Frequently Asked Questions page @ no more RINOs - conservative republicans and independents replacing RINOs with Constitutional conservatives

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1 - What data is collected and what will become of my e-mail address if I submit it to a “list of likely donors ?”

We guarantee the privacy of all visitors to our website and the privacy of all who choose to input their e-mail address and names into a “list of likely donors.” No information will ever be sold to any type campaign nor to any third party. This information may be given to one, and only one, campaign of a declared future conservative candidate - at which time, we will relinquish, to that campaign, all possession and control of the information. By inputting your information to a “list of likely donors” you are granting approval only for us to give your information to that single campaign, and for that campaign to access and control the information according to its purposes.

2. Is Remove the RINOs or NoMoRINO affiliated with any campaign or campaigns ?

No.

3. Can I donate to RemoveRINOs or NoMoRINO ?

A big "thank you" to everyone who has inquired about this, but the answer is no. We do not accept donations. We do, however, link to the websites of conservative candidates who could use your help in the primaries. These links are an important part of our purpose.

4. If a conservative candidate follows up on a "potential donor list" and e-mails me about his or her campaign, won’t this message be sent to my SPAM folder ?

Just in case, be sure to take a look at your SPAM folder every once in a while during campaign seasons. Also, keep checking with RemoveRINOs, and we'll keep you informed as to when viable candidates emerge.

5. May I provide news tips to this website or offer any other input ?

You absolutely can - in fact, your input would be greatly appreciated! And though we can’t always respond to your input, we do listen, and your input can be a factor in how we develop this site and what information we include. To provide news tips, feedback, or any other type of info you think would be helpful, just hit the Contacts link here, or on the any page.

6. Some of these RINOs are from liberal districts. Who is to say we won't be trading bad Republicans for worse Democrats ?

This is the $60,000 question (or in the modern era, I should say the trillion dollar question). Within, the next few
months, we plan to supply data - within this FAQs section - that strengthen our proposition that our efforts will
ultimately galvanize our party and increase our numbers.

For now, however, we’ll stick to the common-sense appeals, even if they’re becoming a bit clichéd:

The more moderate we’ve become, the more seats we’ve lost.

The liberal wing of the party fared worse than the conservative wing in the last election.

In our most recent presidential election, we nominated the Ace of Spades and got spanked. In fact, any intellectually honest person has to admit that Sarah Palin provided the only spark of excitement the whole campaign.

Conservatives WIN ELECTIONS when they run as conservatives. This is because most Americans consider themselves conservatives.

And let’s add just one more common-sense appeal, one based more on political instincts and rumor, than concrete evidence.
WeI suspect that when a Dem breaks ranks, Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel…the whole of the Dem leadership…crashes over that

“lawbreaker’s” back like a tidal wave, chastising them, and threatening to recruit, fund, and support primary challengers to end the maverick's career.

I can’t prove it, but I truly believe the Democrat leadership does that. And I can’t prove it, but I truly believe the Republican leadership does NOT. So we're going to have to do it ourselves. We're going to have to provide that intra-party discipline that just isn't happening in the G.O.P. Because a case could be made that John McCain isn't so much a maverick, as an unruly child in need of a parent to reel him in.

7. How are the RINOs chosen?

RemoveRINOs and NoMoRINO recognizes the shortcomings of any entirely subjective means of choosing and ranking its RINOs; likewise, we recognize the shortcomings of any entirely objective means.

We seek to overcome the shortcomings and biases of total subjectivity by basing the list primarily on the annual votes that the reputable American Conservative Union (ACU) uses to form its conservative ratings. Thus we choose our votes before we choose our RINOs. We don’t choose politicians and then seek to support our case by culling from a career list of votes - a means of choosing that can be distorted since the devil is so often in the details of the legislation.

Instead, we choose legislation selected under the imprimatur of the ACU, and we then choose our RINOs based on an overall picture that emerges as we tally which legislators most often voted in opposition to the ACU on these select votes. And we do not handicap lengthy careers by pulling from a life-long pool of votes. We only include votes dating back two full terms or to the beginning of the Bush administration, whichever is less.

However, we seek to overcome the shortcomings of a totally objective means of ranking by first recognizing that total objectivity is impossible--because the term conservatism is itself an abstraction based on subjective definition.

With full awareness of the inadequacy of our attempt at definition, we define conservatism as something like the following:

American conservatism is the belief that the Constitution is the only legitimate framework for governance in the United States.
It is the belief that this founding document is the only guarantor of our God-given right to freedom and that American exceptionalism is itself the greatest expression of that freedom. Conservatism seeks to reinforce a foundation of liberty by supporting adherence to, and protection of, that Constitution through which our God-given liberty is ensured.

Our definition holds that the primary difference between the conservative and the libertarian lies not in his allegiance to the Constitution--an allegiance that both share--but in the emphasis that the conservative places upon economic and national security and the underlying Judeo-Christian principles upon which this Constitution was built. A visitor to this Website will note
a political philosophy leaning only slightly more toward the conservative than the libertarian.

We therefore seek to impose our own criteria, based on our own definition. Even as we use the ACU as a vital source of information - and the vast majority of our votes are culled from ACU lists - our vote selection is in no way identical to the lists used by the ACU in determining its rankings.

We limit our votes to those we feel are most vital to

national security

economic security

and individual liberty.

On any given year we may exclude many if not most of the votes the ACU uses in its rankings.

Further, we are in no way affiliated with the ACU, and the ACU is clearly cited in each instance in which we have selected a vote on the basis of an ACU list. Moreover, the lack of an ACU citation isn't necessarily an indicator that the ACU didn't include the vote in its ratings; it simply means that the vote was of such prominence that it was chosen for inclusion prior to our research, and that no information pertaining to the vote was pulled from the ACU.

Further, it should be noted that we do not rely on ACU ratings or percentages of votes against party, when determining our RINOs. We maintain that these numbers can, in isolation, be less meaningful than a breakdown of specific votes.

For instance, at the end of 2007, Walter Jones’ lifetime ACU Conservative Rating was 90.29 (ACU-5), which is fairly good.
Yet his annual ACU rating, when narrowed to the year 2007, was only 71 (ACU-5). As such, Jones' 2007 voting record in many ways embodies the leftward drift that has ravaged the G.O.P during the period of its sharpest decline - and this drift would not be evident in a lifetime rating.

And, subjectively speaking, one might argue that Jones' decision to vote against the surge and for surrender was monumental - much more important than, say, a vote for a profligate spending bill. Millions of Iraqi lives were at stake. In fact, our very dominance over Al Qaeda was at stake.

And, subjectively speaking, the Iraqi vote was much more demoralizing to conservatives, at a time when the walls were beginning to crumble around us because of waning support for the war. Nor would any lifetime rating take into account the telling fact that Walter Jones appeared on the cover of Mother Jones in appreciation for his staunch opposition to the war.

These things can’t be quantified; and it would stretch credibility to try to set up objective criteria to measure "demoralizing deeds and rhetoric." It’s much more credible to just admit that some of this ranking is subjective. But it seems very reasonable to view these intangibles as part of the total picture, and it seems reasonable to factor them into RINO selection in a way that, we hope, will be useful. In a sense, we're trying to recreate a narrative--with 100% factual accuracy--that has never been fully told, but desperately needs to be.