Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: A.Hun
No, it doesn't mean "more moderate" candidates, it simply means more "winning candidates".

The basic rule of party politics is that the majority party organizes the legislative body and sets the legislative agenda.

If you aren't in the majority all you get to do is vote.

Let me organize this like one of those Mazlo Needs charts:

1. Where we can elect a Conservative we must do so.

2. Where we can't, we may have to go with a Republican.

3. Where we have difficulty on even that score, we probably should run a RINO.

4. Where that can't happen, we need to use open primary laws to vote in Democrat primaries for the more conservative candidate.

I don't see where there's any room whatsoever for a "moderate" in that mix.

56 posted on 09/05/2010 6:56:49 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah
No, it doesn't mean "more moderate" candidates, it simply means more "winning candidates".

Just semantics. "Winning" unfortunately translates to "moderate" in uber lib country.

I agree with the rest of your post wholeheartedly...

58 posted on 09/05/2010 7:01:43 AM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson