The problem is how precisely you define a Republican. Am I a RINO because I oppose "the base" on immigration, the death penalty, and a handful of other issues? Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani are fair targets because there are other political parties with which they might be more compatible (Libertarian and Democrat, respectively). But if someone is closer to being a Republican than to being something else, I don't think it's very accurate to say that they are "fake" Republicans. The question is which party's causes do they attempt to advance the most? However ineptly, it's difficult to say that Bush is attempting to advance the causes and candidates of Democrats or Libertarians more than those of Republicans. You may think that he's a bad president and a bad Republican, but that doesn't make him a fake Republican. A fake conservative, perhaps, but not a fake Republican.

I think that RINO has become a catch-all for "Republican that I don't like" or "Republican that disagrees with me". And I think it's problematic because it becomes a search for heretics. Maybe it would be great if Republicans stood precisely for what they say they stand for and if Democrats did the same, but the nature of the two-party system is that each group must stand for different things at once (more government here, less government there) and have members that disagree with one another (business faction versus religious faction, environmentalist faction versus labor faction) and must succumb on issues where the public disagrees with them.

In regards to Ron Paul, I'm not sure whether you mean "next election" as in the presidency or re-election from the house. If the former, you're obviously right that he has no chance for the nomination. If the latter, people have been saying that he was doomed for years. His opponent way back when he first got elected (Charlie Morris, I think his name was) had him on video opposing the war on drugs and he still got elected. He had a pro-life, conservative Democrat opponent in Loy Sneary and trampled over him. I'd bet significant money on his House re-election, if he runs for it.

Are you a RINO? No - partly because I've never seen you claim tightly to the label of Republican.

I reserve the term RINO for those who claim to be Republicans, and claim to be conservative, but then turn around and betray the people they conned into voting for them. A fair example would be a Republican who keeps trying to expand social programs and government hand-outs or otherwise increasing the size of the government, after running on the opposite platform (something Bush and many of the congressional Republicans are very guilty of).

As for Ron Paul getting re-elected (I was referring to the House election), I'm hoping someone turns up to give him some serious heat in the primaries. He's been on radio here in Houston a few times, and he's shown me he's the kind of nut we don't need in office.

>>It's even sadder realizing that my choice, in both 2000 and 2004, came down to either a Rhino vs a Jackass or, perhaps more appropriately, a Douche and a Turd.<<

Man, that imagery. Geez, the writing here of late seems also to be circling the toilet bowl...

BDS does that, I guess. Oh well, it's not as if there isn't plenty of good writing to be found across the big ol' web. It's just a little disappointing in that this was once one of those places.

Douches and turds?

Are you kidding me?

Good lord.

Publius,

It's a reference to the South Park episode - which was a particularly well-done examination of the whole "importance of voting" and the lack of decent candidates that the American public have been faced with for years.

And I don't have "Bush Derangement Syndrome." I'm insulted you decided to play around using that dishonest slur, rather than addressing the points I made.