“...Far better than having a 10% RAT as senator.”
I disagree. A (lengthy) rebuttal:
An example: in 2008, a lot of conservatives argued that one of the biggest strikes against Barack Obama (in addition to his ultraliberal voting record) was the fact that the guy was simply not ready to hold the highest office in the land. All the talk about him being a ‘community organizer’; a candidate with very little practical political experience; somebody with no executive experience, etc, was said for a reason. He simply wasn’t *ready to lead*. And looking at his disastrous poll numbers, this particular criticism was rather prescient, I would say...
Well, how do you know that we were being honest at the time about this claim, and that we weren’t just saying this because we were “partisans who would criticize Obama no matter what he did or said”? Because...we’re saying the exact same thing about the Republicans now.
I (and I know many others agree with me on this) am not convinced that the Republicans, especially in the Senate, are ready to lead. They played their cards right the last two years by presenting a basically unified front in opposing Obama’s far left agenda. But the reality is, they are going to have to present some serious leadership going forth. Most economists feel that the economy will be even worse in 2011 than it is now, and the leftists will hurl every possible insult at the GOP if they gain control. All the photos and articles about homeless people that have disappeared from the newspapers under the years of Democrat control will magically make their way back to the forefront...
The GOP will have to have the fortitude that a guy like Chris Christie (a blue stater at that, who woulda thunk?) for example has demonstrated in standing up to these people. I may not agree with him on all the issues- but I love his attitude and certainty. (”Mike Castle, you’re no Chris Cristie”...)
What is Mike Castle going to do to demonstrate the necessary leadership? For instance, Scott Brown made opposition to Obamacare one of his big issues- we understood when he ran that he wasn’t always going to vote with the right...but on this issue, he took a stand, and he was forthright about it. What is Mike Castle going to take a stand on in opposing Obama’s mess of an agenda? (And yeah, I know Christie endorsed Castle...but what is Castle going to do to demonstrate that he deserves this endorsement?)
What is Castle going to do besides ‘reaching across the aisle’, and confusing the public at large about what it means to be a Republican and Democrat? The voters want the Republican party of the mid-1990’s in Congress, and not the Republicans of the 2000’s.
**And finally...everybody want us to believe that a conservative-leaning politician can’t win in a liberal blue state, and won’t be popular. Then why did Christie win, and why have his approval numbers soared once in office?
Agreed!
You are missing the entire point of what Barbour is stating:
Yes, Christie won. Yes, Christie is pro-life. BUT CHRISTIE DID EXACTLY WHAT BARBOUR IS SUGGESTING — he ran on fiscal issues and never once strayed from the message: limited government, economic liberty.
McDonnel in Virginia is also Pro-Life. BUT MCDONNEL DID EXATCLY WHAT BARBOUR IS SUGGESTING — he ran on fiscal issues and never once strayed from the message: limited government, economic liberty.
Finally, remember Ronald Reagan’s golden rule — never speak ill of a fellow republican.