>> Because a liberal reminds Republicans that conservatives are their base. It could be argued that the Clintons were the best commercial for the conservative wing of the Republican party.
George W. Bush was the Republican nominee, and President, that directly followed the Clinton Administration ... the supposed “commercial for the Republican Party” ... and Bush didn’t even win by all that much. Many ideological purists on this site have claimed that Bush is the textbook definition of a pragmatic sellout, a RINO, etc.
That doesn’t square with your contention that a liberal President Gore would’ve taught Republicans a lesson about the base. A liberal President Clinton was followed by Bush, who you’d likely contend isn’t a real conservative.
>> The Republican revolution was a flood of genuine conservatives taking office. What preceded that flood?
Agreed. But, that “flood” was preceded by 40 YEARS of Democratic control of the House of Representatives (the last time Republicans had controlled the House was 1954). Sometimes losing isn’t a lesson for anyone ... its just losing.
So, you’re saying you’d have been FINE with President Gore since 2000 ... because it would’ve taught the Republicans a lesson, right? Nevermind what it’d have done to the country, the Supreme Court, the War on Terrorism, the budget, the tax rate, the economy, etc.
Let’s teach the nasty RINOs a lesson - the nation be damned. I still fail to see the value, to the conservative movement, of losing elections (or nominating unelectable candidates). Elections have consequences ... we’d be in much worse shape now had you gotten your way in 2000.
H