[Promoted and bumped. Also: HAHAHA! - Moe Lane]
So and so has changed positions on more issues than my favorite candidate. Sure, my favorite candidate has changed positions as well, but their changes were the result of experience and wisdom gained while my favorite candidate went through their singularly unique path to the presidency. Reagan is a good example.
So and so, on the other hand, is merely showing their opportunism when they change positions. Reagan would never do such a thing.
So and so compromised their principles while they were in a prior leadership position. I disagree with things that happened during their time. This is analogous to what George Bush did. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, would never do such a thing.
My favorite candidate, on the other hand, never compromised their principles while in a prior leadership position. Every piece of legislation during this time period is agreeable to me. And even those that are not agreeable to me, were necessary and/or out of the conceivable control of my favorite candidate. Ronald Reagan sometimes found himself in just such a situation.
It is perfectly valid and necessary to continue to bring up the flaws and mistakes of so and so, whether it be in prior positions or in their personal life. This is a normal part of the vetting process of a political primary. It ensures we get the best candidate and not another McCain RINO. Others may feel these issues are not important and I should drop them. Clearly they are wrong and I need to keep bringing them up. This is how we avoid bad candidates and get good candidates like Reagan.
It is very frustrating and unfair when others attack my favorite candidate by bringing up things that I have already answered and addressed to my satisfaction. Those repeated references to past issues that, again, I have fully justified in prior diaries, is evidence that they have nothing intelligent to say. Bringing up those reasons for not supporting my favorite candidate is clearly an unfair attack. Those types of tactics devalue our primary process, and might have prevented Ronald Reagan from winning the GOP nomination.
The fact that so and so is a RINO is proven by their recent comments about this and that issue. This is clearly out of step with the American people. Apparently so and so did not get the message in 2010. They are unprepared for this or that issue when asked by media, showing that they have no place running for office. They are expected to be experts on all issues at all times, and will not be able to use good judgment to bring along subject matter experts to help them on various issues. Ronald Reagan never had to consult anyone, neither should so and so.
I am tired of my favorite candidate being unfairly characterized by biased media reporting, word for word, things that my favorite candidate says. They ask questions that my favorite candidate is not adequately prepared to answer at the time, which shows media bias. These are unfounded and unfair gotcha-style attacks and not legitimate concerns. Anyone who voices similar concerns on this site betrays their bias and dislike of my favorite candidate.
In summary, I hope you are now convinced that so and so is the true RINO. As I have demonstrated above, they are known to change their mind and have made mistakes that cannot be forgotten. Their particular flaws disqualify them as a candidate. It is clear they are the only possible candidate that could manage to lose to Barack Obama in a poor-economy-election.
My favorite candidate, on the other hand, has shown their great intellect and bravery by evolving and owning their prior mistakes, learning from them. This proves their maturity and readiness to be a leader. My favorite candidate is obviously a combination of Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Yoda. It is clear they are the only possible candidate that can defeat Barack Obama in 2012, and we should all get behind them.