“[Brown] said he shares the same position on abortion as the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. “
You’re missing the point. The problem is NOT the Snowes, Chaffees, or Browns. Electing moderate Republicans in Blue States is a good thing - A GOOD THING - not a bad thing.
Where we screw up completely is in the Red States - why don’t we have 2 DeMints from South Carolina? Why not 2 Coburns? The problem is the Dorgans, Grahams and Nelsons. If we were nominating and electing conservative Republicans in red states across the board with a smattering of moderates in blue states, we would have 70 SEVENTY seats in the Senate.
Where we screw up completely is in the Red States - why don’t we have 2 DeMints from South Carolina? Why not 2 Coburns? The problem is the Dorgans, Grahams and Nelsons. If we were nominating and electing conservative Republicans in red states across the board with a smattering of moderates in blue states, we would have 70 SEVENTY seats in the Senate.
good thinking!
Then we could set up a nice assembly line to purge the worst offenders from the judiciary.
“[Brown] said he shares the same position on abortion as the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. “
You’re missing the point. The problem is NOT the Snowes, Chaffees, or Browns. Electing moderate Republicans in Blue States is a good thing - A GOOD THING - not a bad thing.
Where we screw up completely is in the Red States - why don’t we have 2 DeMints from South Carolina? Why not 2 Coburns? The problem is the Dorgans, Grahams and Nelsons. If we were nominating and electing conservative Republicans in red states across the board with a smattering of moderates in blue states, we would have 70 SEVENTY seats in the Senate.
+1
Oldplayer
Why do we do we have Dem senators from Montana & the Dakotas?
Well, depends on what you mean by "moderate". If you mean a slightly conservative Scott Brown getting elected over socialist Martha Coakley is a "good thing", I would agree. But if you think we gained any advantage from electing DIABLOs like Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Linc Chafee (all allegedly "moderate" according to the media) in "blue states", I disagree. The only thing they "delivered" was a liberal majority
>> Where we screw up completely is in the Red States - why don’t we have 2 DeMints from South Carolina? Why not 2 Coburns? The problem is the Dorgans, Grahams and Nelsons. If we were nominating and electing conservative Republicans in red states across the board with a smattering of moderates in blue states, we would have 70 SEVENTY seats in the Senate. <<
Well, from the math I'm looking at, if you only bother to elect conservatives in so called "red states" that opposed Obama, you're looking at a MAXIMUM limit of 44 conservative Senators if got a 100% perfect winning conservative streak for BOTH Senate seats in EVERY "red" state. I count 22 states that voted Republican nationally in 2008. The remaining 56 "blue states" states would have moderate-to-liberal Senators under your plan.
Seems to me the key to a conservative majority is when we elected conservatives in Dem majority states like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsyvania back in the 90s -- not when we decided "Republicans" to the left of Hillary Clinton are acceptable because their state happens to have voted for a Democrat President.