Posted on 11/03/2010 7:23:28 AM PDT by cartervt2k
Look, this was a good night in the House, but I can’t look away at all the missed opportunities in the Senate.
First off, we should be thanking our lucky stars John McCain won his primary in AZ. He sucks and is a RINO, but how would you like reading this morning that the ‘rats picked off Hayworth along with Angle going down and Christine O’Donnell losing by 17? This is a state that installed Big Sis as governor – you’re telling me they couldn’t have picked this up?
I’m taking odds on anyone who thinks Buck is going to pull it out in purple CO. Whatever you think about gay marriage, what the hell is he doing talking about it on Sunday morning talk shows when the ‘rats are sprinting from their record? Their agenda is imploding and you give them a sound bite on gay marriage?!
This is a year where our senate margins should have been wider than normal. Candidates matter. If the media can find anything on you, they will exploit it to the hilt – never more so the case in statewide races. If you are perceived as a weak candidate, the media will make you weaker. If anyone thinks beating Obama is going to be a breeze in 2012, they’re dreaming. Look at the way all of Harry Reid’s machinery and corruption carried him to victory last night. When was the last time Rasmussen showed him ahead? You’re telling me Obama is going to play it straight up? He’s just as sleazy and corrupt as Reid.
With the exception of Rubio (arguably our best new conservative ambassador) and Johnson (another strong candidate), look how close these pretty safe R pickups in PA and IL. The only reason Kirk won in blue IL is because he is a RINO that was fortunate enough to get the nomination before RINO hunting season opened, or we’d be talking about Senator Giannoulias along with Senator Coons. Rossi is an establishment guy, and look how close he’s been able to keep it in blue WA. If Angle were running against Murray, this one would have been called when the polls closed.
I’ve been on the record here about this before, but if you seriously value social issues, as I do, then you need to fight to win: get as many fiscal hawk R’s in power as possible (along with the social R’s in solid red states) to hold our majorities. They will appoint originalists to the courts, and we won’t have Sotomayors or Kagans creating abortion and gay marriage laws by judicial fiat. Or would you rather have smaller, concentrated numbers of R’s who will be helpless against activist courts? You decide.
If the old-boy GOP had better candidates, then we wouldn’t have needed the O’Donnells and Angles.
Palin said exit polls showed that Castle would have lost DE as well so your point is moot.
I will take odds McCain does not live out his term.
I concur. The victory came in the primary. Yes I wish the candidates were a bit more polished and not so gaffe prone, but their primary wins sent a resounding message to the GOP. The GOP had to clean their own house first, before they were ready to take back power, and in that sense, "Mission Accomplished." Now we'll be in better position for 2012, now that the deadweight in the party has been dealt with.
As long as the GOP controls the House, they can kill it by simply not funding it.
OK, I'll go first.
Palin cannot be elected President.
Palin is a damn liar there. COD changed the entire dynamics of that race. Coons was simply a sacrificial lamb for this race
The loses the Tea Party took was Rino doing and it will be their undoing. If they screw up over the next couple years and act as if nothing has changed, the GOP will die. Without voters, there is no GOP.
The massive wins in state legislatures across the country also helps to build a solid "bench" for future federal candidates.
It’s the fiscally promiscuous “conservatives” like Bush that get us in trouble with the electorate and tarnish the brand. If there’s not much daylight between R’s and D’s in terms of spending restraint, then it’s not a big deal for independents to break hard for the D and give us professional spending marxists like Obama. (Unpopular, however righteous, wars don’t help either.)
Chris Christie is a great case study. He is regarded by many around here as a RINO and has a 51% approval rating in deep blue NJ because of how he’s trying to straighten out their finances.
The main problem is the closer the GOP gets to 50 seats in the Senate, the more power it gives RINOs like the ladies from Maine and Juan McCain to sell us out to the left.
That’s your long term solution?
That's really was the big story of the night.
That was largely a "I want to vote for a woman" and "I hate mormons" vote.
As an add on to my last post, two races stand out as good examples of voting to win vs. voting for conservatism:
The obviously good example is Crist in Florida. If we had no Tea Party, Crist would have won and his lack of principle and rank opportunism would have come out after he was a senator. The Tea Party knocked him off and we now have a rising star in Rubio. A clear positive.
In other cases—O’Donnell and, to a lesser extent, Angle—you had people who were right on issues but who got out-campaigned and made amateur mistakes.
It comes down to the question we asked and debated a million times before. Do we want a majority if you have to have a bunch of Castles to get there? Can we get a majority of principled conservatives? The answer to the first question depends on the second, and the answer to the second is a lot harder than many conservatives think it is.
So you would rather have Giannoulias than Kirk? I would like to see you write that.
I wish Nevada had a "I hate Mormons" vote.
Supporting liberals who have no intention of voting your way, just because they have an "R" after their name is yours?
If the GOP can't maintain a legislative majority long enough to permanently dismantle Obamacare, then it ain't going away, period (presuming it survives court challenges in the first place).
>I have been frustrated during the Bush years that the “Republican” president and “Republican” Congress did nothing to advance conservatism and limited government. In fact, 2000-2006 were the warm-up for the Dem spending binge that we just had.
This is *exactly* what I mean when I claim that the Republicans, AS A PARTY, are worse than the Democrats. The Democrats at least put effort into advancing their stated party-planks while the Republicans are “whitewashed tombs” that make appeals to their constituents about morality, ending abortion’s legality, limited government, fiscal responsibility and so forth; yet when in power they don’t even make the symbolic gesture of proposing such legislation. (And look at the reputation of ones that do propose doing things differently, like Ron Paul, who suggested the use of Letters of Marque & Reprisal instead of the Global War on Terror and the massive military spending; people [republicans] call him a nut and deride people who think he has some quite valid points.)
And *DON’T* bring up Reagan. I’m not even 30 yet; meaning when he was in office I didn’t have *ANY* care about politics. His *actual* advocacy of the conservatism that the Republican-party-plank is based upon seems to me to be something of a “statistical anomaly.”
When a Republican running for senator says he’ll support Cap and Trade he doesn’t deserve to win. Hell there is a new democrat senator from W. Virgina who says he won’t support Cap and Trade. How ironic is that.
At least Christine O’Donnell had the same principles as most of us “republicans”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.