it about Guiliani. He votes liberally on everything, so why would he appoint a judge who thinks so completely different than him?
Comment by WolvenBear | February 7, 2008
WB, that was just an example for illustrative purposes. See my post in Phillip Jackson's last thread for my opinion on McCain.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 7, 2008
"I am proud to oppose a Republican who thinks our troops are torturers as bad as Saddam Hussein."
Someone want to show me where McCain has said anything like this? As far as I am aware he has said two things:
1. Waterboarding is torture; and
2. The United States should not torture people.
Which one of those things do you disagree with, and why?
I direct the question to anyone who cares to answer it.
Comment by Katzen | February 7, 2008
"1. Waterboarding is torture; and
Which one of those things do you disagree with, and why?
I direct the question to anyone who cares to answer it. "
Well, that one's simple. People do not volunteer to be tortured. No one lines up to have cigarettes put out of them, or to have fingers removed to make a point. People line up to get waterboarded as protest.
And we don't torture our own soldiers. We don't cut them or break bones, yet we waterboard them.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 7, 2008
WB,
That just shows that removing fingers is a worse form of torture than waterboarding. It doesn't mean waterboarding isn't torture. There are strange people out there who for one reason or another give themselves electric shocks. Is that not torture when done to someone who does not want it done to him?
The legal definition of torture, found in 18 U.S.C. s. 2340, refers not just to acts causing "severe" "pain," but also those causing "severe" "suffering." The Justice Department acknowledges the distinction between the two, noting that something need not be "agonizing" or "excruciating" to be "torture." (See the Office of Legal Counsel's "Legal Standards Applicable Under 18 U.S.C. ss. 2340-2340A).
Pretend that you did not know that the United States occassionally used waterboarding, and imagine you read that Iran strapped prisoners to a board, elevated their feet, and either dunked them in water or otherwise gave them a drowning sensation by pouring water over a towel over their face. Would you have any trouble concluding that this was torture?
By the way, I think one reason some people have volunteered to be waterboarded is that it is hard to imagine it being that bad from the way it is frequently described. I have heard accounts from those who have experienced it that it was the worst experience in their lives. Once you get a good idea of what it actually is, I don't think you are likely to volunteer for it.
Waterboarding works, by the way, because it makes its victims think they are going to die. Other forms of mock executions have always been considered torture–for instance, putting an empty pistol to a prisoner's head and pulling the trigger (something McCain experienced in his 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton).
Comment by Katzen | February 7, 2008
"Pretend that you did not know that the United States occassionally used waterboarding, and imagine you read that Iran strapped prisoners to a board, elevated their feet, and either dunked them in water or otherwise gave them a drowning sensation by pouring water over a towel over their face. Would you have any trouble concluding that this was torture?"
That's a pretty far-fetched hypothetical, because Iranian "interrogators" tend to lean toward, say, hacking someone's head off for several minutes with a Katana blade on webcam and streaming it live on the internet. Comparatively speaking, I'd be pretty happy if the worst thing middle eastern governments, and the terrorists they support, did to Americans was to tilt them backwards and pour water down their nose for half a minute. But, hey, that's me. If waterboarding is considered "torture", then there's a lot of high school football teams, college fraternities, and private clubs whose leaders should be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
For the record, I don't think putting a hood on someone's head, pointing at his penis, and laughing at him is "torture" either.
To compare what John McCain experienced as a POW in Vietnam - having been beaten, stabbed, had bones broken, leaving him unable to bend his legs or lift his arms above his head - to tilting someone's head back and pouring water down his nose is a pretty heavy handed use of rhetoric and hyperbole. While you're at it, don't forget: Bush is Hitler, Republicans are fascists, Christians hate gay people, white people are racist, and Jews blew up the levies in New Orleans.
"By the way, I think one reason some people have volunteered to be waterboarded is that it is hard to imagine it being that bad from the way it is frequently described. I have heard accounts from those who have experienced it that it was the worst experience in their lives. Once you get a good idea of what it actually is, I don’t think you are likely to volunteer for it."
Really? So simulated drowning isn't something that people usually do to recreate? Well, go figure. Somebody better get ahold of Club Med and let them know before they make a serious mistake.
It's not supposed to be a pleasant experience. It's supposed to be a really really bad experience. Violent religious zealots usually don't give up information if you subject them to pleasant conversation and a nice cold beer. Of course no one is likely to volunteer for it. No one is likely to volunteer for prison time, or lethal injection either. That's kind of the point. If those experiences were comfortable and pleasant they wouldn't really serve their purpose. If you think that laughing at someone's penis, or pouring water into his nose to simulate the effect of drowning constitutes "severe" "suffering", you've lived a very good, sheltered, American lifestyle, and are completely ignorant of history. "Severe" "suffering" should constitute a lot more than hurt feelings. Any interrogation technique you can sit up, wipe your chin, and walk away from unscathed has not caused you any "severe" "suffering".
"Torture" of any kind, real or imagined, should always be an option anyway. The US should not be a signatory or member of any international covenant that takes away our ability to do whatever we want or need to during war or conflict. The only countries who can be counted on to uphold Geneva Convention rules are ones we have no chance of ever getting into a war with anyway. We should not be expected to hold ourselves to one standard while our enemies hold themselves to another. Same goes in regards to killing civilians, bombing mosques, destroying infrastructure, and any other war making activities. Barbarism is perfectly acceptable when engaging in an act that is inherently barbaric. The sense of dignity brought to people who experience the war via CNN by feminizing the process so that it is more pleasant to watch is of no real value in actually executing a war. Courtesy should not be extended to people captured during a war or conflict.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 7, 2008
"If waterboarding is considered “torture”, then there’s a lot of high school football teams, college fraternities, and private clubs whose leaders should be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity."
The statute I referred to requires that the torture be committed by persons acting "under color of law."
"To compare what John McCain experienced as a POW in Vietnam - having been beaten, stabbed, had bones broken, leaving him unable to bend his legs or lift his arms above his head - to tilting someone’s head back and pouring water down his nose is a pretty heavy handed use of rhetoric and hyperbole."
I compared one form of torture John McCain experienced (a mock execution) with waterboarding (which is also a mock execution). I didn't say Guantanamo detainees have it as bad as McCain did.
"'Severe' 'suffering' should constitute a lot more than hurt feelings."
I agree. Read the memo of the Office of Legal Counsel I referred to above for more on this.
"'Torture'" of any kind, real or imagined, should always be an option anyway. The US should not be a signatory or member of any international covenant that takes away our ability to do whatever we want or need to during war or conflict. The only countries who can be counted on to uphold Geneva Convention rules are ones we have no chance of ever getting into a war with anyway. We should not be expected to hold ourselves to one standard while our enemies hold themselves to another. Same goes in regards to killing civilians, bombing mosques, destroying infrastructure, and any other war making activities. Barbarism is perfectly acceptable when engaging in an act that is inherently barbaric. The sense of dignity brought to people who experience the war via CNN by feminizing the process so that it is more pleasant to watch is of no real value in actually executing a war. Courtesy should not be extended to people captured during a war or conflict."
I could not disagree more. Even in war, some things are morally unacceptable. We don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings just because our enemy does. Israel doesn't bomb Ramadan service just because its enemy bombs Passover seders. My position, by the way, is not a product of "CNN…feminizing the process;" the decent treatment of people captured during war is an old idea in civilized societies.
Comment by Katzen | February 8, 2008
Katzen, your position is rather naive. Most military undergo training more tortuous than waterboarding. When I started college so did pledges to fraternities. But the bottom line comes down to the naivete in believing that because we pledge not to do something our nationals will be treated with the same level of concern. Sorry one sided gestures like disarmament simply do not work. If you would like to test the premise leave your front door open in a gesture of good will so that all know you believe that everyone will respect your position and not stop by to loot. Somehow I suspect you will be looking at an empty and trashed house.
Comment by Mickey G | February 8, 2008
Katzen,
Put it this way: if the worst treatment McCain received at the hands of the Vietnamese was "mock execution", I don't think he'd garner the sympathy that motivates him to mention his service in Vietnam every third sentence like he does today. I don't know if I would equate waterboarding with deliberately deceiving someone into thinking you are going to shoot them in the head either. In wartime situations, or when dealing with terrorists or illegal, non-uniformed combatants, I don't find either of those activities troubling enough to warrant a 20 year prison sentence, as prescribed in the US code you cited.
From what I read of the US code you cited, "severe suffering" is left somewhat ambiguous, but could basically be construed as just about any physical or non-physical act that so much as frightens someone. Scaring people during the course of interrogations should not put one at risk of being a "torturer" - even scaring them about their mortality. Using the language I read in the code, most high-pressure police interrogations could be construed as "torture".
Obviously we have fundamentally different viewpoints on this issue, but I don't have any moral outrage at waterboarding people captured during wartime. This isn't something that gets done on a daily basis to civilians off the street who are minding their own business.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 8, 2008
"But the bottom line comes down to the naivete in believing that because we pledge not to do something our nationals will be treated with the same level of concern."
Just to be clear, I do not for a minute believe that our refusal to torture terrorists will be met by terrorists with a similar refusal to torture Americans. I'm quite sure that regardless of what we do, terrorists will continue to torture American captives. My position is that regardless of whether terrorists torture Americans, Americans should not torture terrorists.
Comment by Katzen | February 8, 2008
Mr. Mulligan,
Read the memo from the Office of Legal Counsel–an executive branch agency. It contains an excellent section on what constitutes "severe suffering." You'll note from subsection 2 that "severe mental suffering" must be "prolonged," so I don't think the statute is so broad as to make simply frightening a prisoner "torture."
"This isn’t something that gets done on a daily basis to civilians off the street who are minding their own business."
I certainly hope not, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. But since armies and intelligence agencies, like police or anyone else, do occassionally make mistakes, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that somebody in Gitmo is innocent (and I realize that not everyone at that facility is waterboarded).
Comment by Katzen | February 8, 2008
As I said, I didn't give it a full read. If "prolonged" is a qualifier for "severe mental suffering", then 30 seconds of water in the nose probably wouldn't qualify.
Not being privy to the information that our military and intelligence people are, I couldn't say that everybody at Guantanamo is guilty. Given the type of suspects that are generally held there, I would wager that there's not a lot of rosy cheeked Boy Scouts who have been railroaded locked up there though. And like you mentioned, I think the people getting waterboarded are probably the type of guys that don't leave much in the way of ambiguity.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 8, 2008
I think we need to introduce a new concept into the political mix: the WINOs (Wish It Never Occurred).
When their candidate or ideology fails to secure their party’s nomination for President, WINOs withdraw from the electoral process rather than choose the best candidate among the two running for office. At this point, rather than not voting, some WINOs decide to cast their votes for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, thus becoming WIMPS (Waste It Making Protest Statements).
Whether WINO’s or WIMPS, it’s a losing electoral strategy. But there is one up-side. President Hillary Clinton or President Barak Obama thank you for your principled stand, because when they set about ruining the country with their anti-conservative agenda, you’ll be able to hold your head high and say “At least I kept John McCain from becoming president!”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 8, 2008
Can anyone here name an enemy of the US that during wartime or other has treated our prisoners with any sort of humane treatment? In WWII the Japs didn't. In Korea, our captured guys were tortured, they military was so concerned they invented the code of conduct. We sure as heck know torture works from McCain and other pilots, as evidenced from his and hundreds of other braves souls left to rot in the Hanoi Hilton by our government. Ask anyone, torture works, you will lie once and probably only once. But don't be fooled, torture works. Does that make it right? No, but don't cloud the issue by saying it doesn't work. Our best and brightest broke down under 'real' torture over there. Waterboarding is not torutre btw. Its uncomfortable at most.
Comment by Dean | February 9, 2008
Anyone noticed that in ol' baghdad the violence is once again on the upswing? Why? Because by definition our military, aka USArmy screwed up. The 'surge' did not work. It worked while we had extra thousands of troops on every corner and the occasional bust of another 4th string AQ operative. But now that we are once again moving the the other hotspots, the daily IED detonations are going up, kids are being detonated as suicide bombers next to their bomb weilding sisters and moms, retarded or not. We are screwed for a hundred years because we want to have some semblence of something called 'american' victory when it will never happen in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east.
Yes, ask me why?
Comment by Dean | February 9, 2008
Dean,
As far as I am aware, the Germany and Italy in World War II followed international law in treating American prisoners of war, although I think the Germans were less kind to Russian POWs.
It is possible that torture "works"–no one here said otherwise. As for waterboarding, I respectfully disagree when you say it is not torture. It is not merely "uncomfortable"–it makes its victim think he is going to die. There are all kinds of acts that are considered torture under American and international law that don't even rise to the level of "uncomfortable" (which I take to mean causing physical discomfort).
Comment by Katzen | February 9, 2008
Warner, I didn't know that! I and perhaps millions of other conservatives and Independents thought RINO meant you were more of a Democrat (McCain) than a Republican.
Perhaps the only way to spread this round the country is to let Rush, all the other talking head Republican conservatives and the Internet Bloggers know the true meaning of the word RINO.
I used that same picture of the Rhino featuring McCain as the RINO when I was hammering him on the blogs about his signature Acts, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCAin/Lieberman, etcetara.
Warner, I spent about thirty years in the Marine Corps and was always out of pocket somewhere when it came time to vote. The outcome of any election did not have much affect on our jobs anyway, so most of us decided we were Independents with a conservative Republican bent. Feels kinda strange being an Independent RINO.
Comment by FromTheTop | February 9, 2008