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

To: Eyes Unclouded

Even if everything you say is true, it is still beside the point because of this one truth: You can ONLY vote for the actual humans who are in the race at the time.

Christine was a better choice than the RINO Castle because if Castle had won both the primary and the election he would have voted with the Dems on important legislation. So it is good that Christine had the chance to run against the dem.

If people like you and Rove and other RINO elites hadn’t run down Christine - who was on our side and was the only non-Marxist ACTUALLY IN THE RACE - and hadn’t stayed home or influenced otherwise wobbly voters to vote against her she had a good chance of winning. But the sum total of her own weaknesses (everybody has some, even the marxist, even Castle) plus the clear treachery from her own party starting on the day of her primary win doomed her.

And there is no good reason whatsoever for having trashed Christine and turned voters against her. That is treason to the party, no matter what you think of her. You can hold your nose and vote for her in exactly the same we we would have held our nose and voted Castle had he won.

There were only 2 humans in the race. You, Rove, RINOs trashed the only on on our side which resulted in alienating undecided voters and even moderate Republican voters.

The result was GIVING THE SEAT TO A MARXIST. And you are still dumping on Christine.

Maybe you ought to give it a rest and consider just exactly what it is you’ve really done.


316 posted on 11/05/2010 10:09:34 AM PDT by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality. Save America From Bankruptcy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]


To: paulycy

“who was on our side”

Why? Because she said so? She’s a politician they say things all the time! Can she point to any serious work for fiscal conservatism?

Why? Because she would enable the GOP to have a stronger majority in the Senate? Only if she gets there.

Do you realize that different parts of the country work differently? Scott Brown isn’t an ideal senator for conservatives. If he was running in Texas he would get trounced. He wasn’t. He ran in a very liberal state at a time when the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate. By winning he has derailed that super majority and that is a good thing from a conservative point of view. Scott Brown supports many liberal positions. Should we hate on him? Is he a RINO? Should we primary him when he comes up for re-election?

Delaware is in a similar situation. COD and her wing of the state GOP consistently get beat by double digits. Castle had a better shot at the seat. I’m not defending Castle or his record or votes he may or may not have made if he had won. Would he have been part of a group that would do some liberal things? Probably. But I can live with that just like I can live with Scott Brown if only for the advantage the GOP would get by becoming the majority party in the chamber which would have given us power over chairmanships and the ability to set the agenda and rules of the Senate.

I’m glad we have the house and it will enable us to hold the line (ie no more huge bills like Obamacare) but to make real progress to our goals we needed the Senate in this election and now it is critical to get in 2012 (hopefully with the whitehouse as well).


318 posted on 11/05/2010 10:32:35 AM PDT by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | 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