Posted on 11/04/2010 9:18:47 AM PDT by JimWayne
Don't blame the Democrats for the defeat of Christine O'Doneell and Sharon Angle. The RINOs have worked hard and worked WITH the Dims to make sure that the Tea Party candidates would not win.
In Delaware, it was Karl Rove who opposed O'Donnell. In Nevada, it was a state level RINO who supported the Democrat. In Alaska, RINOs have done everything to prevent Joe Miller from winning. You can be sure that Ken Buck must have been done in by RINOs like Karl Rove.
A suggestion to hit back at them - deny RINOs the right to post on FR. If anyone brings up the claim that it is better to support a "winnable" anti-life and pro-spending candidate instead of a Tea Party candidate, how about showing zero tolerance and kicking them out instantly even if they have been around for 10 years. Surely, GOP officials use FR to their benefit. Why not pay back in their own coin? If they don't support us, why should we support them?
“it was to get back at those who helped the defeat of the Tea Party candidates”
But Jim, they are called DEMOCRATS.
Angle was defeated by Harry Reid and his union thugs and minions, COD by Obama, MSM and Democrats there, etc.
Good news is we won in KY, PA, FL, etc.
List 'em.
List those scumbags who didn't share your opinions.
The very NERVE of them!
A reasonable discussion of Christine is better after the election than before.
The most conservative candidate, the most Christian candidate is always the one that’s attacked.
Every single year, every single election, there will be a “most” conservative candidate.
We could run all RINOs. The media would find the one thing that the one RINO said that they want to attack, and they would attack.
The media will always attack. There is nothing that we can do to prevent the media from attacking. Being less conservative will not stop the attacks.
If Christine wasn’t there, it just means that Rand Paul would’ve taken more hits. If the candidate in Hawaii or Maryland or Vermont or Oregon was more conservative than Christine, that candidate would’ve taken the hits.
(Christine is a special case in a number of ways, however)
The point being, we don’t get hit more because we’re more conservative. The media will always hit us with everything they’ve got. The most conservative will take the hits. We need to get more conservative, not less. If we had 7 Christine O’Donnells - one in DE, and one for HI, MD, OR, VT, NY, NY, we woulda gotten one through. Those 6 mystery candidates were a complete waste. Put super conservatives in there, let them take hits.
The election was about Christine. Christine lost. But all over the place, in the House, and in the States, we romped.
Maine, before the election, had a Dem Governor, a Dem House, a Dem Senate. After the election, Maine has a Rep Governor, a Rep House, a Rep Senate. This kind of thing has happened all over the place. Yes, they were able to make the entire election about Christine, and Christine lost, but their message (”we’re not Christine”) didn’t work almost anywhere.
ROMNEY IS CRAZY, he believes that Jesus was in the US. Unacceptable. Too KOOKY.
Rove's trashing of O'Donnell, minutes after she had won, and just before her victory speech, did significant harm because Rove and his trashing became a topic of conversation for several days. His childish hissy fit on Fox damaged her, no matter how strong a candidate she was or wasn't. He served as the Dims best opposition research source by providing a trashing from someone who should have been supporting her.
He definitely damaged her chances, and that is damning enough of him whatever he chances of winning were.
There was a ton of support for Christine here. She was our favorite candidate.
I’m dismayed because some people didn’t keep their mouth closed, or focus on candidates they did like, but actually attacked Christine.
We lost a lot of races in places like Delaware. Places where there were almost as few Conservatives as Delaware. HI, OR, VT, MD, NY, NY. Very few people even knew there were races there. But freepers weren’t gung ho to support Huffman in OR, for example, even though there are more Conservatives in Oregon than Delaware, some Freepers were more happy to attack a Conservative in DE than to help one of the 6 mystery candidates.
Amen. LOL You have to enjoy the entertainment value, though. Check out A.Hun's apt response.
The conventional wisdom here is wrong as far as Perino, Podhoretz and Krauthammer are concerned. Just MHO.
When’s my appointment at the Lubyanka?
It would be of interest to learn you definition of a RINO.
I suspect it is very narrow and restricted by blinders that obscure most of the Republican spectrum.
“Mainly because she failed to follow up on them or back them up with a plan and/or further ideas. That’s what I meant.”
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. I saw things from a different perspective, that’s all.
As far as campaign platitudes, obama set that bar low, unfortunately, with HOPE ‘n CHANGE.
But if an issue is sensible and I know it’s doable, that’s one way I judge whether a candidate is spouting platitudes or not. So basically, I think of platitudes as being what they say to get elected - yet we know it’s not likely to happen.
However, every time I saw Christine being interviewed, she was specific in what she wanted to do. One of her main goals was to introduce legislation to eliminate the death tax. It’s devastating the farmers and other small business owners in Delaware — to the point they’re losing their family business — forced to sell in order to pay the taxes.
I don’t know how much of an explanation of a plan that requires, just do it. [Although I do realize Washington’s way has to be mucked up so they can appear to be doing something]. But can you imagine if she had been elected and was able to accomplish just that one thing!
But all in all, when she talked about what she wanted to accomplish, her goals sounded reasonable and very doable. That in itself goes a long way with me. And there were many times where she did explain further than just an idea.
“However, if we all pretend that every single conservative candidate is 100% wonderful, we’re in for a wake up call.”
I don’t think any of them are 100%, but she wasn’t all the lousy things that were said about her - it was ridiculous to the average viewer - and at times those who were saying it bordered on appearing strangely maniacal. [I could name names, but won’t].
“Some focus on fiscal issue (Yay!), some focus on social issues (Yawn) - and half the people on FR would switch my parenthetical Yay and Yawn.”
Social issues and fiscal issues can not be separated no matter how hard someone tries. Our income tax was set up in order to fund a war and protect this nation’s interests, not to buy votes. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions, such as taking care of those who are helpless.
Last point, I don’t really pay attention to whether or not it was a well-run campaign or a lousy campaign. I honestly wouldn’t know the difference because that’s not where my focus is, ever. I believe that’s what the “smart” people on BOR and Hannity say in order to take the focus off of what is important to this country. They obviously know the unwashed masses will repeat it and then everyone who does feels superior with what they learned from the “smart” people and will only vote for people who ran great campaigns. Doesn’t that sound odd to anyone else?
Those neocons are not conservatives, but infiltrators from the Trotsky camp. Go back to the Democrat party. They said many bad things about Conservative nominees. We want them gone.
People who attack Conservative Republican nominees I think are included in that. I think that we don’t have to have a big philosophical debate on it necessarily. We can name names, and get rid of those people. Most here agree Rove and whoever he supports are unacceptable in the Republican Party.
The original poster might have different ideas. But we should all agree that people who hurt Conservative Republican nominees have to go.
......we should all agree that people who hurt Conservative Republican nominees have to go......
I agree with that point but that doesn’t make them a Rino in the sense of the witches from Maine or Arlen Specter. Carl Rove certainly isn’t a RINO, he is a Republican with whom conservatives disagree and have a serious bone to pick.
go where? I doubt any of them care or will make any change based on what you think.
I saw her concession speech and think calling her childish is childish, as is most of the criticism I’ve heard about her, as there’s nothing substantive about any of it.
I didn’t have access to the debates but I’ll look them up after while. I remember one of the clips being posted here, where she was incredulous about the “separation of church and state” flap, and I can’t say as I blame her. So if grimacing is going to be one criteria for not being qualified for Washington, that gives us all another reason to vote the all bums out. :)
Personally, I make it an objective to get past the talking heads and look deeper than that, and I wish the foolishness would stop.
Oh yes... Let’s have a purge! Let loose the hyenas and jackals!
Since you are trying to light a fire, list a couple names who should be purged from FR. Just a couple.
“I join you in this post. I am furious with republicans that hurt her.”
Thanks for the solidarity :-). I usually just let things go by because I’m too busy trying to be a good little conservative and earn a living while I freep.
But it’s really gotten to me how some of the very people who are judging Sarah, Christine, and other good conservatives, are the very ones who don’t have an original thought about any of it and are doing nothing but repeating what they’ve heard from the Yackety-Yack shows and trolls here on FR.
To top it all off, they use the most nit-picky standards and I get the distinct impression that no one would measure up.
It’s not just what I think. I’m in the majority here at freerepublic.
It’s really Fox News’s fault for letting them pretend they’re conservatives. The ones on Fox News should be fired.
I’d rather listen to Juan Williams on Fox than Karl Rove.
The RINO candidates can be primaried out fairly easily. And let them go 3rd Party.
Those people aren’t Conservatives. But look at their tricks, and use them against Romney.
Let some talk policy against Romney, I’ll mock him. He’s the one with the magic underwear, right? I don’t think Americans are ready for another candidate with a wacky religion. Romney is a terrible candidate that mainstream Americans will support. Just look at what South Park did to Romney’s religion. Let’s just stay away from weird candidates like Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.