“You say that as if the GOP-e is infallible in their candidate selection.”
Not at all. I prefer that someone other than the GOPe be involved in the vetting/selection of candidates. I was merely pointing that in the case of Reid’s seat (as well as a couple of notable others), that we needlessly lost a seat that we should have won handily. Tea Party folks generally have my support, but what I have seen is the Religious Right imposing their collective will in candidate selections that has not gone well. I am looking for common sense vetting that focusses on the central issues of interest to most voters. I voted to uphold the sanctity of marriage here in California and I am disgusted with what has happened to “the will of the people” in that instance, but I’ve about gotten to the position that we need to leave that particular matter alone for the time being and focus on electing people who will put the country back to work, Unfortunately, I am probably in the minority in my view here.
All they need is another Sandy Hook or CO theater event. I’m sure there’s going to be one right around the corner.
Actually, there is no need to separate the social and the economic issues.
Both clearly enjoy majority support all around the country. The fact that some failed Tea Party candidates have been given to public displays of stupidity doesn't diminish the fact -- any more than reluctance to support the social issues on the part of some failed establishment candidates diminish the fact.
One can be pro-jobs, pro-life and pro-marriage without making a fool of one's self.