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

To: CutePuppy

I don’t agree losing the Senate should be pursued just for political posturing in 2012.

However I didn’t want the Senate. I didn’t want it because then people like Lindsey Grahm, the Maine twins, McCain, McConnell, Cornyn control the agenda and I don’t trust them. I don’t trust the House either but the House traditionally and instinctivelt is sympathetic to conservatism when Republicans rule where the Senate is entrenched with those who don’t face judgement for 6 years. Two year congressman are easier to control. The reason the Republican majority collapsed after 2004 was because we’d finally realized a workable majority. Then we discovered they didn’t want to act on their promises. They had lied. Disillusionament greww fast afterwards and by 2006 discussions of teaching them a lesson were heated around here. Put this current group in charge is the fastest way to cut off enthusiasm of the grassroots right now and the last thing we needed to happen. We got 5 new conservatives. That’s a nice haul. Next election we have a chance to double that if not more. If that happens then I’d be more secure for a GOP ajority in the Senate even if McConnell leads but not until then.


14 posted on 11/04/2010 7:56:02 PM PDT by Soul Seeker ( I was there when we had the numbers, but didnÂ’t have the principles.---Jim that leans conservDeMin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Soul Seeker
Sensible arguments. There is no question that, barring a disaster, we will get a Senate majority in 2012 (sheer numbers of Dems on the ballot are in favor)... but it would be nice to have and easy to achieve a larger minority in Senate this cycle if we had a decent class of experienced conservatives running. e.g., Rubio (after a stumble) and Toomey ran very focused, professional campaigns.

Of course, there is little, if any, excuse / "justification" for losses in some Governors races, where the problem was not the money or enthusiasm but complete incompetence in running a campaign. Winning a national or state's or municipal office today (at least in competitive locales) is not just something you can do by throwing amateurs into water and letting them sink or swim; it does require "professionalism" and either some experience or a good old-fashioned training. It's tough enough for a good experienced candidate like Dino Rossi (WA) to break through a liberal state's wall, it's much more so for inexperienced outsiders who tend to make mistakes, lose focus and get frazzled and off message, or come off as detached and impersonal.

Conservatives/TP need to think about that well before it comes close to the primaries. That would also greatly reduce the number of qualified conservatives and reduce the fracturing of support in the primaries which lets the party "insiders" into general. One reason Democrats rarely have a "bloody" primary is because they have a very large pool of experienced government or public/private political operatives who can jump in on a moment's notice if a seat becomes available.

17 posted on 11/04/2010 10:03:11 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | 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