I’m bustin on both of you. The big deal is what’s good for conservatism. What’s good for conservatism is that we don’t do opposition research on behalf of liberals, and we don’t do voting sector polarization on behalf of liberals. We let them do that on their own.
You gonna sit there and tell me that Sharon Angle wasn’t injured by her own side during the primary and during the election in Nevada?
There is a way to oppose one of our people that doesn’t increase their burden in the current election or one for a different office in the future.
Personally, I’d love to see a Senator Bachmann from Wisc. some day.
xin, Ok I’ll ‘lighten up’. I see your point in the ‘friendly fire’ perspective, and if you were truly a “chaplin’, well, I can understand where you’re coming from.
Look, it’s gonna get nasty, but here’s something that I would like for you to consider. Any “negatively” construed presentations (at least from me) that is directed against Perry (or any other Republican), will come from the “RIGHT” side of the equation (meaning what he ‘said’ or ‘did’ was not in-line with what I believe to be conservative principles). If I have called him a “phony” conservative, it’s because his demonstrated actions or words, to me and others, demonstrate that.
In the “general”, the Socialists (”Liberals” just don’t exist in the RAT party anymore, only on our side) will targe Perry (or whomever) from the LEFT side, meaning he won’t be SOCIALIST enough. Our bullets now will have NO EFFECT in the general. Trust me. History has proven that.
Unless, though, we get into PERSONAL (non-political) conduct, then all bets are off, and that would be ‘radioactive’ material, lethal in any battle field.