Posted on 10/08/2014 7:13:33 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A tactic itself does not have to have an elected official.
The tactic itself is what I am talking about, and remain on, despite your use of Red Herrings.
The point is, should Dems or Repubs try to tie anyone with anyone, be it Koch with a Repub, Soros with a Dem, Obama with any locally elected Senator, or a Repub elected president in 2016 with any locally elected Senator?
‘zackly.
Listen, please...
The tactic itself is what is the issue.
And with that in mind, do you want 1.) a Republican elected president in 2016 tied in with a locally elected person, or 2.) Obama tied in with a locally elected person, or 3.) Soros tied in with a locally elected person, or 4.) the Koch Brothers tied in with a locally elected person?
Should all be eschewed (1 through 4) or just 1 and 4?
Read post #23.
Do you want 1 and 4 or 1 through 4?
Dems should answer the same question.
Do they want the reverse?
How then are Repubs any better than Dems if no one says enough to anyone being tied to/in with anyone?
I honestly don’t understand the argument. National elections have often been nationalized. When a Senator is elected and votes lockstep with their party leadership and president, it is nationalized. I don’t even see how there is an argument here.
In this case, a vote for any Democrat is a vote for Harry Reid and Obama. Simple fact. Even ‘moderates’ like Manchin in West Virginia have by and large bought onto the Obama/Reid plan.
When the Federal government controls everything, any election in any state has national implications.
The end of the matter:
Advocating that no one should be tied in with anyone ends hypocrisy on this matter.
Republicans just wanting Repubs engaging in the tactic of trying to tie in anyone they can with anyone they can is no better than Dems trying to do the same.
The Kochs are private citizens.
President Ebola is not.
“All politics is local” was not an observation by Tip O’Neill. It was a strategy. When all politics is local, it becomes a matter of who brings home the most pork, which always favors Democrats and liberals.
Nationalizing campaigns negates that tactic, and, while it doesn’t always favor Republicans, it didn’t in 2006, it does if the Republicans deploy the right tactics and hit on the right themes, as they did in 1994.
Well you don’t to be so pushy with your opinion.
It’s perfectly fair game to tie a candidate to the leader of his/her party. It is hardly the same to tie a candidate to an individual, or individuals who are private citizens supporting causes they believe in. It’s a quantum leap between the President of the United States/leader of his political party, and wealthy individuals. YOU are creating your own flawed comparison.
It’s not up to me.
Depends on who wins in November, doesn’t it? If successful, the strategy will be lauded and imitated.
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.