Not that I always interject on others squabbles, but what isn't to understand about this statement:
I don't know of any Republican in my area that was challenged in the primary that was an incumbent...What sandbar is saying is, he had no control over selecting conservative Republicans in the primaries because none of the incumbent Republicans were challenged by any conservatives!
If we can't get rid of the RINOs in the primary because they are not being challenged, then you have to get rid of them in the generals.
No. If the RINOs are unchallenged in primaries, it is because so-called "true conservatives" refuse to run, preferring to vote for liberals and claim they are teaching the GOP a lesson in true conservatism.
Yeah. Almost sounds French. I do not pardon French.
Are you naive?
The majority party holds the chairmanships and determines which bills and legislation are brought to the floor.
Whenever we're not totally happy with individual candidates, it is imperative to vote for the party we want to make the decisions!
>>>If we can't get rid of the RINOs in the primary because they are not being challenged, then you have to get rid of them in the generals.>>>
Thank you. I was confused on how I didn't get my point across, but didn't want to get into a heated debate over grammar.
BTW. Sandbar is a she.