Comments on: Thinning the Herd: RINOs Lose Big

By: Ouderkirk

Ouderkirk — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:43:14 +0000

Not RINO’s…..Vichy Republicans

By: Jim Peterson

Jim Peterson — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:58:23 +0000

So while I agree with the prevailing MRM sentiment that the Republicans suddenly turned against males with a vengeance sometime after 9-11, after having generally voted against gender-feminist lawmaking attempts previously, there is an argument that says that the Republicans have ALWAYS been against males and, now that the Cold War and military phase of the WOT is over, males are waking up to the constant attacks by the party against their own sexual interests and voting against the party.

The future of the party will be in promoting individual rights. In this respect, neither Ron Paul nor Bob Barr were appropriate because NEITHER of these guys promoted men’s rights and Ron Paul went out of his way to condemn the sexual revolution.

By: Jim Peterson

Jim Peterson — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:45:50 +0000

Lowman did not mention feminism in this article, so I may have to say I disagree.

If Lowman had said that the Republicans have gone down the tubes because they stopped pandering to males and started pandering to feminists, I would fully agree.

Young people have told me that they voted against the Republicans because, to them as with me, religion no longer has a place in politics and it is a waste of time (especially now) to also make abortion or illegal immigration an issue ever again.

Most American businessmen want the right to sleep with their interns as well.

It was a huge mistake for anyone to feel that the Republicans could win the male vote by saying that a man should be fired, or even admonished, for sleeping with his secretary.

The desire to condemn male sexuality is feminist and the Republicans seemed to turn into rabid feminists during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Bush barely won in 2000 because of an older religious crowd that has since died.

Bush again barely won in 2004 because males like me supported the need to win the Iraq War.

But the Iraq War was supporting a party that had rotted from the inside out (at least in the eyes of younger males who grew up during the praiseworthy sexual revolution) because of its new support for anti-male feminism and hatred for male sexuality.

By: Denis

Denis — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:15:14 +0000

The GOP belongs in the doghouse. Conservatives do not want their party to try and be better liberals. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. Amnesty. Bailing out Wall Street. Harriet Miers. On and on.

Many conservatives have worked for decades to get to the point in this election, e.g. changing the majority on the Supreme Court for one. George Bush, John McCain pissed 4 decades of effort away. The Supreme Court will turn far left for decades. Damn them both.

I have been very loyal to the GOP even though I’m a registered Independent (why the F*ck would I be a Democrat?), but the GOP has earned it’s place.

I will plan my future accordingly. The GOP had better kick out the moderates. They have a winning formula that is conservative and needs someone to properly sell that message. The moderates have got to go. No discussion.

By: T Finnan

T Finnan — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:54:34 +0000

RINO’s were compromisers. They claimed to begin as conservatives and then turned to compromise. If you accept your opponents arguments as valid, then your arguments are invalid. No logic just an emotional desire to appear as a compromiser. Why vote for the person who doesn’t believe his arguments are valid?