I’ve written about a disturbing trend on the right calling other conservatives “cheaters” who aren’t really, and this isn’t the only such trend happening on our side. Some people expand the definition of the acronym RINO to include solid conservatives simply because they disagree with them on strategy. Lawmakers with 100% or nearly 100% of the American Conservative Union’s lifetime ratings are accused of this label.
As with the imposter accusation, much of this criticism comes from activists modern to the movement who do not understand how hard it is to change the political infrastructure due to laws, rules, and the difficulty of getting all the compromising figures out of office. Moreover, as one member of Congress told me after I argued that term limits were a good idea: “It wouldn’t make as much of a difference as you think; many congressional staffers stay here for years; they actually take up most of the space.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.-14) has 100% Lifetime Assessment has been a long way from ACU so far, but now some of those critics are turning their eyes to it. They disagreed with her support for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (California – 20); they wanted to drive him away. Sources tell me it came down to a strategic difference; Greene believed the compromises McCarthy figured out how to encourage Democrats to make were worth more than replacing him with someone who might not have the connections to do so. Greene was obviously just kicked out of the House Freedom Caucus over this and several other issues.
On the other hand, many conservatives wanted Republican Jim Jordan (R-Ohio-04), who also has a lifetime seat, to become speaker. 100% assessment from ACU. When you pit two top conservative performers against each other – as much as we love Jordan – can there be only a strategic difference?
Some of these elected officials accused of being RINOs represent swing districts. If they show up at Trump rallies and keep talking about him, the left will target their neighborhoods and it will be much easier to eliminate them with carefully crafted ads linking them to Trump. A classic example is Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.-06). He has a respected one 94% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU), but because he is not campaigning with Trump, some call him a RINO.
There are “show horses” in Congress to rally the conservative base, take on Trump and rake in funds, but that often means they have to sacrifice effectiveness and passage of legislation. There is a need and a place for them; when Republican Ron Paul was in Congress, he only passed one bill, but in other respects he was considered one of the most effective elected officials because of his powerful, principled stance that implemented a right-wing agenda in a different way.
In contrast, there are “workhorses” like Schweikert who work tirelessly behind the scenes where they can be truly effective. The only time he really comes into the public eye is when he gives one of his speeches epic speeches on the US debt crisis, as one of the few members of Congress who repeatedly crunches the numbers and reveals how much worse it is getting.
When he first won in 2010, his district was tumultuous. With a carefully crafted campaign, he defeated incumbent Democrat Harry Mitchell, who became so legendary in the district after serving as mayor of Tempe that a statue of him was erected. After redistricting in 2022, the district became even more Democratic, and Schweikert narrowly won re-election by less than 4,000 votes.
Also in Arizona, state Sen. Warren Petersen (R-Mesa), the Senate majority leader, was criticized this year by some GOP county committee members for allegedly not being aggressive enough on measures to ensure election integrity. However, Petersen has a lifetime rating 97% from ACU and is widely believed to be running the Senate under conservative leadership. Petersen only disagreed with the strategy proposed by some Republicans, which was to withhold the approval of the budget until Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs signs three bills regarding election integrity. According to sources, Petersen knew that Hobbs was unlikely to sign them, so he decided it would be better to focus on obtaining concessions in the budget bill.
The RINO label has been popping up a lot lately in the area of ​​election integrity. Suddenly, newcomers with no expertise in the field, who were not involved in politics until the corrupt 2020 elections, appear, claiming to know how to solve the problem and declaring that anyone who does not immediately adopt their strategy is RINO. Some of them are gradually being discredited as their sloppy research is exposed. They are not helpful in solving the problem of voter fraud because courts will easily dismiss their efforts on the basis of obvious and embarrassing errors. While this problem needs the attention of as many people as possible, it is selfish to claim that the only solution is to solve it yourself.
Former Republican Liz Cheney (Wyo.), who not only served on the J6 committee but voted to impeach Trump, and who won 72% the lifetime rating given by ACU is clearly RINO. The tardy Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had 81% lifetime rating by ACU and was also clearly a RINO. So why aren’t all members of Congress with ratings from the 1980s also called out? Or low 90’s? Or is it because there is more going on than just being judged by conservative principles?
The RINO label should be applied to someone who does not subscribe to fundamental conservative principles. The America First and MAGA platforms are built on these principles. These include pro-life, the second amendment, lower taxes, lower regulations, smaller government, no extreme LGBTQ agenda, anti-globalism, family values, etc. This is what we should hold onto when evaluating our elected officials and other activists. Strategic differences, however, should be open to vigorous, civil debate.
Look at someone’s actions. Do they talk to a lot of leftist and RINO groups? Do they allow these groups to apply their names for promotional purposes? There are behaviors that reveal much more about a person’s character than procedural differences.
