Among other things, that last essay reminded me that it really isn't reasonable for me to call myself a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Nor is it reasonable for anyone else to call himself a RINO.

Because, if the ideas and beliefs of the Republican Party are not ideas and beliefs, but merely political tactics varying according to the political needs of particular times, then the term "Republican" does not have a sufficiently verifiable meaning for anyone to say accurately that he is that "in name only."

I agreed with the Republicans in 1997 about things like smaller government, and at the time I was a registered Democrat. I knew fell well that the Democratic Party believed in larger government (notwithstanding Bill Clinton's meaningless claim that "the era of big government is over"). Thus, in 1997 I could fairly have been described as a "Democrat In Name Only." But not long after I changed my party registration to better reflect what I thought should be my true allegiances, the Republican Party moved rapidly to abandon its belief in small government, limits on spending, and abhorrence for bureaucracy.

Did I then become a Republican In Name Only?

Or did the Republican Party become Republican In Name Only?

What if I'm not a real RINO?

Can such things be?

Is it possible to be a Republican In Name Only In Name Only?

A RINO-INO?

It's a mouthful, and it looks like a typo, but it might be more accurate.

For now, I don't think I have to worry, because few RINOs are going to accuse other RINOs of being RINOs In Name Only.

But these days, you can't be too careful....