RINO Republicans: Irrelevant and Out of Touch with the GOP’s Future
In recent years, the term “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) has taken on new meaning, particularly as a label for individuals within the GOP who have steadfastly opposed the populist movement led by former President Donald Trump. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, a notable group of these “Never Trump” Republicans—figures like Dick and Liz Cheney, George Bush, Mike Pence, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Lisa Murkowski, and the disbanded yet outspoken Lincoln Project—have taken their defection to new heights, publicly declaring their intent to support Kamala Harris, the Democratic frontrunner, for president. By doing so, they have effectively cemented their irrelevance within the modern GOP, ensuring that their influence will continue to dwindle in a party that has transformed far beyond the neoconservative days of the Bush administration.
The Irreversible Break
The decision to endorse Harris over Trump is nothing short of an existential crisis for these figures. While many of them have long been estranged from the Trump wing of the party, this outright endorsement of the opposition signals their final break from the GOP’s base. Figures such as Dick and Liz Cheney, who once represented the hawkish, interventionist wing of the Republican Party, are now seen as relics of a bygone era. Their support for Harris, a staunch progressive, reveals just how disconnected they’ve become from the conservative grassroots.
Liz Cheney’s anti-Trump crusade reached its zenith with her prominent role on the January 6th Committee, where she sought to portray Trump as a danger to democracy. While this earned her accolades from the left, it led to her resounding defeat in Wyoming’s Republican primary, where her loyalty to the party’s base was called into question. Her father’s legacy as Vice President under George W. Bush may have carried weight during the War on Terror, but in today’s GOP, a party increasingly focused on America First policies, the Cheney name is synonymous with the establishment—a faction that has lost its grip on power.
George Bush: A Distant Memory
The Bush dynasty, once a dominant force in Republican politics, now finds itself in the political wilderness. George W. Bush’s silence during the Trump presidency spoke volumes, but his recent endorsement of Kamala Harris underscores how far he has drifted from the conservative movement that once championed his leadership. Many conservative voters see the Bush years as a period of misguided wars and unchecked spending, and the former president’s support for a Democratic candidate further alienates him from a party that has moved in a dramatically different direction.
Mike Pence and John Bolton: From Allies to Pariahs
Mike Pence, once Trump’s loyal vice president, finds himself in a political no man’s land. His refusal to challenge the 2020 election results earned him the ire of many Trump supporters, and his subsequent political moves, including his Harris endorsement, have isolated him even further. Pence’s traditional conservative stance on issues like abortion may resonate with some in the GOP, but his unwillingness to embrace the populist tide means his future within the party is bleak.
John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, has long been a polarizing figure. His neoconservative worldview, shaped by a belief in American interventionism abroad, is a stark contrast to the America First approach that now defines the GOP. Bolton’s endorsement of Harris is unsurprising, given his public spats with Trump, but it only serves to highlight how out of touch he is with a Republican base that no longer prioritizes endless wars and nation-building.
Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, and Lisa Murkowski: The Party’s Outcasts
Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah and 2012 Republican presidential nominee, has spent much of the Trump era positioning himself as the GOP’s moral conscience. His votes to impeach Trump and his consistent criticism of the former president have made him a pariah within the party. Romney’s decision to back Harris all but guarantees that he will have no future influence in shaping the GOP’s policy or direction.
Adam Kinzinger, another vocal critic of Trump, has followed a similar trajectory. Once a rising star in the GOP, Kinzinger’s tenure on the January 6th Committee and his constant bashing of Trump’s influence on the party led to his political demise. His exit from Congress was more of a resignation than a defeat, but his endorsement of Harris signals that he, too, has no intention of aligning with the future of the Republican Party.
Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, has long walked a fine line between maintaining her seat and placating a Republican base that has increasingly viewed her as too moderate. Her vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial alienated her from the GOP electorate, and her support for Harris solidifies her position as an outsider within the party.
The Lincoln Project: A Failed Experiment
Perhaps the most glaring example of political irrelevance is The Lincoln Project, the group of disaffected Republicans that formed in opposition to Trump. While initially heralded by the media as a principled stand against the populist takeover of the GOP, the organization quickly descended into scandal and disarray. Its members—George Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, Rick Wilson, Jennifer Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid—have not only failed to sway Republican voters but have also been engulfed by internal turmoil, sexual harassment scandals, and allegations of financial mismanagement.
The Lincoln Project’s endorsement of Harris is more of a desperate attempt to stay relevant than a meaningful political statement. Their influence has waned to the point that they are now more popular with MSNBC viewers than with actual Republican voters. Their vocal support for a Democratic candidate only serves to remind the GOP base that they no longer belong within the party’s tent.
The GOP’s Future: Unwavering Loyalty to the Base
The transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade has been nothing short of revolutionary. What was once a party led by establishment figures like the Bushes, Romneys, and Cheneys has now become a movement driven by a populist, nationalist base. The issues that animate the GOP today—securing the southern border, protecting American jobs, limiting government overreach, and standing up to the radical left—are completely at odds with the worldview of the RINO Republicans who are now backing Kamala Harris.
By choosing to support Harris, these figures have all but guaranteed their permanent exclusion from any future Republican administration. Their influence has been reduced to the occasional appearance on cable news, where they are paraded as “reasonable” Republicans willing to buck their party’s leadership. But within the actual GOP, their voices carry no weight. The Republican Party is no longer a party of compromise with the left—it is a party of conviction, driven by a desire to restore American greatness and reject the globalist, interventionist policies of the past.
A New Era for the GOP
As the 2024 election looms, the irrelevance of the Never Trump Republicans becomes increasingly apparent. Their endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a principled stand but a final act of desperation from a faction that has lost its influence and power. The future of the Republican Party belongs to those who are willing to fight for the interests of the American people, not those who seek the approval of the media or the Washington elite. In the end, the RINO Republicans have chosen their path, and it is one that leads far away from the heart of the GOP.
WASHINGTON, DC — The Clinton political machine, long accustomed to dictating the terms of engagement, ran headlong this week into an institution that does not negotiate its constitutional authority. In a rare and politically explosive move, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted on a bipartisan basis to advance contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defying lawful subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The January 21 vote clears the way for the full House to consider whether to formally hold the Clintons in contempt, a step that could result in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. While neither Clinton has been accused of a crime related to Epstein, lawmakers framed the issue more narrowly and more starkly: whether elite political figures are subject to the same compulsory process as everyone else when Congress demands sworn testimony.
The subpoenas arise from Congress’s ongoing investigation into how Epstein operated a vast international sex trafficking network for years while avoiding meaningful accountability. Epstein allegedly died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 as he awaited trial, but subsequent court filings and document releases revealed his deep and troubling access to political, financial, and cultural power centers. Bill Clinton, and numerous other influential figures appear in those records.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said the subpoenas issued to the Clintons were approved unanimously last summer by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bill Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, then moved to December 17, and later reset for January 13, 2026. Hillary Clinton followed a similar trajectory, declining multiple proposed dates before failing to appear for a January 14 deposition. In each instance, the committee said it offered flexibility if the Clintons would propose firm alternative dates. They did not.
Instead, the Clintons’ attorneys countered with what Comer described as an unacceptable proposal. Under that offer, Comer would travel to New York to speak with Bill Clinton alone, without placing him under oath, without producing an official transcript, and without allowing other members of Congress to participate. Comer rejected the proposal, arguing that it amounted to special treatment unavailable to any other witness.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Comer said during the hearing. “They carry the force of law and require compliance.”
The committee emphasized that sworn, transcribed testimony is essential to transparency and accountability. Oversight investigators have already released transcripts of interviews with former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, both of whom had direct dealings with Epstein during earlier stages of his prosecution. Allowing the Clintons to substitute informal conversations or written statements, Comer argued, would erode the integrity of the investigation and leave the public dependent on competing recollections rather than a fixed record.
Democrats on the committee were divided. Some argued the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, while others conceded that Congress cannot selectively enforce its authority based on party loyalty. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said no current or former president should be categorically immune from oversight. Several Democrats stressed that full transparency in the Epstein case demands uniform standards, even when politically inconvenient.
Recent history undercuts claims that contempt powers are merely symbolic. Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign and White House strategist, was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser, was likewise charged and later imprisoned after refusing to provide testimony to the same panel. Both cases demonstrated that contempt citations can and do result in criminal penalties, including incarceration.
The Clintons have argued through counsel that the subpoenas are invalid and that they possess little relevant information. In a letter to the committee, they described Epstein’s crimes as “horrific” and said they had cooperated in good faith by offering written declarations outlining their limited interactions with him. The committee rejected that approach, noting that Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state gives her direct knowledge of federal anti trafficking initiatives and that both Clintons maintained documented personal and social ties to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Historically, contempt of Congress has been used sparingly, particularly against high profile political figures. No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. However, legal analysts note that the Clintons are private citizens and cannot claim executive privilege protections that might apply to a sitting president.
The contempt resolutions now move to the full House, where passage will require a majority vote. Even if approved, the Justice Department retains discretion over whether to pursue prosecution. That uncertainty has not dampened the broader significance of the moment.
At its core, the dispute is not about partisan score settling or retroactive guilt. It is about whether Congress’s investigative power means what the Constitution says it means. For decades, the Clintons operated within a political ecosystem that treated them as exceptions. The Oversight Committee’s vote suggests that era may be ending.
If subpoenas bind only the unfavored and the powerless, they bind no one at all. The House must now decide whether the rule of law applies equally, even when the names on the subpoena are Clinton.
Fate, Texas — The City of Fate has completed its review of the recall petition targeting City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, formally verifying the petition as valid and clearing the way for a recall election to be ordered by the City Council.
City officials confirmed that 396 signatures from registered Fate voters were verified and accepted, exceeding the 351 signatures required under the city’s home rule charter. With the verification process complete, the matter now advances to the City Council on Monday, January 26th, which is legally required to call a recall election in accordance with Texas election law.
Under the charter, the action is administerial and the council has no discretion to reject or delay a properly presented petition. Chinn will be given an opportunity for a hearing to address the council, if she chooses, but it will not change the fact that a recall election must be held.
A Stark Electoral Comparison
The verified signature count carries added political significance when viewed against the backdrop of Chinn’s original election.
In June 2024, Chinn prevailed in a runoff election against challenger Cinnamon Krause, winning by a margin of 835 votes (56.92%) to 632 votes (43.08%). The recall petition, which gathered over 400 signatures in approximately one week, represents almost half the total number of votes Chinn received citywide in her election.
While a recall petition is not a direct proxy for voter intent, the comparison underscores the speed and scale of the opposition effort, as well as citizen dissatisfaction with Chinn, particularly in a city where municipal turnout is typically modest and electoral margins are measured in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
From Certification to the Ballot
With the petition signatures verified and considered “Sufficient”, the recall effort now enters its next—and most consequential—phase. If the council follows the standard timeline, the recall election is expected to be placed on the May ballot, coinciding with regularly scheduled municipal elections for City Council Place 2 (Mark Harper) and Place 3 (Scott Kelley).
Harper and Kelley have not yet announced if they intend to run for reelection.
The recall ballot will present voters with a single question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term in May 2027. A simple majority is required for removal. If the recall succeeds, the resulting vacancy would be filled by appointment of the council. If it fails, Chinn would retain her seat for the remainder of her term.
Election
Texas AI Attack Ad Sparks Outrage After Showing Jasmine Crockett and John Cornyn Dancing “Washington Waltz” in Heated Senate Race
AUSTIN, Texas — A controversy over the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising has erupted in the Texas U.S. Senate race, after a newly released AI-generated video depicts Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett and Senator John Cornyn dancing together in stylized scenes meant to satirize their relationship in Washington, D.C. The ad, issued by Texas Attorney General and GOP Senate contender Ken Paxton’s campaign, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum and underscored growing concerns about the use of synthetic media in elections.
The ad, which circulated online beginning around January 16, 2026, shows AI-rendered versions of Crockett and Cornyn engaged in choreographed dancing inside what appears to be a dance hall and in front of the U.S. Capitol. According to reporting, the visuals are meant to reference past remarks in which Cornyn described Crockett as his “dance partner” in the Senate in a metaphorical sense, highlighting their occasional bipartisan cooperation.
What Happened
Ken Paxton’s campaign released the ad titled “Partner” as part of his broader effort to define Cornyn as a weak Republican and to draw contrasts with other candidates in the GOP Senate primary. The video pairs the AI imagery with music and imagery that suggests a partnership out of step with conservative values, implying that Cornyn’s willingness to work across the aisle weakens his Republican bona fides.
The ad appears on social media platforms rather than traditional television and it includes a small disclaimer noting that parts of the video were generated using artificial intelligence. A move supporters say aims to satisfy transparency concerns even though Texas law does not require such disclosure outside of defined electioneering periods.
NEW AD: John Cornyn has been dancing the night way with liberal lunatics like Jasmine Crockett and selling us out every step of the way.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 16, 2026
That’s why he called Crockett his “dance partner” and she said Cornyn was her “best partner” in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/b2LeuBfRYX
The Candidates Involved
- Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic congresswoman from Texas’ 30th District, which has been redefined by the Texas Legislature, is running in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Cornyn. She has toured parts of the state campaigning on issues such as opioid crisis intervention, hunger, and broader economic concerns. She is currently running behind her Democratic challenger, James Talarico.
- John Cornyn is the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator seeking re-election in 2026. Polling shows him falling behind his rival, Ken Paxton, and may even come in third, behind Wesley Hunt.
Reactions From Campaigns
Crockett’s campaign has pushed back against Paxton’s framing, with spokespeople noting that the focus on bipartisanship is not a substantive attack on her record but an attempt to weaponize generative media against her. Supporters say Crockett’s actual work on issues like the opioid crisis and food insecurity demonstrates cross-party cooperation in service of Texans, not political theater.
Cornyn’s team has so far declined to directly comment on the ad, according to reporting, leaving a vacuum that has allowed digital discourse to flourish largely unchecked on social platforms.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The use of AI to depict real political figures doing things they never actually did raises significant legal and ethical questions. Texas law includes provisions that make it a misdemeanor to distribute a “deep fake” video within 30 days of an election with intent to influence the outcome, although enforcement of such statutes is untested and subject to interpretation.
Experts and advocates warn that generative content in political advertising could mislead voters, erode trust in legitimate campaigning, and outpace current regulatory frameworks. There is no federal requirement that ads containing AI-generated content carry clear labels, and states vary widely in how — or whether — they regulate synthetic media in political contexts.
Public and Political Response
The ad has quickly become a topic of discussion on digital forums and social media. Commenters have described it variously as humorous, cringe-inducing, or disturbing, with discussions often centering on broader fears that AI will drown political discourse in manipulated content. Some observers on platforms like Reddit note that the synthetic depictions could backfire on Paxton, especially among voters who see bipartisanship as a virtue.
Republican and Democratic voters alike have expressed frustration online that artificial intelligence is being used to blur the line between satire and misinformation in an already polarized political environment.
Context Within the 2026 Senate Race
The Texas Senate contest in 2026 remains highly competitive. Polls show Cornyn’s support varying across matchups against Democratic contenders, including Crockett and others, with some surveys indicating narrow leads or possible runoff scenarios in the Republican primary.
This ad is one of the earliest signals that the 2026 cycle will ably test the boundaries of campaign messaging technology, and it arrives amidst broader debates about whether legislative or judicial action is needed to govern the use of AI in political communications.
Why This Matters
The “Washington Waltz” style ad exemplifies how rapidly advancing technology is reshaping political campaigns — for better or worse. It forces voters and lawmakers to ask whether current laws are equipped to preserve truthful discourse, or whether new guardrails are required to prevent deceptive content from influencing elections.
For constitutional conservatives and civic activists alike, this incident highlights a deeper tension between free speech protections and the need for electoral integrity. The stakes extend beyond the characters in this particular Senate race; they speak to a future in which digital manipulation can construct realities that never occurred.
As the 2026 primaries approach, voters in Texas — and observers nationwide — will be watching not just who wins or loses, but how campaigns wield revolutionary tools of persuasion in a hypercharged political era.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login