I'm surprised former President Eisenhower isn't listed as one of the founders of the RINO group. After all, he got the 'socialist' interstate highway system built, warned about the military-industrial complex, and didn't feel any need to use 'dirty tricks' to win elections. How could he possibly have been a self-respecting Republican?

All these great little ankle biting acronyms is getting sooo old. Here's one for ya...
A-mericans N-eeding U-nity S-tupid

This being the DNC Swamp, of course the article bends ("Clintons") the truth.

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry yourself. Don't just settle for Mr. Oliphant's cherry-picked excerpt from a 2-year old entry. If you do, you'll see John McCain's name right up near the top of the RINO universe.

It also appears Mr. Oliphant knows so little about conservatives that he has to consult a website--the intellectually worthless Wikipedia.

Try talking to an anti-McCain conservative, Mr. Oliphant, before you pronounce on what conservatives believe.

"And as interesting as who is on that list is who isn't, the alleged leader of the RINO pack: John McCain."

Yeah, right. And did you see what the article said about McCain? It said:

"John McCain has been accused by many of being a liberal because of his support of campaign finance reform, his stance against torture, his opposition to Donald Rumsfeld, but most importantly his opposition to the Bush Tax Cuts, which he claims was because there were not enough spending cuts alongside those tax cuts."

The accusations hardly make him a RINO inasmuch as:

1. There is no good reason for Republicans, Democrats or anyone else to be in favor of torture. This is especially true since, prior in time, the Senate Ratified the international Compact Against Torture, and Congress implemented it in our domestic laws. So opposing torture is hardly un-conservative unless one thinks contempt for the law is conservative.

2. Although some of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act is probably unconstitutional as applied, I think most people can agree, in principle, that its goals were well intended and not particularly "liberal" (as that term is misused today). The point of the legislation was to remove corruption from the election process by making corporate and PAC donors open and accountable with their contributions.

3. Rummy screwed up. Thus, opposing him was and is okay for everyone but hard-core neo-cons; and,

4. McCain opposed Duh’bya’s tax cuts because they didn’t mandate any corresponding reduction in spending. This is in stark contrast to Reagan’s tax cuts. Reagan, like McCain, insisted on a substantial reduction in the budget to correspond with his tax cuts. That way, the federal government would have to borrow-and-spend to pay for a revenue shortfall. Thus, McCain was not wrong or un-conservative for insisting, like Reagan, that we don’t go further into debt to maintain the same size of government while handing out tax breaks.

You were saying?

"Try talking to an anti-McCain conservative, Mr. Oliphant, before you pronounce on what conservatives believe."

Posted by: Bruce | February 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Okay Bruce, I'm game. I'm a conservative, and I'd like to know why you think John McCain isn't a conservative.

Tom J:

What do you mean by saying Eisenhower got "the 'socialist' interstate highway system built"? Are you joking?

A penny for your thoughts sir.

I will never vote for pompous McCain. The guy is a one act dog and pony show. WAR WAR WAR.

Listen to him stump. He knows nothing about the economy, health care, foreign trade, etc.

He avoids talking about the issues and always refers back to his 'don't question me, I'm an American patriot ' rhetoric.

CONSERVATISM IS DEAD!

R. I. P.

Thankyou, John McCrazy

From, a bleeding heart, tree hugging, stinkin' Librul...

Most people, and certainly most politicians, are RINOs or DINOs to a certain extent. How many have a 100% voting record on the “supposed” party positions? Who officially decides the party positions? The idea that people are supposed to march in lockstep with decisions involving dozens of disparate issues is ridiculous. The Republican party is just as much a “big tent” as the Democratic party, as this election is once again proving.

“Which part of Freedom of Speech doesn't John McCain get?”

* * * * *

Posted by: AJF | November 12, 2007 3:38 PM

Honestly? I don’t think he gets any of it. In fact, the so-called “liberals” on the Supreme Court don’t seem to get it either.

The plurality of the court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life consisted of the so-called “strict constructionists” – Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, whom the Left love to vilify. But they were the ones who defended the right of political speech, and held the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” (the “BCRA”) could not constitutionally be used to criminalize “issue ads” in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. In fact, the Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas would have voted to overrule McConnell v. FEC, to the extent it held certain sections of the BCRA were not unconstitutional on their face. In contrast, it was the so-called liberals – Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens – who believed “issue ads” could be criminalized without violating the First Amendment. So much for “liberals” standing up for “that which liberates.”

I find it amazing that any governmental restriction on the content of political speech could be viewed as consonant with the First Amendment. Even among those who believe in a “sliding scale” of speech is worthy of protection, political speech has always ranked the highest, and has always been subject to the greatest protection. This is because the free exchange of ideas has always been central to functioning of an open and free political processes.

By definition, then, there can be no justifiable interest, much less a compelling interest, for the government to abridge political speech. The need to curb the influence of big-money interests in politics can be met by encouraging more people to pool their funds in PACs of their own choosing so they can have their views heard too. More speech has always been the traditional remedy for speech that one doesn’t like, especially in the arena of political speech.

In any event, McCain’s cluelessness in this matter is just one more reason I find him unfit to serve as President. Its bad enough that we’ve had Duh’bya around for eight years trashing the Constitution. We don’t need more of it now.

Ron Paul in ’08.

Posted by: John W. | November 12, 2007 7:06 PM

2. Although some of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act is probably unconstitutional as applied, I think most people can agree, in principle, that its goals were well intended and not particularly "liberal" (as that term is misused today). The point of the legislation was to remove corruption from the election process by making corporate and PAC donors open and accountable with their contributions.

Posted by: John W. | February 1, 2008 5:01 PM

Isn't it fun watching the conservatives change their tune as McCain get's closer to the nomination?

* * * * *

Posted by: Observer | February 1, 2008 6:00 PM

How did I change my tune? I didn't say I was going to vote for McCain. I still support Ron Paul. I still believe the BCRA was bad legislation (or didn’t you see the part about it being probably unconstitutional as applied?), and that McCain is clueless when it comes to the First Amendment. That legislation is “well intended” doesn’t save it from being unconstitutional. Most unconstitutional legislation is “well intended.”

Nevertheless, it's one thing disagree with McCain on one issue, and even to believe he is unsuitable for the Presidency (as I do), and an entirely different thing to lie about him and vilify him the way some so-called conservative groups have done on all of the points. Or can't you see the distinction?

Please try not to read too much into what I say. I simply don’t like it when neo-cons lie about people. There was no change of tune here.

This is awesome! Thank God the Mormon Pseudo-Conservative (supported a socialized healthcare system, was pro-abortion, tried to grab all of his citizens guns AND raised taxes while he was Mass. governor) has been labeled as what he is. Thank you, Jim Oliphant!

Bruce, were you at the McCain rally tonight in Villa Park? Big Jim Thompson was, and he endorsed McCain! So did Peter Roskam, Mark Kirk, and Jim Durkin. Are those guys conservative enough for you?

"Try talking to an anti-McCain conservative, Mr. Oliphant, before you pronounce on what conservatives believe."

Posted by: Bruce | February 1, 2008 4:43 PM

Okay Bruce, I'm game. I'm a conservative, and I'd like to know why you think John McCain isn't a conservative.

Posted by: John W."

"John W", I'll accept you at your word that you're a conservative, and reply by noting that I didn't say above whether I believe John McCain is a conservative or not. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

Observer,

Johnny W claims to be a "real Conservative" (whatever the H that means)...unless of course you're talking about when he voted for George Bush or when he gets in line with the other sheeple and votes for McSurge McCain in 08.

See what I mean? it's real simple...

Social libertarians don't care for McCain much either, if at all. He's Anti-Choice, he's in favor of the Drug War, he's in favor of crack downs on free speech through McCain-Feingold.

This may be one time where libertarians join in with social conservatives. Funny how McCain is uniting our two normally opposed factions.

John mcCain is anything but conservative. He is against all tax cuts matter what he says now.
He is for amnesty for illegals.
He joined Russ Feingold to stifle free speech 60 days before an election.
Worse than all this is is joining Joe Lieberman to anoint Algore's global warming religion with a tax on Americans as high as $1,000 to save the environment.
He is constantly working with Teddy Kennedy against all conservatives.
John McCain invented the nick name RINO! Jerry White, Springfield, IL GOP you have till Tuesday when the polls close to shut this Democrat up. Vote Mitt Romney Save America.

John W,

Bruce is right, he never actually says whether or not he believes McCain is a conservative, he just implies that he is not by pointing out that McCain is at the top of a list for Republicans In Name Only.

Unless there is some other point to his ridiculous post, other than the opportunity to slam the source because he doesn't like it.

Bruce, isn't there some kind of cherry-picked Rasmussen poll that you could trot out to support your non-point about McCain?

You know, the same you Rasmussen polls you claim are so reliable yet got it all wrong in New Hampshire just like all the other polls you trashed.

And you talk about Oliphant cherry-picking? You truly are a comedian.

RNC Gadfly Bruce,

You're a shill.

Bruce:

I put no words in your mouth.

You wrote:

"Try talking to an anti-McCain conservative, Mr. Oliphant, before you pronounce on what conservatives believe."

In this, you unequivocally imply an "anti-McCain conservative" has something to say about conservatism that gives it a complete or true picture not otherwise available. It is, in fact, Mr. Oliphant’s failure to consult an anti-McCain conservative, according to you, that makes him ignorant of “what conservatives believe.” This, in turn, raises the unmistakable inference that McCain’s position – being different from that of an anti-McCain conservative – is something less or different than “what conservatives believe.” Thus, it was fair to ask you how John McCain’s positions differ from conservatism – which is what you plainly implied. So, you can either answer the question or explain what the heck you meant by the above-quoted statement.

JohnEEE-boy,

Most Republicans, including traditional conservatives, voted for Duh’bya in 2000. That’s because they believed he was a traditional conservative. That’s the way he and the rest of the party marketed him. It wasn’t until later that we discovered we were sold a bill of goods. I’ve patiently explained this to you at least a half a dozen times.

Let me make this clear: I do not, and will not, apologize for the way I voted. It was the right choice based on what I knew at the time. The alternative was to vote for Al Gore – who was someone who struck me as being a stiff, incompetent do-nothing. Thus, my only real choices were to vote the way I did or stay home. Staying home is exactly what I did in 2004 because I couldn’t stand the thought of voting for Kerry.

Looking at the current slate of candidates for both parties, I see nothing but turkeys (except Ron Paul). However much I like Ron Paul, I don’t think its realistic to believe he will get the nomination based on what I have seen so far. It would be a pleasant miracle if he did. It just might turn out to be another year to stay home instead of vote.

I find it moderately amazing that the presidential races of the past couple decades have always come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. To me, it is plainly inexplicable that no one can find a real leader to run for President – one behind whom everyone can rally. Until this happens, Presidential campaigns will remain (to paraphrase South Park) a contest between a giant douche and an excrement sandwich. The Democrats are equally to blame for their failure to field a credible leader.

Mr. Oliphant:
It has always baffled me, too, why so many "conservatives" lined up so quickly behind Romney and Giuliani, for that matter, while rushing -- nay, falling all over themselves -- to trash McCain and Huckabee. While McCain and Huck have generally been considered by most to be solidly in the right wing, Romney and Giuliani have been branded RINOs for many years, as they hold to some conservative ideas on crime and taxes, but otherwise moderate to liberal on many issues, such as gun control, abortion and gay marriage. Yet now all conservatives are supposed to rush to Romney's side to protect the party from the "liberal" McCain. It makes no sense. And it is no wonder right-wing talking heads are losing influence. None of their listeners know what they are saying anymore.