I really dislike the term RINO. let me be clear. I am in no way defending Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, et al. I hold much more animus toward the GOP “establishment” than the average Tea Partier. The problem is the term itself. In looking at the history of the GOP back to the turn of the Twentieth Century, those whom we now call Republicans-in-name-only actually do represent the GOP. Today’s conservative republican activist was, only a few decades ago, a Democrat. The social upheaval of the Vietnam War had created a large group of patriotic blue-collar voters that the news media termed “hardhats” due to the participants proclivity in construction work. Just a few years later, these same voters became “Reagan Democrats”. They tended to vote Democratic locally, but GOP in national elections. Today this group has become much larger, melded with social conservatives and non-urban middle-class White voters to become the Republican base. Their position is that the GOP has always held these middle American, patriotic, free enterprise values while the “establishment” over a few years wrestled the Republican Party away from them.
Richard Nixon, for all his emphasis on “law and order”, was one of the Twentieth Century’s most liberal Presidents. Forget his speeches; simply look at the legislation he supported. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did not represent the GOP mainstream, but a guerilla insurgency. Goldwater lost, and so did Reagan the first time. They were both crushed by the “establishment” Republicans who are the antecedents of those in charge today.
Let the Republicans have the GOP. Conservatives who believe in a truly free market – free of both the federal government and the Chamber of Commerce – need to form a party that is NOT dedicated to “big government conservatism”, which has always, always, always devolved into slow-speed socialism. Let the Bush family see that having all the donors is not exactly the same as having actual votes.