Perfect Candidate excuse will cost GOP Elections in 2014

The AMERICAN THINKER ^ | November 27, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley

[LibLieSlayer]

I am with you... Walker is fine for Wisconsin but he will never get my vote for president... nor christie or bush. I want a Constitutional pro gun anti baby murder Conservative or nothing.

[fatnotlazy]

I want a candidate who loves America, who believes that we as individuals make this country great, not the government. I want someone who believes in the strength of America and who will promote and protect America at every opportunity, not someone who will reduce this nation to banana republic status. I Want someone Who will work for all Americans, not just for a certain ethnic group or for friends and supporters. I want a candidate who will preserve, protect and promote the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded, not advocate immorality that is leading this country to ruin.

If there is a candidate who fills these qualifications, I would vote for him/her regardless of party affiliation. Unfortunately, neither party will promote a candidate with these ideals.

[ScottinVA]

We lost Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, Missouri to name a few

Yep. Alaska is a special case, because Ted Stevens was indicted mere days before the 2008 election, swinging it (barely) to Begich. The other states, along with Indiana in 2012, should've been in the bag. It's great to nominate people who don't have a lot of political background, but with that comes a dearth of political experience, in that some don't know when to STFU about hot-button issues. Akin and Mourdock deep-sixed not only their own campaigns with unforced errors, but IMO killed Berg's in ND and Thompson's in WI.

[Moseley]

I don’t expect a perfect candidate. I expect a candidate who adheres to long-established convervative principles and who is up for a tough fight

Emphasis -- in my mind -- on "UP FOR A TOUGH FIGHT." What good does it do to believe in something, politically, if you are not ready to "fight" (campaign energetically and effectively and persuasively) for it?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Baron Harkonnen the floating fat man form Frank Herbert's "Dune" is a non-starter for me...

[grania]

Some of those losses you list happened because the RINOs did not want to win. They'd rather lose to the dems than to cede power to conservatives. That's been abundantly clear with the shennanigans stopping Cruz's could've been successful drive to stop Obamacare and not working as hard to elect Cucinelli as they could've, while giving Christie more help than he needed.

All this BS is about one thing...we have to vote for JebBush or Christie as "the lesser of two evils". When pigs fly...

[Moseley]

Then the GOP needs to avoid nominating gaffe-prone buffoons like Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell, Richard Mourdock and Sharron Angle

These are actually examples of the GOP failing to learn how to win elections and failing to run effective campaigns.

Democrats spew out far worse gaffes in far greater quantities and with far worse content, all the time.

But Democrat gaffes do not matter because Democrats know how to fight back, how to defend their nominees, how to redirect the discussion on to the important issues (important to them, to win, which is usually deceitful), etc.,

Todd Akin should have been elected. The GOP stabbed him in the back. Yes, he said ONE -- COUNT THEM, ONE, AS IN ONE -- dumb thing.

Democrats would have closed ranks around a Democrat version of Todd Akin, fought back, and won the seat. The issue never would have gotten traction because the Democrats would have pounced immediately, moved it off the front page, and kept it from ever becoming a big issue.

While I don't think any Republican could have won Delaware, and Mike Castle would have been clobbered, the same is true of Christine O'Donnell.

REMEMBER: The 2012 Republican nominee got only 29% of the vote for US Senate. Christine O'Donnell in 2010 got 40% of the vote -- the same vote that Mitt Romney got in Delaware for President, after spending a fortune and being "the perfect" moderate candidate.

So if you want to blame Christine O'Donnell with her 40% in 2010, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE 2012 NOMINEE GETTING ONLY 29% OF THE VOTE IN DELAWARE for US Senate?

[DJ MacWoW]

Karl Rove Looks For True Conservatives

Click The Pic To Donate To Real Conservatism. Do It Monthly If You Can

[nascarnation]

Mourdock was really disappointing here in Indiana. Journ-0-list Stephanopolous telegraphed the war on women assault in January 2012 Republican debates, Limbaugh talked about it endlessly, and he wasn’t prepared for it.

Senate races are bigtime, only 30 some races every sequence, they are gonna get a full MSM attack no matter what state it is. Candidates have to be prepped intensely.

[mmichaels1970]

So if you want to blame Christine O'Donnell with her 40% in 2010, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE 2012 NOMINEE GETTING ONLY 29% OF THE VOTE IN DELAWARE for US Senate?

That's awesome!

The problem is the media. The GOPe are too interested in playing nice with them. The media will never support them...EXCEPT when it comes to the destruction of more conservative outsiders.

This alliance has done more to damage conservatives and republicans than any, IMHO. Rather than the party uniting around their candidates and fighting for them, they run to the media to aid in their destruction.

Rather than fighting ourselves, we should be fighting the media tooth and nail.

[TomGuy]

Perfect Candidate excuse

• Nobody is perfect, but my candidate choice is better than yours.

If FR had a $dollar for every time that got posted, FR would never have to run another telethon.

It is a fair excuse for those pushing their candidate choice, while telling everyone else to ignore his/her flaws and imperfections.

==

It would be nice to see a statesman, rather than another politician, run for the presidency. The trouble is, there are very few statesmen. Most 'candidates' are more interested in their own welfare than that of the Nation.

I will continue to hold out for a better one than those who ran and eventually emerged in 2008 and 2012.

[Disclaimer: My state primaries are so late in the spring that the nominee is decided weeks beforehand. Most of the I'm #1 (for this week) candidates had already dropped out by the time of my state primary. Thus, I don't get too excited by the flavor of the week, and I don't get many splinters because I don't jump from bandwagon to bandwagon.]

[justiceseeker93]

Yes, the article makes some very valid points, but there appears to be a false assumption built into it that the vaunted modern-day sophisticated Democrat election tactics are all legal. The fact is, though, that election fraud and cheating are very much part of the Democrat election routines as well, and their methods sometimes include remote hacking into electronic voting equipment, such as optical scanning and touch screen systems, to alter vote counting in their favor. Unless and until this hacking problem (and more traditional methods of fraud and cheating) is minimized, the GOP will have a very difficult time winning close elections. The high tech cheating, when targeted to swing states as it was by the ‘rats in 2012, quite possibly determined the outcome of the last presidential election.

[Altura Ct.]

Blah blah blah - How about a candidate that represents us?

[left that other site]

Indeed.

[Marcella]

“their methods sometimes include remote hacking into electronic voting equipment, such as optical scanning and touch screen systems, to alter vote counting in their favor.”

Electronic voting machines are NOT connected to the internet. They are dumb machines that record votes. To mess with a machine, you have to physically be with that machine. Election laws say those machines have to be locked in a room after they are checked for accuracy before the election.

I read one account the last election of machines being stored in the open in a hall and a couple of people went there to actually mess with machines in that hall - they did it on purpose to show machines could be changed. Before an election you could go to your county courthouse and asked where the machines are so you can check to make sure they are locked up. In Texas and likely the other states, once they are locked up the director of elections gives the key to the room to the sheriff.

If you really want to do something about machines, find out what your county does with machines just before the election.

In Texas, according to the Texas Election Code, the two county chairs meet with the director of elections to check machines to make sure they are accurate. They vote on the machine then it is checked to be sure it recorded the vote correctly.

Your states election law is on the web, read it to find out their system of keeping machines locked up and checked for accuracy.

[EternalVigilance]

The question for conservatives should not be some false 80-20 paradigm. Even if 80% of the glass is filled with the world’s finest wine, if the other 20% is rat poison, you would have to be a fool to drink it.

The question should be, “what is non-negotiable”?

For me it is:

Life

Liberty

Property

Marriage

RKBA

National sovereignty

National security

National borders

Republican, representative self-government

The keeping of the sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution, in all its purposes and particulars

After that, things are debatable.

Leaving only subjective questions about the personal gifts of the candidates which bear on winning office and governing effectively.

[al_c]

Agreed.

[cripplecreek]

I don’t expect a perfect candidate. A candidate that can articulate conservative free market ideals as a direction that should be taken will be fine. It needs to be someone who can reach out to new voters without pandering and make compromises that actually help us gain ground.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Fight it out in primary but once we have our candidate focus on enemy. This goes for teaparty libertarians and GOPe"

The GOPe IS an enemy.

[freekitty]

Exactly why is Soros trying to influence our politics? I know the usual obvious reasons; but what is the real reason?