I'm responding to something you wrote. I asked if the party sucks this much. You responded that it didn't, but that "those who want to implement a more conservative policy clearly DO since they can't get anyone to follow them."
That would seem to suggest that you believe conservatives suck. And that only Rudy, the closest any serious GOP presidential candidate has come to being a true liberal purist, is capable of reaching voters.
It sounds as much like an indictment of conservatism itself as it is an indictment of the candidates. And it sounds like you believe the prescription is to be more like the liberal left.
I don't know if that's what you believe or not. But that's what it sounded like, based on the words in the post that I was responding to.
"That would seem to suggest that you believe conservatives suck." Conservatives are woefully lacking in communicating what they are about. And they are unwilling to admit what happened in NOV which means they cannot win.
Do you seriously believe Conservativism is healthy when it leading stars of tomorrow where annihilated last Nov.?
You also act as if I APPROVE of the fact that no conservative is capable of gaining any momentum. Any fair minded reader of my posts would see that this is false. You cannot point to ANY negative criticism of any conservative politician except Tancredo and Ron Paul that I have made.
My "prescription" is to nominate a candidate with at least SOME chance of winning the election. I have REPEATEDLY said I would vote for whomever the GOP runs against Hillary even if if is a Far Rightist who has no chance. IN ADDITION, I have not even said I would vote for Giuliani in the primary.
Can the Burn the Bridgers at least be a little fair in what their opponents are saying?