TWO OPINIONS, ONE TRUTH

Back in the mid 90s, in many areas, a candidate couldn't get elected dog catcher if he/she had a “D” behind their name. So, for entirely political reasons, a lot of Democrats jumped the fence and changed parties. There was great jubilation among a lot of Republicans. At last, the Dems had seen the error of their ways. Well, it didn't take long before the reality of this conversion came to light. It became obvious that when the majority of these converts jumped the fence, they brought their Liberal philosophy with them. The ensuing erosion of principles began to blur the lines between the two parties. 

That's when the term “RINO” was coined by actual Conservative Republicans. Not all RINOs were “fence jumpers”. Some elected officials started out professing to be Conservative Republicans and voted as such. Along the way, however, due to political expediency, they changed their philosophy and, more importantly, their votes. Many of the "establishment" Republicans must be included in this category. Career politicians almost unanimously fall into this trap. In our opinion, that's what happened with Senator Graham. In his early career in the House, he voted our values but, when he got to the Senate, his behavior changed, for whatever motivation. 

The term “RINO” took a foothold on the political landscape and began to have an effect on elections, resulting in the Liberals and the RINOs waging war on the term. Consequently, the term “RINO” has evolved to the point of being a derogatory slur, comparable to a racial slur,  to be avoided in polite conversation and anyone who uses it is deemed a Radical. 

“We can't call this person a RINO, even if he is, because that's divisive”. “We can't criticize any person who has an “R” behind his or her name, even if he deserves criticism, because 'it's bad for the party'” . “We must include and not take the chance of offending the “middle of the road”, “we don't stand for anything” voters if we are to have a chance of winning any more elections.”

Well, let us ask you a question, ”If we claim to all belong to a party with an established conservative platform that espouses certain solid core values but if, for political reasons or simply a lack of courage, we choose to stand silently by and allow certain elected officials who happen to have an "R" behind his name to violate these core values, why have the party at all”. Why differentiate ourselves as “Republican” (Conservative) if our Platform (core values) means so little? Why bother?

Now, we're going point out a few facts to further anger some of you. We have not heard one of you say you support Senator Graham's controversial votes and positions.  Granted, in his early years in the House, we all supported his votes and actions. But over the last several years, his military issues votes are the only ones we universally support. When he came down on the wrong side of 2^nd amendment issues, (not supporting the Republican filibuster against gun control) we all opposed him. When he came down on the wrong side of Right To Life issues, (voting with Dems to confirm Kagan, Sotomyer) we all opposed him. When he came down on the wrong side of Big Government and Higher Taxes, (joining John McCain and Dems to support Cap & Trade) we all opposed him. So, when we add in the Benghazi issue, we end up with 20% of his votes we support and 80% that don't represent our core values. Isn't that kind of the reverse of the Reagan Rule?

In conclusion, we are in no way in favor of the censure resolution that has been submitted. It's clumsily worded; it's overkill; and it gives the impression of being a vindictive, politically motivated campaign smear tactic. But we are in favor of creating a document that states, simply and emphatically, that we disapprove of and disavow Senator Graham's positions and votes concerning the major issues we have listed. Concerning this issue, it is not only our right to do this but our responsibility as representatives of the voters in the various precincts in BC to speak out publicly in support of our core values if we want to maintain any intellectual integrity or to accurately portray ourselves as a Conservative Republican organization. On numerous issues, Senator Graham, for political expediency, has chosen to abandon the core values of the Republican Party Platform. If we take a page from his book and fail to meet our responsibilities for the same reasons, we will be as remiss as he. Wouldn't that be the appropriate time to censure ourselves? Our choice is as simple as that.