I Am a RINO

 

Usually, the term “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) is used as a pejorative — a politician who caucuses with conservatives but embraces “nonpartisanship” and sinks party strategies frequently. But I am going to give it a different spin: If forced to identify with a political party I identify as “Republican” but I have zero respect for the party and those establishment figures that shake down the electorate for money and votes but are content to never really succeed in upholding the ideals of the US Constitution.

Frankly, the party disgusts me. The “move along, nothing to see here” attitude of too many Republican leaders in the wake of the 2020 election is Constitutional malfeasance. They would say they wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis. I say that the irregularities in revisions to state election processes and the ensuing chaos in vote counting was the constitutional crisis. Was the outcome legitimate? I don’t know. And I am beyond irate that thanks to the complacency of the Republican establishment it will never be known. And also because of this complacency, it is uncertain whether the changes made in some states will be sufficient to assure future elections are credible.

And they didn’t seal the border. And they didn’t repeal Obamacare. And they didn’t take a strong stand for my civil rights during the health “emergency”. They loved the Administrative State more than I.

So I am a RINO. I have no desire to be known as a Republican. But our system, in most places, makes one ineffective unless you are registered to vote as either a Republican or a Democrat. And to be labeled as a Democrat right now feels like having to register as a sex offender: Is my crime an immature youthful indiscretion, or evidence of a crazed fiend or a life-long pervert? So being a Democrat is a “no-go zone” for me.

But I take no joy in a Republican identity. The Party pros all have their timelines filled in for 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028… But I have had my fill. I want to live in America — the strong, free, fearless version not the grifter State controlled by the monied swells at the top and the mendicants at the bottom. I want to live in a place where the doers can throw off the catcalls of the Karens and go about their business of making America great. I want to live in a place where a public servant is just that, not the final arbiter of whether I am worthy of whatever pittance my government is willing for me to have, or even to say anything, or have physical liberty.

My world is upside down. I want it righted. And I don’t think the Republican establishment wants that. They want me to think that they do, and send them money and votes. But like Lucy and the football, they are ready to pull it away and let me end up on my backside one more time. Maybe the last time. Ever.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment)

     

    And there’s the conundrum all politicians face. If I win this on this one issue at the expense of others and I get voted out of office because of my extreme position, I will give up a vote on the other 99 issues on my desk because I won’t be in office to cast those votes.

    I agree with all you say but this. I know too many good men who were killed or maimed for this country and our freedom and our way of life. I don’t give a ____ about someone who won’t do the right thing just because they might lose perks or a cushy job.

    I don’t think it was a reference to perks or a cushy job. The issue was, if single-issue voters vote someone out because they voted “wrong” on some single issue, that person doesn’t get to make the “right” vote on 99 (or however many) other issues, including those which may be more important to other voters, or in combination might even be more important to those same single-issue voters. Especially if they get replaced by someone – e.g., from the opposition party – who might vote “wrong” not only on that single-issue, but also on one or more of the others.

    That’s exactly what I meant. 

    • #61
  2. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I wonder if the differences of opinion here are related to the political context in which each of us lives. In Massachusetts, the Republicans face difficult, mostly Democratic constituents and opponents. The Massachusetts Republicans tend to be more fiscally competent and conservative than their Democratic counterparts. And we need every Republican we can possibly get elected to the state legislature. And the votes that go our way are always very narrow wins.

    A friend of mine was a Republican state rep–actually, the “minority whip” in our state house. If he were to be voted out of office in his district, he most likely would have been replaced by a Democrat. So for him, seeing a hundred items on his desk that really needed a Republican victory in the legislature for everyone’s sake, voting decisions were always difficult. Our local press was great at destroying Republicans and mischaracterizing their positions or votes. He really had to pick his battles, as they say. He wasn’t afraid of a battle, and he was really brilliant in his state house speeches. But losing his seat was a huge concern. He didn’t need the job. He was there to assert some Republican sanity in an otherwise Democratic Party-dominated legislature.

    • #62
  3. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    MarciN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment)

     

    And there’s the conundrum all politicians face. If I win this on this one issue at the expense of others and I get voted out of office because of my extreme position, I will give up a vote on the other 99 issues on my desk because I won’t be in office to cast those votes.

    I agree with all you say but this. I know too many good men who were killed or maimed for this country and our freedom and our way of life. I don’t give a ____ about someone who won’t do the right thing just because they might lose perks or a cushy job.

    I don’t think it was a reference to perks or a cushy job. The issue was, if single-issue voters vote someone out because they voted “wrong” on some single issue, that person doesn’t get to make the “right” vote on 99 (or however many) other issues, including those which may be more important to other voters, or in combination might even be more important to those same single-issue voters. Especially if they get replaced by someone – e.g., from the opposition party – who might vote “wrong” not only on that single-issue, but also on one or more of the others.

    That’s exactly what I meant.

    But they don’t vote right on the 99 either.  Each vote turns into that “one.”   The only time they vote right is when their vote won’t make a difference 

    • #63
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment)

     

    And there’s the conundrum all politicians face. If I win this on this one issue at the expense of others and I get voted out of office because of my extreme position, I will give up a vote on the other 99 issues on my desk because I won’t be in office to cast those votes.

    I agree with all you say but this. I know too many good men who were killed or maimed for this country and our freedom and our way of life. I don’t give a ____ about someone who won’t do the right thing just because they might lose perks or a cushy job.

    I don’t think it was a reference to perks or a cushy job. The issue was, if single-issue voters vote someone out because they voted “wrong” on some single issue, that person doesn’t get to make the “right” vote on 99 (or however many) other issues, including those which may be more important to other voters, or in combination might even be more important to those same single-issue voters. Especially if they get replaced by someone – e.g., from the opposition party – who might vote “wrong” not only on that single-issue, but also on one or more of the others.

    That’s exactly what I meant.

    But they don’t vote right on the 99 either. Each vote turns into that “one.” The only time they vote right is when their vote won’t make a difference

    That may be true in some cases, but it’s not universal.  As has been said before, the reasonable/most-likely alternative to Susan Collins is not Ron DeSantis, or Ted Cruz, or even Mitt Romney.  It’s going to be another Ted Kennedy.

    • #64
  5. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    I think of my political alingment, similar to what you describe,  as being more of a ROON- Republican Out Of Necessity. The Libertarian political philosophy has a lot of good in it.  The party organisation is inexcusably inept. 

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.