I’d like to thank Chris Brant for being a Republican for many years, but I think he (and many others) has lost sight of what it is to be a Republican.

My position can best be explained by this example: Program A costs $100m/year. Democrats propose raising it to $200m. Recently, the Republican response was let’s compromise at $150m. That’s how the federal government got bigger and bigger under both Democrats and Republicans.

Recently, under Obama, his idea of “compromise” is $200m or something close to $200m. Republicans went along with this---hence the term RINO.

True Republicans got fed up with this practice. Those interested in fiscal responsibility and in following the constitution as it was originally written formed the Tea Party. Libertarians, who preach small government, became stronger. These “Republicans” had enough and, instead of compromising as illustrated above, stated that we should start questioning the need for Program A.

The real response to a proposal to raise costs to $200m is a compromise of $0m (i.e. get rid of the program).

I agree with Chris that Robert Graham, leader of the AZGOP, did a great job last year of getting Republicans elected in Arizona. What is not mentioned was that last year, Republican Party members (without Graham’s support) voted to censure Senator McCain for his votes supporting amnesty and other liberal causes. What is also not mentioned is that Graham allowed McCain’s supporters to try and purge the party of conservatives such as Tea Party and Libertarians. McCain was largely unsuccessful.

It’s true that there is some behavior that is unhealthy, rude, vindictive and unprofessional as Chris Brant states. Chris thinks it applies to Conservatives who want change. But, I think it applies to old school Republicans who want to compromise.