Tea Party Candidate May Ensure A Harry Reid Win

Flopping Aces ^ | 02-13-10 | Curt

[mad_as_he$$]

It is even worse than that. There are 7 Reps in the race. They are going to have to beat the snot out of each other to get past the primary. They will have shot the money wad and be bloodied before the race run against Reid even starts. ANF none of them are big winners in the charisma area.

[Puddleglum]

Republican candidate ensures Harry Reid win - two can play at that game, see??

[firebrand]

But when the poll you are citing was conducted, conservatism wasn't explained to them. They were asked an oversimplified question and picked the answer that made them feel best about themselves. Same with all the people who said they were "pro-life" when asked in too simple a form. Everyone was rejoicing at the 51% but when the poll participants are asked more specifically what they believe in, it is no 51%.

Still, as I said at the time, I think it is an encouraging trend that more people want to think of themselves as conservative or pro-life. They are somewhere on the spectrum--moving in the right direction, one would hope.

Of course if each conservative idea were presented to them with a correct explanation, then the answers might be different and more positive toward conservatism. But that doesn't happen when a polltaker just asks a question.

[EternalVigilance]

The main point stands. Conservatism is not being fully represented in this country, because the party that wears the conservative label really isn’t.

[EternalVigilance]

One of the best current examples is that out of 31 states in which the people have had a chance to express their views on gay marriage through a vote, 31 states have rejected it.

[Brugmansian]

The Las Vegas Badger blog has this to say:

Ok, let's look at the facts. Considering this was broken by Jon Ralston, an extremely liberal columnist- he would make Karl Marx look like a conservative, I would not put much truth into this.

Second, they report that Jon Ashjian will be it's candidate but yet he has not yet to declare his candidacy. Huh?

A third party conservative candidate is Harry Reid's wet dream. It's the only way he could possibly win.

But who is Jon Ashjian? Google his name and you don't find anything. Same with Yahoo. So, who is this guy?

My honest opinion is that this is a set up by Reid and Ralston.

What does Ralston know about the Tea Party movement? He thinks, as a good liberal thinks, they are a bunch of nuts. And why would he get the information before other conservative writers, columnists and talk show hosts? Why hasn't Ashjian been in the public spotlight before today? Why hasn't he declared his candidacy yet? How about a press conference?

So, no, I don't think this is legitimate announcement but another desperate act of liberals, like Ralston and Reid.

The Las Vegas Sun, no surprise, is already in the tank for Reid, being their spokesperson/propaganda writer for Reid. Ralston has been a pathetic writer ever since his TV show was cancelled and his writing in the Sun has been greatly been diminished and he wants to get back in the lime light.

I don't think this play out like the liberals want. They think that anyone associated with the Tea Party movement will succeed and that people are too stupid to figure out this ruse. That's what many liberals think, conservatives are just too stupid that they won't figure out the liberal's games they play.

So, nice try Harry and Jon, but people just aren't that stupid

[ak267]

I wonder who Sarah will endorse and stump for? Hmmmmm....methinks a few stump speeches and appearances for the GOP candidate (that it, if the GOP candidate adhears to certain policies) would pretty much put this “tea party” candidate on the shelf.

Is he really a tea party candidate or just hijacking the name?

[firebrand]

I didn't realize that was your main point. I think conservative people running for office necessarily choose a point somewhere between their true view and what they think will get them elected, whatever that happens to be in the state they are being elected from. They then can sometimes go even more "native" when they are elected. Sharp, clear decisions have to be made at every turning point as to how much is worth it. In other words, is it better to compromise a bit in order to stay in office and get most of your agenda accomplished, rather than let the leftist win? When the lures of office begin to take over, it is time to reassess one's integrity.

This may all seem obvious. It is important for our officials elected as conservatives do a kind of teaching role as much as it can be tolerated. Changing hearts and minds, although a well-worn cliche, is still the seed of political change, at least until the political scene itself changes and sweeps the less incisive thinkers along with it.

[firebrand]

Good point. Good fact to keep in mind too, for debating purposes.

[EternalVigilance]

I didn't realize that was your main point.

From my post #98, the one to which you originally responded:

If one thinks it all the way through, you can only reach one conclusion: It’s because the party that claims to represent conservatism really doesn’t.

[EternalVigilance]

I’m betting results would be similar on a number of other key conservative issues.

[CajunConservative]

Thanks for posting. It’s going to be a long election season trying to keep up with the D’s shenanigans.

[Springfield Reformer]

I didn’t expect you to see my point. Conversation over. Again. See ya next time. :<

[Colorado Cowgirl]

“Let’s not make this mistake again” You are absolutely right, one pie chart reading, big eared dumbass is enough. It ensured the Clinton Presidency twice and Dirty Harry is far, far worse.

[ansel12]

Republican candidate ensures Harry Reid win - two can play at that game, see??

What game is that? Do the 49 "third parties" often win Senate races or do they merely siphon off a few votes that can effect the outcome between the Republican and Democrat candidates?

"Libertarian Party candidates may have cost Sens. Jim Talent and Conrad Burns their seats, tipping the Senate to Democratic control. In Montana, the Libertarian candidate got more than 10,000 votes, or 3 percent, while Democrat Jon Tester edged Burns by fewer than 3,000 votes. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill defeated Talent by 41,000 votes, a bit less than the 47,000 Libertarian votes.

This isn't the first time Republicans have had to worry about losing votes to Libertarian Party candidates. Sens. Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, and Tim Johnson all won races in which Libertarian candidates got more votes than their winning margin."

[tacticalogic]

Okay, there's a Tea Party candidate and a Republican Party candidate splitting the the conservative vote against a Democratic Party candidate.

If the Democratic Party candidate wins, why is it automatically the Tea Party candidate's fault for not dropping out, and not the Republican's?

[Impy]

Hopefully they fall short of their 1% goal. If this story is even accurate. Rolston appears to be a moron, if he’s the only source for this...

It smells like that “No New Taxes” guy who ran in Minnesota that was actually a democrat looking to steal votes from GOPer John Kline. But just as easily it could be well meaning morons.

[onyx]

Ralston is a lazy and dishonest reporter, and I hate to call him a reporter, because he’s actually nothing more than a hack writer. He wrote a hit piece on Republican candidate Sue Lowden, wherein he claimed she was not pro-life when in fact, she is a pro-life Roman Catholic, who happened to be leading Reid by the largest margin in the polling data at that time.

I think we should monitor the race and post new information on this thread as we find it.

[Puddleglum]

oh boy - if you really brainstorm, you can think of how the Pubbies can circumvent a threat from conservative candidates. Hint: boiling the pot already got ride of Arlen Specter — are a member of the crowd that wishes the Pubbies still had him?

[ansel12]

Sorry, I couldn’t make out that post.