Replies

Using that same logic, the republicans would never have nominated Goldwater in ‘64 nor Reagan in ‘80. The republicans certainly did not win in ‘64 but the enthusiasm engendered moved the nation forward to the Reagan victory in ‘80. And I might add the overwhelming majority of pundits declared Reagan an extremist that could not possibly win. Hello!!

That is actually a good argument. However, now your getting into a debate over who can win and what is it to be "electable". I was very young, but I can not remember thinking (or anyone in my family) that Reagan was unelectable. He was probably as conservative as we could get while STILL being electable. So he was a good choice and we are all the better for it. Goldwater may just have been the best we could do at the time. I wasn't born yet.

Lets say it was discovered during the 80' primaries that Reagan had a closet full of skeletons that would have later made him very unappealing in the general - then I would have said we shouldn't nominate him. No such skeletons existed though. He was a great example of nominating the most conservative candidate who could get elected.

Had O'Donnell had her same views, AND a good financial record, no sex discrimination suits against conservative organizations, etc, etc, I would have said she was a good choice over Castle. My problem is, she has so many skeletons that she is probably NOT electable in Delaware. In a year where that seat may give us control of the body, I would have preferred we nominate an (R) who can win.

Some people here, like yourself, have made some good points. I can definitely understand there are times to throw caution to the win and nominate only on principle - even if it means losing a few cycles. If we are building a movement, sometimes that will be necessary. All in all though, I think the Tea Party efforts would have been better spent helping someone like Angle (who is also not exactly a stellar candidate) instead of fighting on another front that we could have afforded to ignore this time around since at least we'd have gotten a Senator who would vote for a Republican for majority leader.

... she has so many skeletons that she is probably NOT electable in Delaware

Sorry, not buying it. The election is not about her personal issues, it's about the future of our country, apostrophized by a Republican or Democrat senate.

If she doesn't win, it will be because Delaware voters prefer to elect a leftist. They have a completely clear choice.

"At least we'd have gotten a Senator who would vote for a Republican for majority leader."

Do you mean someone like Arlen Sphincter?

You like backstabbers, it seems.
They all hang out together, don't they.

Rove, Romney, Castle,

Time will tell in DE, there are certainly those who agree with your thinking and it isn’t without merit.

My complaint about Rove is, that at this point he isn’t helping anybody but the democrat. His hypocrisy in demanding explanations from ODonnell but not from Obama is clear, if people here on FR can see it, the average reasonable person hearing him can see it too.

If the situation were reversed with Castle winning and the Tea Party crabbing as much after the fact as Rove is, we’d hear nothing from Rove and the establishment pundits except condescending consention as to how unprofessional the Tea Party was.

Rove’s public negativity needs to stop. And let’s all hope that O’Donnell doesn’t have any more skeletons, and even that she could address the ones that are there.

I appreciate that you being so much younger than myself have not the long term memory that comes with age. My first election campaign was 1952 when I supported Taft or MacArthur. In 1964, the republicans had a civil war between the leftists (Rockerfeller et al.) that ran the party organization and the traditional rank and file conservatives that gave the party their votes whilst being ignored in all matters of principle. I believe the great majority of supporters of Goldwater had no hope that he would win the election but by winning at the nomination process (the republican convention) they began the march to replace the leftist, socialist lite (what we now call RINOs) party leaders and restore the party to its traditional conservative principles. It took several years but it culminated in the eventual nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1980. These RINOs of 1964 and the national press were unanimous in condemning Goldwater, throwing every kind of imaginable smear at him. They portrayed him as a war monger and fascist. Hateful and of course, untrue. The Rockerfeller, Scranton, Bush (Prescott) type of republicans played the part of Karl Rove, repeating democrat talking points, ad infintum neglecting to point out the abysmal democrat programs and corrupt Lyndon Johnson leadership.

The election was a forgone conclusion but the conservatives worked tirelessly to remove the RINOs and largely succeeded beginning in 1977 after the disaster of the Ford campaign. They remained in control largely during the Reagan Administration when they slowly but surely were replaced by the RINO’s. As with the battle against collectivism it never really seems to end.