Most Electable Republican Candidate?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

If Barack Obama wins, I said, it would be because Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be because the Republicans picked the wrong candidate.

How would this come about? Let’s start with the fact that there’s a split in the Republican Party. There are two separate and distinct factions. One that demands conservative purity in its candidate for president and one that is far more practical and will gladly accept any candidate who can beat President Obama, no matter how moderate.

The purists want the most conservative Republican candidate to be nominated. They detest moderates. Compromise to them is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Rush Limbaugh and some members of the Tea Party are the loudest voices on the purity side.

The other side consists of followers of the late William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would support the most viable conservative candidate in any race – meaning the most conservative candidate who can actually win.

But wait, the purists say, the most conservative candidate can win. I’m not so sure. Look at it this way: Rush Limbaugh is the most famous conservative in America. He’s smart, articulate and expresses conservative ideas better than just about anyone. But Rush couldn’t win a national election. He’s way too polarizing a figure. So if Rush couldn’t win, why do the purists think that someone like him could?

As for the Tea Party: Its members have done a lot of good. Without them we might not be having a national debate about the spending and deficits and debt that is crippling our economy. They deserve our thanks and a lot of credit. But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable -- candidates.

The Buckley faction would rather have a moderate Republican in the Senate, who will vote with his or her party only half the time, rather than a liberal Democrat who will never vote with the Republicans. And that’s what Nevada and Delaware wound up with: two liberal Democrats who back President Obama on just about everything. That’s the price Republicans pay for ideological purity.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...feat-from-jaws-victory-in-2012/#ixzz1ZREqKy7R

political sell out or political reality? how would you vote?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

MIke Castle voted with the Republican party a lot more than 50% of the time. And if Castle would've been in the race, the Democrats absolutely would've had absolutely no chance.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If Barack Obama wins, I said, it would be because Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be because the Republicans picked the wrong candidate.

How would this come about? Let’s start with the fact that there’s a split in the Republican Party. There are two separate and distinct factions. One that demands conservative purity in its candidate for president and one that is far more practical and will gladly accept any candidate who can beat President Obama, no matter how moderate.

The purists want the most conservative Republican candidate to be nominated. They detest moderates. Compromise to them is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Rush Limbaugh and some members of the Tea Party are the loudest voices on the purity side.

The other side consists of followers of the late William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would support the most viable conservative candidate in any race – meaning the most conservative candidate who can actually win.

But wait, the purists say, the most conservative candidate can win. I’m not so sure. Look at it this way: Rush Limbaugh is the most famous conservative in America. He’s smart, articulate and expresses conservative ideas better than just about anyone. But Rush couldn’t win a national election. He’s way too polarizing a figure. So if Rush couldn’t win, why do the purists think that someone like him could?

As for the Tea Party: Its members have done a lot of good. Without them we might not be having a national debate about the spending and deficits and debt that is crippling our economy. They deserve our thanks and a lot of credit. But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable -- candidates.

The Buckley faction would rather have a moderate Republican in the Senate, who will vote with his or her party only half the time, rather than a liberal Democrat who will never vote with the Republicans. And that’s what Nevada and Delaware wound up with: two liberal Democrats who back President Obama on just about everything. That’s the price Republicans pay for ideological purity.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...feat-from-jaws-victory-in-2012/#ixzz1ZREqKy7R

political sell out or political reality? how would you vote?

Political reality! Politics is and always has been the art of compromise. The ideological stance of the far right purist is both niave and immature. They need to grow up. You can't always have it your own way! In politics in order to achieve an agenda or move your constituents towards their goals you often must accept compromise as the alternative is "nothing at all". In this respect Rush Limbaugh is a political moron and a neophyte. He is leading the Republican constituency away from reality and sound governance. It's easy from where a Limbaugh sits to trow raw meat to a consituency who wants to hear simply what it wants to hear so he can sell advertisments. That's not hard. What is hard is governing! In this respect Limbaugh and other ideological purist are morons. They harm the conservative cause and they have chased away far to many moderates and center right people whom they could be building affective governing coalitions with but won't because it's not ideologicaly pure. This is the metaphorical equivalent of throwing a childish temper tantrum and going home to pout cause you can't have it all your own way. Well reality is, that two things in life you don't ever want to see made are sausages and laws. Republicans need a healthy dose of reality or they face a grim long term future.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If Barack Obama wins, I said, it would be because Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be because the Republicans picked the wrong candidate.

How would this come about? Let’s start with the fact that there’s a split in the Republican Party. There are two separate and distinct factions. One that demands conservative purity in its candidate for president and one that is far more practical and will gladly accept any candidate who can beat President Obama, no matter how moderate.

The purists want the most conservative Republican candidate to be nominated. They detest moderates. Compromise to them is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Rush Limbaugh and some members of the Tea Party are the loudest voices on the purity side.

The other side consists of followers of the late William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would support the most viable conservative candidate in any race – meaning the most conservative candidate who can actually win.

But wait, the purists say, the most conservative candidate can win. I’m not so sure. Look at it this way: Rush Limbaugh is the most famous conservative in America. He’s smart, articulate and expresses conservative ideas better than just about anyone. But Rush couldn’t win a national election. He’s way too polarizing a figure. So if Rush couldn’t win, why do the purists think that someone like him could?

As for the Tea Party: Its members have done a lot of good. Without them we might not be having a national debate about the spending and deficits and debt that is crippling our economy. They deserve our thanks and a lot of credit. But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable -- candidates.

The Buckley faction would rather have a moderate Republican in the Senate, who will vote with his or her party only half the time, rather than a liberal Democrat who will never vote with the Republicans. And that’s what Nevada and Delaware wound up with: two liberal Democrats who back President Obama on just about everything. That’s the price Republicans pay for ideological purity.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...feat-from-jaws-victory-in-2012/#ixzz1ZREqKy7R

political sell out or political reality? how would you vote?

The problem is, when the GOP fills the seats with "moderate" conservatives, we get TARP and the Pill Bill... and people say things like... They're ALL THE SAME! And when the GOP has a real shot at stopping some Socialistic Liberal piece of Communist legislation, here comes a "Gang of" moderates to piss away any advantage, and hand another victory to the Liberals. But still, people think we need more like this in Congress, because they CAN get elected.

I'd just like to make this one point about the Tea Party... this article acts like we should be grateful for the Tea Party raising the issue of spending, but that's about it... as if, that's all we need to do, say thanks guys, and move on... no need to actually LISTEN to what the Tea Party is demanding. I beg to differ. If the GOP elite, the GOP establishment, the hard-core Republicans, don't understand what happened in 2010, they may find themselves tossed out in 2012. Yep... Angle and O'Donnell... both cases where the 'moderate' Republican was beaten in the primary, and the Tea Party candidate couldn't win the general....but the moderate didn't even win the primary! We are no better off with a moderate who is going to side with the Liberals, than if we go ahead and elect a Liberal to the seat. This idiocy that we need to nominate "electable" candidates, is NOT helping matters... We need to elect people who have solid core conservative values, across the board, and to hell with preconceptions.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Of course, Bush signed TARP and the Pill Bill, and strongly supported both, along with other unpopular programs such as NCLB.

As long as the GOP doesn't nominate John Kerry, I guess they have a good chance of winning.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Of course, Bush signed TARP and the Pill Bill, and strongly supported both, along with other unpopular programs such as NCLB.

As long as the GOP doesn't nominate John Kerry, I guess they have a good chance of winning.

Yes... that was the point... MODERATE Republicans said, this is the way to go... We need to pass TARP and the Pill Bill because the pinhead liberals want it, and we need to be liked by them, because they hate us! And so that's what the GOP did... they went with the MODERATES when they should have been listening to the base and the CONSERVATIVES, including the TEA PARTY, who essentially hasn't been wrong about ANY of this shit.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixie:

would you rather have a moderate republican or obama?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Yes... that was the point... MODERATE Republicans said, this is the way to go... We need to pass TARP and the Pill Bill because the pinhead liberals want it, and we need to be liked by them, because they hate us! And so that's what the GOP did... they went with the MODERATES when they should have been listening to the base and the CONSERVATIVES, including the TEA PARTY, who essentially hasn't been wrong about ANY of this shit.

Bush led the way on TARP, the Pill Bill, and especially on NCLB. When McCain and Obama symbolically suspended their campaigns to go talk in DC, Bush was already leading the nation toward enacting TARP.