I would hope that any PAC developed is focused on finite objectives. Whether it be getting a few REAL conservatives in seats we can get (but have failed in the past...PRIMARIES), making sure our leaders are the best we can get or confronting the worst media offenders with boycotts of their advertisers, etc.
Something we can measure and review. There’s nothing worse than tossing money and just losing it. I’d much rather lose a few bad republicans than support a self-destructive party.
We have to have military-like procession. We have to have the input of our contributors and practical participation. The best best is use the most popular and practical ways forward, and to constantly be honest on whether we’re accomplishing our goals through our means.
I am afraid that I am not interested in what is popular, or in what is practical. Therein lies the ground of the pragmatists.
Conservatism is well defined, and if one is to support Conservatism, that is done by supporting Conservatives. That is really the only practicality to worry about.
I think that the PAC must define itself with certain and immutable criteria. in order for a candidate to qualify for support by the PAC, the candidate must meet that standard, period. IMHO, that standard must fall largely along the lines of Reagan Conservatism, in order to satisfy all of the Conservative factions and garner support from all groups.
Now, as far as how to divide monies and support between various candidates that have met the standard, that is another thing. That process is open for debate and decision making to be sure, But the principles we support should be set in stone.