No, I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. As usual, you have shown you don’t have the capacity to look beyond that which is carefully spelled out to you. But since you are apparently so dense, I’ll explain that the comment was meant to be humorous. Since you also appear to lack a sense of humor, I’ll further explain that by saying “from attempting to comment,” I was referring to your inability to form anything beyond the shallowest of thoughts. Thus, I implore you to refrain from ATTEMPTING to comment because it is so far beyond your ability to come up with a thought that warrants anything more than wondering what kind of drugs your parents were on that night so long age when they realized they were without a condom, but figured they’d take a chance. See, your attempts are so weak that you shouldn’t even try. Too complicated for you? Not surprising.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

Like Retard, if you cannot understand any concepts more complicated than, “RINO, bad, must stop RINO,” then I suggest you restrain yourself from attempting to comment. Especially if the best you can do is question my intellect and use of time, rather than actually try to explain why you feel my ideas are not worthy of consideration.

Then again, you use the name of a man who groveled before those who deated his cause, begging for amnesty, then became one of the most reviled scalawags of the time. Good choice. Respect from you is likely something few would covet.

I understand which races we are talking about. One, however, is apparently not a safe seat. Or is the Rose race mentioned at the start of the article not actually a close race, as the article states? What I asked, however, was whether or not the folks who funded the challenges are capable of funding the (apparently) equally fiscally conservative candidates who now need financial help? Or were all the challengers self-funded? The follow-up question is, if folks were so gung-ho about knocking off what they considered to be RINOS in favor of more fiscally conservative candidates that they contributed money to those challengers, are they now contributing money to these important races. If they are, great. If they are not, why not?

As for my question regarding what is a RINO, you have answered it, for which I thank you. In South Carolina, the label applies to Republicans who are considered to be fiscally irresponsible. I’m not from South Carolina, but am interested in its politics, so I needed the clarification. In other parts of the country, the term RINO is applied under different criteria, so I guess it’s safe to say that it’s not an exact term, unless you take into consideration where it is being used. Even then, thouh, there are likely shades of grey.

I agree with your point about national defense as it applies to SC state politics. The term RINO is used so widely, though, that I did feel it should be part of the equation. But you are right, for the most part, that SC state legislators can do little to affect national defense.

As for abortion, I think you’re a little off base on what can be done at the state level. No, they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. But they can do plenty. Bills dealing with abortion are introduced every session, so you may want to consider including that into your criteria.

They also don’t have any real influence on federal gun laws, but the vast majority of gun laws exist at the state and local level. And banning guns isn’t the only issue. Again, every session there are numerous bills introduced dealing with firearms. Some good, some bad (depending on your point of view, of course). But they are out there, so you should add that to your mix.

I clearly see that the main factor in determining what constitutes a RINO in SC is the budget, at least by your standard. That answers my question on that front, for which I again thank you, but will again suggest you take other issues into consideration.

Just as you haven’t heard any say the Caucus spent money on primaries in the past, I haven’t heard anyone say they have not. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Again, if it has, then the challengers should have known the potential for the unintended consequnces of their campaigns. If it has not, then there is certainly a gripe to be made. And if they have, then talking about the amount this time would need to be balanced against what kind of, and how many, primary challenges were faced in the past. If you’re committed to protecting the incumbent (a position I understand you oppose), then the first goal is protection, and the second is managing the resources wisely. Perhaps they were managed unwisely, but to achieve the goal, resources had to be expended.

I believe the person responsible you are talking about is Sen. Peeler, at least, on paper.

Check out the comments above…the four races where the Caucus blew their budget are for safe Republican seats so the folks who beat the RINO’s don’t need money for their fall races. Katrina Shealy wouldn’t have either. Not to mention, the challengers were outspent as usual so the big money was wasted to protect RINO incumbents and isn’t available to help Republicans in tight races against Democrats.

I pointed to the insane increase in government spending to show that we have a big RINO problem in our state legislature. You want to talk about promoting abortion, weakening the military, and banning guns. Fine – those are all anti-Republican positions as well but not issues in our state for two reasons. One, because Republicans haven’t proposed doing those things in SC there is little debate or controversy around them…they are moot at this point.

Secondly, we are talking state government here – legislators have little to no influence on our nations’s military, on federal gun control laws, or whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court overtuns Roe v. Wade. We can come up with lots of anti-Republican positions but let’s focus on the ones that are relevent to the job.

The most important role that state legislatures play is how to allocate resources….in South Carolina that’s about $19 billion a year. That’s not the only criteria but it’s a huge one. And it’s one which shows that the vast majority of Republican legislators in our state will spend as much money as they can get their hands on. They are not fiscally conservative. Therefore, they are only Republicans in name.

I haven’t heard anyone say that the Senate Republican Caucus in South Carolina has spent money on primaries before. Even if they did, there is no way that they blew this much of their budget – especially to lose 75% of their races. And your “if they’ve done it before” rationalization certainly wouldn’t make it right anyway.

Bottom line, whoever runs the Senate Republican Caucus made a primary gamble to try and keep more reform-minded Republicans out of the Senate and lost. Big time. Unfortunately needy Republican Senate candidates are now paying the price. Whoever runs the caucus should pay a heavy one as well.

If you feel that spending is the only criteria for defining a RINO, does that mean you consider a fiscally conservative Republican who votes to weaken the military, ban guns, and promote abortion to be a solid Republican?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m opposed to big government and frivolous spending on pork. But there are other issues to consider. I’m a big fan of the 2A, so I don’t care how fiscally conservative a Republican is if he votes to ban guns. I don’t think I’d call him a RINO, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for him.

Ultimately, I guess what I’m saying is, this is probably not the first time the Senate Republican Caucus spent money in the primary to defend an incumbent. If it is, then I guess there’s a legitimate gripe. But if not, then I guess folks shouldn’t be too surprised when what has happened before happened again.

Also, these successful challengers got money for their campaigns, right? Where did that come from, and why cannot that/those resource/s be utilized to help fund campaigns of these other races mentioned? I presume none of these guys are considered RINOS, so why can’t they tap into the same resource/s that funded the challengers. Or did that/those source/s blow all its/their money to defeat the RINOS, and now has nothing left to help true conservatives? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

No, my theory rests on the presumption that the Senate Republican Caucus feels its job is to protect Senate Republicans. The theory goes further to say that said protection is offered at the primary level, and not just at the general level. Try to keep up.

Now, you may state what you’d like to be the purpose of the Caucus all you want, but unless you can point me to something that actually says this is what the Caucus is supposed to do, then your words are pretty much meaningless.

As for my hypothetical being hypocritical, I don’t think you understand what you are talking about. Oh, and the word is incumbent, Retard. But like I asked before, what is your criteria for determining these particular incumbents that are part of the discussion have voting records that are more in line with Democrats than their challengers? Being fiscally conservative is a great thing, in my book, but not the only issue that I use to qualify someone as being conservative or in line with my idea of what a true Republican should be. Also, Retard, their challengers don’t have voting records.

Finally, the IQ comment was in reference to the people DISCUSSING complex political issues. It had nothing to do with people in office, but about people who visit blogs like this one. Clearly, you’ve ruled yourself out of the discussion.