Replies

Nominating a conservative and losing would make this whole process a waste of time.

Incorrect. Nominating a liberal Republican (Romney) and winning is actually the worst possible outcome. Nominating a liberal Republican and losing is second worse.

Nominating a conservative and losing is the second best outcome. At least our message will get put out there by someone who actually believes it and we have a chance to educate the voters nationwide, thus building the framework for future victories.

Nominating a liberal Republican (Romney) and winning is actually the worst possible outcome.

Completely agree. Until the electorate throws off the MSM-and-public-school-induced stupor that's stained it for decades, the political pendulum will continue to swing back and forth; anyone with an (R) behind his name will enrage Dems, no matter how liberal he/she happens to be, personally (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger), and a Dem will eventually take back the White House; we don't want to squander the precious years of an (R) in the White House by electing a do-nothing-conservative, liberal-minded, socialist-friendly empty suit whose only "redeeming point" would be that his judicial nominations wouldn't be QUITE as bad as those of Obama. (Shades of McCain...)

Besides: aren't we supposed to strive for what's right, and not for what we think might possibly, maybe, hopefully be "popular and workable"? If no one shoots for the "good" because everyone is shooting for the "middle" (because the "good" seems "unrealistic"), how will we ever get the "good" to happen?

I disagree. A hardcore liberal would even be better than 0...

Hell I’d rather have hillary than 0.

This guy sickens me to my core.