Recalling the History of RINOs

By Bruce Walker

As a Republican victory in 2010 becomes increasingly likely, conservatives need to understand that the fight to keep the Republican Party really stand for something is not new.  In the last eighty years, except for Reagan and Goldwater, every Republican presidential nominee has been what we today would call a RINO.  Does that statement sound extreme?  Consider the history.

Republicans in 1928 and then again in 1932 nominated Herbert Hoover as the party’s standard bearer.  In 1920, Hoover was universally recognized as a brilliant administrator of war relief efforts.  Democrats wanted Hoover, who had never held political office, to be the Democrat nominee for President in 1920, and Hoover considered accepting that nomination.  Although Hoover served in Republican administrations as Secretary of Commerce, he substantially increased the role of the federal government and was hardly a conservative. 

In 1936, Republicans picked Alf Landon to run against Franklin Roosevelt.   Landon was a liberal Republican from Kansas who supported much of the New Deal.  Wendell Willkie, the 1940 nominee, was not just a RINO:  he was a Democrat delegate to the convention that nominated Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.  Willkie had never held political office before, and after he lost to FDR, the “Republican” nominee spent a good deal of his time supporting Roosevelt’s policies, ostensibly representing the Republican Party.

The next two men nominated by Republicans – the nominees at the 1944, 1948, 1952, and 1956 conventions – looked very much like two contemporary “Republican” leaders, Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell.  Tom Dewey, like Rudy, was a fearless and effective New York prosecutor who then ran for higher office (Dewey was elected Governor of New York.)  A decent man, Dewey was the penultimate moderate, nominated over genuine conservatives at Republican conventions.

Dwight Eisenhower, like Colin Powell, rose through the ranks of the United States Army to become Army Chief of Staff.  Both Democrats and Republicans wanted Eisenhower to be their party’s presidential nominee in 1948, showing just how wholly removed from politics the general had been.  Eisenhower appointed leftist Earl Warren to be Chief Justice; he made no effort to reduce taxes or roll back the New Deal in the prosperity of the 1950s; and later, when a real conservative was nominated by Republicans in 1964, former President Eisenhower pointedly stayed on the sidelines.

Eisenhower also bequeathed to the Republican Party as its 1960 standard bearer Richard Nixon, a pedigree RINO.  Kennedy, in 1960, ran a foreign policy campaign to the right of Nixon.  Kennedy also would implement vital and deep tax cuts, something Nixon ignored.  Nixon chose as his running mate in 1960 Henry Cabot Lodge, a strong supporter of the United Nations and in 1965 the man Lyndon Baines Johnson chose to be Ambassador to Vietnam. 

In 1964 – finally! – the mass of conservatives in the Republican Party rallied behind Barry Goldwater, a genuine and outspoken conservative.  It was the first time in forty years that a Republican nominee could honestly claim to be following the political tradition of Washington and Jefferson.  The Republican establishment almost wholly abandoned him.  Governor Rockefeller and Governor Romney refused to endorse him; Governor Scranton of Pennsylvania and former Vice President Nixon gave very tepid support.  The only people who supported Goldwater, it seemed, were ordinary Republicans.  The senator lost in one of the dirtiest campaigns in memory by one of the worst rascals to inhabit the White House, yet “moderate” Republicans until Reagan won would continue to warn against a clear articulation of conservative values. 

Nixon won the nominations and then the elections in 1968 and 1972.  He created the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration), supported SSI ( a new entitlement), instituted wage and price controls, removed America completely from the Gold Standard, and announced – in response to criticism of high government spending – “Now I am a Keynesian.”   His foreign policy was almost utterly Realpolitik, a Machiavellian disinterest in morality which led him to meet Mao, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, and to hug Brezhnev, the boorish and doctrinaire Marxist boss of Russia.

Conservatives opposed Nixon.  Reagan sought the nomination in 1968.  John Ashbrook actively campaigned against Nixon when the president sought re-nomination in 1972, and this principled conservative was supported by National Review and by Human Events, which was practically all of the conservative media at the time.  Nixon and McGovern were the major party nominees in 1972, but there was one significant third party candidate in the general election, John Schmidz, a conservative Republican from California.

After Nixon resigned in disgrace, Gerald Ford, as sitting president, sought the Republican nomination in 1976.  He was strongly opposed by Ronald Reagan, who ran against the entire Republican establishment and the power of the Presidency, and yet almost won.  Ford, who declined to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who introduced the pathetic “WIN” (Whip Inflation Now) campaign, who appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court, and who chose Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President, was a perfect example of a modern RINO.  In 1976, the sitting President Ford just barely defeated Reagan for the Republican nomination.

Reagan, of course, won four years later and his policies prevailed, while he was president.  George H. Bush, however, almost immediately purged the White House of conservatives and hailed a “Kinder, gentler America” disgusting conservatives who  flocked to Ross Perot in 1992.  Bob Dole, because it was his “turn,” won the 1996 nomination and ran an aimless campaign.  After which Republicans in succession nominated George W. Bush twice and then John McCain.

Why do RINOs recoil from Palin, Goldwater and Reagan?  These Americans  actually do what the left urges us all to do:  Speak truth to power.  They eschew party interest - Reagan was a Democrat until 1962;  Palin first took on the Republican establishment of Alaska;  Goldwater, famously, went to the White House to insist that Nixon resign.  These good people are Americans first, and they recognize that the lynchpin of America is liberty.  RINOs?  The history of RINOs in America is no better (and no worse) than the history of politics in human affairs.

                © 2010 Bruce Walker — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Walt]

Its great to have you back Bruce, I always enjoy your articles. The tip-toe down memory lane is quite sickening. America has had it's opprotunities to restore itself too many times in the past and failed to seize the day (see this youtube vid Reagan campaigning for Goldwater 1964) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY .

This time around we must not settle for a Rino. People have forgotten what freedom actualy looks like and we must restore it peice by peice.

[Robert Berger]

Actually, by today's standards, Goldwater was a raving liberal. He was pro-choice,pro gay rights and opposed to the religious right's theocratic agenda.
Vehemently opposed. In fact, he once said"The religious right scare the hell out of me". He was absolutely right.
But so many of today's so-called "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. They are total reactionaries who want to undo all the social and economic progress this nation has made in our time and turn America back to the (not so) good old days.

[Philip France]

Robert,

You do not know what the hell you are talking about. I keep demanding to know what drugs you under the spell of.

I pity you, I truly do. But you are the most out-of-touch and delusional individual that I have ever encountered.

May I please suggest that you forego your subscription to "Rolling Stone" for "Whistleblower"? May I also suggest that you seek natural cures for what ails you, rather than pharmacuticals?

I truly care about you and i am concerned.

[Philip France]

Like Walt, I both welcome back and applaud Bruce Walker for another poignant article.

In my own personal understanding of U.S. History, the Presidential election of 1964 was the major tipping-point that set our great and constitutional Republic on its headlong course toward tyranny. I was very young at the time, but I know that Goldwater’s presidential campaigned was doomed by an evil smear-ad that associated candidate Goldwater with global nuclear annihilation. It was a lie then. The lie continues to this day.

With respect to this website’s resident lunatic Robert Berger, he is actually correct in that Senator (NOT Presidential candidate) Goldwater became more libertarian later in life; bit the candidate Goldwater said these time timely and eternal words:

“The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to endorse the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best that I can.”

THAT, my friends, is leadership. THAT is what our world needs. The above quote was published in 1960, lending credence to the notion that truth is timeless and transcends human history.

As for Gov. Palin to take up this mantle, I am not so sure. It is not in that she does not subscribe to these principles; she has proven herself as such already. Governor Palin’ only real handicap is her voice. Her voice is shrill and annoying. As sound and as accurate her expressed beliefs are (and they ARE, in fact sound and accurate) they do not resonate when expressed with high-pitched tones and inflections. Joe Six-Pack cannot compute. My hope is that she continues to be the lightning rod for the visceral dishonesty, duplicity and hypocrisy of the bed-wetting, panty-wearing sissies and sycophants in the MSM.

Another thought on this is that Gov. Palin is physically beautiful. She is an undeniably attractive woman. While this should matter none in political debate and discourse, it matters now in the American Left has claimed all (physically) beautiful people as their own. Since Sarah Palin has walked off this reservation, she is therefore portrayed as an putcast, worthy of scorn and ridicule..
So where do we go from here? Who do Americans that have an understanding of our Constitutional Republic turn to for leadership? Who is our Knight in shining armor who will lead us back into the prosperity and American exceptionalism that we know to be ours?

This is a very open debate. We need no RINO’s and we need no Democrats like we need a case of syphilis or Chlamydia., or even the crabs. We need leadership.

My early vote? Ambassador John Bolton, who has demonstrated fearlessness and articulation in speaking truth to power. His running mate? Perhaps Gov.Mitt Romney, if only for his experience with business and economics. If the economic recession were to subside by 2012 (which seems more-and-more unlikely) than I would turn to a more military-oriented Vice President in the persons of either Gen. Peter Pace or Gen. David Petreas.

[Walt]

As to Rinos, we as conservatives must take care of business in the primaries. There is much talk of a third and fourth party but under the current monopolistic two party system a third party only yields results like Clinton. I have a particular plan that would allow third parties to exist and thrive without affecting the results of the election but I doubt the two big parties would allow the challenge to their power.

Personally, my front runners for President are Michelle Baughman and Ron Paul. And if they do not run I will pay close attention to their endorsements.

[Robert Berger]

Thanks for your concern,but I'm perfectly sane and rational, have never taken illegal drugs of any kind and am a normal,run of the mill moderate liberal. There is absolutely nothing extreme or wacko about my views.
In fact,I'm downright conservative compared to real left-wingers.
I infuriate both right and left-wingers with my responses to blogs and e mails to
different people. The conservatives think I'm a God-damned pinko,commie,left-wing bastard, and the left-wing people think I'm a no good capitalist conservative!

[Philip France]

Congratulations, Robert on being the only two-faced man without two faces.

You are not a "moderate" if you:

Support the Marxist pseudo-President Barack Hussein Obama II.

Support infanticide.

Support the radical homosexual agenda.

Support the AGW/climate hoax.

Support the Marxist/Socialist health care/health insurance deform.

Support the eradication of our nation's borders through amnesty for criminal invaders (benignly also known as "illegal immigrants".

Support the atheistic maligment of our Nation's Judeo/Christian heritage and culture.

You are the atypical "who farted?" liberal. When you feel the heat, you run to the middle.

Let me clue you in: There should be no middle. The issues that I have expressed have no middle ground. They are either right or wrong. To be in the middle suggests that you are a coelenterate (an organsim that has no spine).

I believe firmly that you ingest drugs/medications that alter your understanding (Blake: "the eye altering, alters all"). For your well-being, look up Robert Scott Bell and seek a natural solution for that which ails you.

[Robert Berger]

Actually, what you're talking about are left-wing extremists.But I'm not one of them.
And the notion that Obama is in any way a "Marxist" or that he's trying to impose"Marxism" on America is laughable.
The REAL Marxists don't even think he's one of them.
No one supports infanticide, and the claim that Obama supports it are a blatant lie.In fact he never voted to allow babies who have survived attempoted abortion to be allowed to die.
There's no such thing as a "radical homosexual agenda". All gay people want is not to be discriminated asgainst,mistreated,stereotyped,demonized,
portrayed as child molesters, which only a tiny number of them are,a threat to America or anywhere in the world, and all that garbage.Are you aware that it's still technically legal to fire some one from a job merely for being gay in some US states?
This is totally unacceptable.It's no more justified than firing some one for being Jewish. And by the way, I'm a heterosexual.
And I';m not an atheist, nor am I hostile to Christianity or Christians. I'm opposed to theocracy, which IS a threat in America because of those wolves in sheep's clothing, the religious right.
I have no problem with people being Christian. What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists trying to take away my freedom and that of others because of their religious agenda.
Certainly not all Christians in America fit into this category.
I believe absolutely in capitalism and the free market. But I'm opposed to the radical laissez faire kind of capitalism which many conservatives wrongly favor, which would destroy or at least greatly weaken the safety net for the poor in America, and those not originally poor but down on their luck.

[Philip France]

“And the notion that Obama is in any way a "Marxist" or that he's trying to impose"Marxism" on America is laughable.”
WRONG. Last week, on The Savage Nation, Dr. Savage played sound bites from a former college-mate of Obama’s and how Obama is, indeed and in fact, a Marxist. His policies are Marxist. His Czars and associates such as Robert Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are all Marxists. Now try explaining this one away.

“The REAL Marxists don't even think he's one of them.”
WRONG: Obama’s candidacy was endorsed by CPUSA, who also approved of his political platform.

“No one supports infanticide, and the claim that Obama supports it are a blatant lie.In fact he never voted to allow babies who have survived attempoted abortion to be allowed to die.”
WRONG: Far too many people approve of infanticide. $300 million of our Federal tax dollars supports Planned Parenthood. As Illinois State Senator, Obama TWICE voted against a Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Do you still want to sing in his Mickey Mouse Club?

“There's no such thing as a "radical homosexual agenda".”
WRONG: Perhaps you’ve never heard of “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. They have laid out the radical homosexual agenda and you are falling for it like a gullible child. Do a web search on Michael Ovitz and the Pink Mafia.

“All gay people want is not to be discriminated asgainst,mistreated,stereotyped,demonized,
portrayed as child molesters”
Meet Robert Berger: Spokesman for “All gay people”. Way to go! Homosexuals have the very Constitutional protections that heterosexual do. What the homosexuals are seeking are unique and special rights that are akin to Orwell’s “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

“Are you aware that it's still technically legal to fire some one from a job merely for being gay in some US states?”
RUBBISH. Where do you learn such crap?

“I'm opposed to theocracy, which IS a threat in America because of those wolves in sheep's clothing, the religious right.”
Who in the US is advocating for a Theocracy, besides radical Moslems?

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists”
Who just-so-happens to be anyone and everyone who does not walk in lock-step with your badly distorted worldview.

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists trying to take away my freedom and that of others because of their religious agenda.”
Who is doing this? Name one person or even one group. When you make an outrageous claim such as this, at least have intellectual honesty to show cause.

“But I'm opposed to the radical laissez faire kind of capitalism which many conservatives wrongly favor”
Laissez faire capitalism is radical? You are out of your mind. What you may mean is “crony” capitalism whereby a few evil crooks in high places take advantage of areas in the free market and feed their greedy faces with filthy lucre. Other forms of economy do not stop this, Mr. Berger. In fact, it gets worse. What economic system do you suggest might correct this? By the way, you darling Comrade Obama took huge campaign contributions from Wall Street executives. Why do you think they supported him?

Thus concludes the latest chapter of Robert in Wonderland.

[Philip France]

“And the notion that Obama is in any way a "Marxist" or that he's trying to impose"Marxism" on America is laughable.”
WRONG. Last week, on The Savage Nation, Dr. Savage played sound bites from a former college-mate of Obama’s and how Obama is, indeed and in fact, a Marxist. His policies are Marxist. His Czars and associates such as Robert Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are all Marxists. Now try explaining this one away.

“The REAL Marxists don't even think he's one of them.”
WRONG: Obama’s candidacy was endorsed by CPUSA, who also approved of his political platform.

“No one supports infanticide, and the claim that Obama supports it are a blatant lie.In fact he never voted to allow babies who have survived attempoted abortion to be allowed to die.”
WRONG: Far too many people approve of infanticide. $300 million of our Federal tax dollars supports Planned Parenthood. As Illinois State Senator, Obama TWICE voted against a Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Do you still want to sing in his Mickey Mouse Club?

“There's no such thing as a "radical homosexual agenda".”
WRONG: Perhaps you’ve never heard of “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. They have laid out the radical homosexual agenda and you are falling for it like a gullible child. Do a web search on Michael Ovitz and the Pink Mafia.

“All gay people want is not to be discriminated asgainst,mistreated,stereotyped,demonized,
portrayed as child molesters”
Meet Robert Berger: Spokesman for “All gay people”. Way to go! Homosexuals have the very Constitutional protections that heterosexual do. What the homosexuals are seeking are unique and special rights that are akin to Orwell’s “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

“Are you aware that it's still technically legal to fire some one from a job merely for being gay in some US states?”
RUBBISH. Where do you learn such crap?

“I'm opposed to theocracy, which IS a threat in America because of those wolves in sheep's clothing, the religious right.”
Who in the US is advocating for a Theocracy, besides radical Moslems?

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists”
Who just-so-happens to be anyone and everyone who does not walk in lock-step with your badly distorted worldview.

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists trying to take away my freedom and that of others because of their religious agenda.”
Who is doing this? Name one person or even one group. When you make an outrageous claim such as this, at least have intellectual honesty to show cause.

“But I'm opposed to the radical laissez faire kind of capitalism which many conservatives wrongly favor”
Laissez faire capitalism is radical? You are out of your mind. What you may mean is “crony” capitalism whereby a few evil crooks in high places take advantage of areas in the free market and feed their greedy faces with filthy lucre. Other forms of economy do not stop this, Mr. Berger. In fact, it gets worse. What economic system do you suggest might correct this? By the way, you darling Comrade Obama took huge campaign contributions from Wall Street executives. Why do you think they supported him?

Thus concludes the latest chapter of Robert in Wonderland.

[Philip France]

“And the notion that Obama is in any way a "Marxist" or that he's trying to impose"Marxism" on America is laughable.”
WRONG. Last week, on The Savage Nation, Dr. Savage played sound bites from a former college-mate of Obama’s and how Obama is, indeed and in fact, a Marxist. His policies are Marxist. His Czars and associates such as Robert Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are all Marxists. Now try explaining this one away.

“The REAL Marxists don't even think he's one of them.”
WRONG: Obama’s candidacy was endorsed by CPUSA, who also approved of his political platform.

“No one supports infanticide, and the claim that Obama supports it are a blatant lie.In fact he never voted to allow babies who have survived attempoted abortion to be allowed to die.”
WRONG: Far too many people approve of infanticide. $300 million of our Federal tax dollars supports Planned Parenthood. As Illinois State Senator, Obama TWICE voted against a Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Do you still want to sing in his Mickey Mouse Club?

“There's no such thing as a "radical homosexual agenda".”
WRONG: Perhaps you’ve never heard of “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. They have laid out the radical homosexual agenda and you are falling for it like a gullible child. Do a web search on Michael Ovitz and the Pink Mafia.

“All gay people want is not to be discriminated asgainst,mistreated,stereotyped,demonized,
portrayed as child molesters”
Meet Robert Berger: Spokesman for “All gay people”. Way to go! Homosexuals have the very Constitutional protections that heterosexual do. What the homosexuals are seeking are unique and special rights that are akin to Orwell’s “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

“Are you aware that it's still technically legal to fire some one from a job merely for being gay in some US states?”
RUBBISH. Where do you learn such crap?

“I'm opposed to theocracy, which IS a threat in America because of those wolves in sheep's clothing, the religious right.”
Who in the US is advocating for a Theocracy, besides radical Moslems?

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists”
Who just-so-happens to be anyone and everyone who does not walk in lock-step with your badly distorted worldview.

“What I'm opposed to is narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous religious extremists trying to take away my freedom and that of others because of their religious agenda.”
Who is doing this? Name one person or even one group. When you make an outrageous claim such as this, at least have intellectual honesty to show cause.

“But I'm opposed to the radical laissez faire kind of capitalism which many conservatives wrongly favor”
Laissez faire capitalism is radical? You are out of your mind. What you may mean is “crony” capitalism whereby a few evil crooks in high places take advantage of areas in the free market and feed their greedy faces with filthy lucre. Other forms of economy do not stop this, Mr. Berger. In fact, it gets worse. What economic system do you suggest might correct this? By the way, you darling Comrade Obama took huge campaign contributions from Wall Street executives. Why do you think they supported him?

Thus concludes the latest chapter of Robert in Wonderland.