If Rush had not said a word, a good third of the Republican electorate would have sat on their hands and wallets. The Republican establishment simply cannot get it through their heads that 2006 was a vote against them. If the filed on candidates we have seen were the best they could do, then it means they have spent years without developing leaders who could appeal to the whole party.
I agree, in most races anyway (Santorum might be a counterexample.)
Robby continues... If the filed on candidates we have seen were the best they could do, then it means they have spent years without developing leaders who could appeal to the whole party.
And, I see your point here, as well.
However, we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that these are state races, and who runs is decided by voters. I won't pretend that RNC doesn't wield some $ influence, and other measures of support, but it's the voters who decide, ultimately.
And, it's the voters who went for (ugh) McCain, over some candidates that I clearly preferred. (I voted for Mitt in CA).
I think McCain won because the other candidates split the conservative votes and/or ganged up on Mitt at the end.
So many here want to punish the RNC, (and I sympathize, to a point.)
It's just that our great country will be unrecoverably damaged from just 4 years of a Marxist Hillary administration (who will see to it that her own vote-counting assistance is in effect for all future elections, and that her D of J will ignore any vote fraud, and that a gazillion illegal aliens who storm our country for free health care will find themselves naturalized and expected to repay the service with many, many votes.)
So, any notions of getting even with the RNC would be rewarded with Democrat rule as far as the eye can see.
I'll take McCain and hope for a conservative running mate.