DINO's and RINO's, page 1

Democrat In Name Only

Democrat In Name Only or DINO in acronym form, a disparaging term for a member of the modern-day United States Democratic Party whose words and actions are thought to be too fiscally or socially conservative. The terms "Fox News liberal", "Fox Democrat," and "Fox News Democrat," have also been used in this context.

Accused DINO's:

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Joe Liebermann, Connecticut
Zell Miller, Georgia

Accused DINO groups:

Blue Dog Democrats
New Democrats

Typically DINO's are just barely more Liberal than Conservative when their votes are rated. The most well known group of Conservative Democrats are the Blue Dogs who are either Socially Conservative or Fiscally Conservative sometimes even a combination of the two. New Democrats are less well known but have included most Centrists and Neoliberal Democrats and are represented by DLC(Democratic Leadership Council) they include such names as Robert F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.




Republican In Name Only

The term implies that, despite party affiliation, RINO politicians are not true Republicans. The label is usually acquired because a politician's political actions, policies, or positions on certain issues or voting records are considered to be at variance with some part of modern conservative ideology.

Accused RINO's:

Richard Shelby, Alabama
Billy Tauzin, Louisiana
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John McCain, Arizona
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska

Types of RINO's:

Me-too Republicans
Nixonians and Rockefeller Republicans

Me-too Republicans were Republicans who supported the New Deal policies but insisted that they could manage them more efficiantly and less corrupt than the Democrats. Nixonian and Rockefeller Republicans were very Moderate to Liberal Republicans, they made up the GOP of the 1950's through the 1970's, they included such people as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.




That is how America was able to retain the ability of bipartisanship during the era from 1950-1980, we had two large groups within each party where they moderated the respective parties to make legislation and give the votes to work across the aisle. This has virtually disappeared in America as the Democrats are becoming increasingly more Liberal and Republicans are becoming increasingly more Conservative which will lead to gridlocked Congress until the point when the system readjusts itself.

When the South begins to vote for DINO’s and the North begins to vote for RINO’s again we will have bipartisanship in America but until that point there is no true hope. If we could have just 33% of Democrats and 33% of Republicans as –INO’s we would not have such a gridlocked Congress. It appears that things will only be worse after this election as most Democratic seats set to lose will be in Conservative areas which will solidify the Democrats as a simply Liberal party and with the power of the Tea Party it will lock the Republicans as a simply Conservative party.

Hopefully this chain will break by 2012 when Republicans could hopefully win in the Northeast and Pacific coast and the Democrats could hopefully win in the Southeast and Great Plains. This will bring both parties back to the table for discussion and not a mad house of partisan hacks enforcing their polarized opinions and legislation.

What appeared as scary to me though is that Barack Obama calls himself a New Democrat like Clinton, they are Neoliberals on the economy (focuses on Wall Street) and a Cultural Liberal. We see what happens when we have such politicians as Clinton when we have the stage set for mass deregulation and culture wars.

I doubt I am alone in this hope that bipartisanship will return and a gridlocked Congress will leave. It is up to the people of this country to make that happen though. Recently President Obama has declared his support for Lincoln Chafee for Governor of Rhode Island, running as an Independent and is the former Republican Senator from Rhode Island, over the Democratic candidate in the race who just came out and told Obama to quote “Shove it”. This anger out there will boil down and at that time maybe we can have a real discussion.

reply to post by Misoir

---

You might call these the "people of compromise."

Maybe we should boot all the far left and the far right extremists out... and put this group in charge.

reply to post by rusethorcain

---

Like I said in the OP about 1/3 of each party should be -INO's, that would allow for more than 50% cooperation and have left-wing/right-wing in each party to influence some legislation to move it their way occasionally.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by rusethorcain

---

Like I said in the OP about 1/3 of each party should be -INO's, that would allow for more than 50% cooperation and have left-wing/right-wing in each party to influence some legislation to move it their way occasionally.

This actually does make a lot of sense.

reply to post by AnonymousJ

---

The way the United States was founded it had the ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral process for the House of Representatives where whoever gained the most votes wins combined with the electoral college for the presidential election made a system of more than two parties virtually impossible. The way American political system is established we must either have a two-party system or a no-party system unless we drastically restructure our entire political system which will never happen.

I do agree with your point of view of a multi-party democracy to replace our current system but it is simply not feasible especially since you must add into the equation that one or both of our current two parties must be willing to pursue that change and it be supported by the Supreme Court. That will never happen because why would the two parties ever want to destroy a system such as this which rigs elections in their favor and concentrates the power of governance and wealth towards them.

reply to post by rusethorcain

---

That is the way our parties operated from the ‘50s through the ‘70s they each had their own Conservative, Moderate and Liberal sections which allowed for bipartisan compromise and the ability for the expression of new ideas. We generally were not polarized and politics gravitated towards the middle and depending on the size of majority in governance it could lean more Liberal or more Conservative. Always remember politics has an equilibrium but it is up to the electorate to swing far away or straddle the center.

reply to post by AnonymousJ

---

There are some Independents who have done well on a state-wide election such as for Senate or Governor. Third Parties have had very difficult time obtaining seats though. Some states actually have third parties which win elections for the state House, Senate, Mayor or Council one such example in Vermont where the Vermont Progressive Party has done a good job at winning mayoral seats and local races within the state. Some Independents have become governors as well with Independent Lincoln Chafee running in Rhode Island who is ahead in the polls.

In New England the smaller towns actually have town meetings where the citizens vote on the budget and issues instead of elections and in California they have fusion primaries.

reply to post by AnonymousJ

---

You are permitted to vote for whoever you want to. When registering to vote though you must mark down a political party affiliation or remain Independent. For example when you actually vote, a registered Republican is allowed to vote for a Democratic candidate or vice-versa.

I too share the strong belief in local direct democracy, I prefer the system that Switzerland has established.

reply to post by AnonymousJ

---

Switzerland has a partial Direct Democracy, the only nation in the world that has it.

A Dictator Is The Solution.
  Posted 1 days ago with 15 member flags

What do eugenics, the Nazis, and Planned Parenthood have in common?
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags

The Internet as a case study of Socialism
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

Why the need for Constant Growth?
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags

Tell me I am wrong-- everyone should vote conservatively and act liberally
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags

Real Socialists. The Friends Of The Conservatives.
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags

The Greenbay Packer\'s Prove That Socialism Works.
  Posted 19 days ago with 5 member flags

On What Date Did Human Freedom End?
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: