Ice age for Republicans? No. Ice age for RINOs? Yes.
Mr. Paper-counter can argue with the numbers all he wants, but when his premise is wrong, numbers don't just lie—numbers actively mislead.
Somehow, Mr. Obama-fan presumes that the last election represented core Republican values pitted against core Democratic values and hence the results can be used to predict the outcome of future elections and contests. But no, that's not the case at all. Last election was rigged—by the liberal media who pushed their "favorite" RINO onto the Republican ticket. Sen. McCain offered nothing substantially different (except for perhaps the tax holiday he proposed for gasoline in the midst of petroleum crisis that evaporated away) from Obama as far as fundamentals go—and he wasn't very, shall we say, endearing to social conservatives, as someone who cheated on his wife, divorced her, and re-married. In the next election, with any hope, we will put a real Republican, a true conservative—in the fiscal sense, at the very least—on the ballot. Then we will see how the Latino demographic, which indeed will become a very influential "minority" group, votes.
So, in this time of tribulation for conservatives, it's a good thing that RINOs like Specter are jumping the ship, thinking that it's sinking. Once we shed all this dead weight, we will be stronger for it. After all, the tea parties in April proves that conservatism is alive and kicking. And although that event was strictly nonpartisan, when it comes down to it, the Republican party is (and should be), the best platform for conservative agenda.
Revenge of the RINOs
Found via HotAir.com:
I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people's lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.
I'd say she's focusing on the wrong issues. Many issues break down into two categories: "social" or "economical". Republicans and conservative views are particularly strong on the economic side (when Republicans held the congress in 1994 and kept true to their spirit by limiting spending, our economy prospered). On social side, it's a bit sketchy, not to mention that a "conservative" position on social issues are somewhat difficult to defend, with the tendency of society always becoming more and more "progressive" with each generation—until a revolution kicks them back to an ultra-conservative position, as it happens over and over in history (the Pharisees and the Puritans are the two easy examples).
If Republicans want to win, they have to play on their strong side, emphasize the importance of government's role (or rather, non-role) in economy, and, well, try to leave social customs alone. They are never going to win playing in Democrats' own field—Democrats will always be more pro-choice and more gay-friendly.
This also happen to mix well with the advocacy of small government. A "small government" is one that defends borders, keeps crimes low, and does nothing else—except where it is absolutely necessary that the government intervene, such as in disasters or wars. A "small government" does not concern itself with what people believe in, what people's sexual orientations are, or any of these peripheral issues.
And this is mainly why I don't believe Ms. McCain when she says she wants a "small government". She sounds like a RINO paying lip service to the conservatives and libertarians. It's because she also says she's for the environment. Well, that's fine, but don't try to do it through political means. Establish proper property rights and back off—no one wants to pollute their own backyard (and if they do, whose business is it anyway?). The government has taken away the property rights of people (to their lands, to their air, to their water) and made these a "common"—and that's when the so-called "tragedy of the commons" happened. Establish proper property rights, and free market will rein in pollution.
If she wants to advocate for environmental "protection" by making people aware of what damages are being done and maybe get them to boycott a certain truly evil companies as example, that's fine—but the moment she gets the government involved, well, it's a mutually exclusive proposition: either she "loves environment" so much that she will enlarge the corrupting hand of the government, or she wants "small government" so much that she will not involve it no matter which issue.
The same goes for almost any other social issues. If you are willing to get government to fund particular practices (such as abortion), or if you are willing to pass those so-called "equal rights" laws to infringe on the freedom of association, then you are not for small government.
For the record, I want as few abortions as possible, and I want to defend the traditional definition of marriage. But, as a libertarian, I would die before I involve the government into choosing a winner in these issues. Some pro-lifers make argument that abortion is murder ... and, well, if they can successfully convince people that aborting a baby in the first trimester is as serious a crime as killing a grown man, then it may be legitimate to bring in the government, since crime falls under its jurisdiction.
But until then, anyone who brings the government into social, cultural issues is not a conservative. They are RINOs.