It's like with anything: you win some, you lose some. All we can do is try to target the problem incumbents with the most ideal potential candidates. I don't think we erred in taking down Lugar, he was long since a collaborationist (there was a reason the Democrats didn't bother to run anyone against him in a premier Dem year like 2006). Mourdock looked like a great candidate, won statewide twice, but his mouth got him in trouble in following suit with ill-advised comments on rape.
The candidate I personally supported in MO got the nomination, that being Akin. I had my concerns with Sarah Steelman because she lost a vicious primary for Governor in 2008 and I believed the state party establishment, which went well out of its way to sink her in favor of Kenny Hulshof, might be too controversial to win (along the lines of Angle in NV in '10). As it turned out, she might very well have had an easier race. One thing is for certain, there ought to be a permanent ban on any GOP candidate discussing the issue of rape and abortion, especially male candidates. That was established by Clayton Williams in the 1990 TX Governor's race. He was well on his way to an easy romp when he cracked a joke that compared rape to inclement weather. That one single joke had enormous repercussions, as had Williams won, Dubya wouldn't have become Governor in 1994, and hence wouldn't have become President (indeed, it probably would've been Jeb who would've been the Presidential nominee in 2000, and unlikely there wouldn't have been a FL debacle).
As for Ohio, we had a talented candidate in Josh Mandel, who was probably about the best we could've put up. Despite Brown being a moonbat, he knows how to win statewide. Mandel also never established a lead (unlike Mourdock and Akin before their comments). Fortunately, he is young, still holds office, and has a bright future ahead, especially as a future successor to Gov. Kasich in 2018. He could still run for the Senate in the 2020s or 2030s and will still only be in his 40s or 50s. Some have even mentioned him as the potential first Jewish President. Ohio, of course, has produced some exceptional Republican leaders going back to the party founding (and I include Warren Harding amongst them... a criminally underrated President who resolved a recession in short order after the execrable Wilson).
"What I think you would agree with me about is that EVEN if we could get a clean sweep of (say) 20 Rs elected to the senate in one cycle and ALL of them were Tea Party candidates, there is slippage: Scott Brown drifted away after a few months."
Brown made the dangerous mistake by presuming a leftward movement will yield electoral rewards. That only serves to undermine support from the right. Even at that, however, I didn't personally take an open stance of opposing him. The deceitful bitch who beat him is very dangerous. How she managed to win despite the mountain of fraud, however, speaks more to the mentality of MA voters. It also points to the double-standard between the two parties. Republicans SAY something wrong and they lose. Democrats DO something wrong and they win. Ultimately, though, with little exception, we're better off NOT running squishes. NM was winnable, but Heather Wilson ran such a low-key race and refused to go nuclear on Heinrich that it was blown almost at the starting gate. Not to say we should've run Pearce again, but perhaps fishing out in the business community for types like Ron Johnson of WI.
Sad, too, is what happened in WI. How a Madison-based moonbat obsessed over sexuality could win statewide is appalling. But, the warning signs were there. I opposed both Neumann (as a multiple-time loser) and Thompson in the primary. Thompson was too old and tired to be running a contest he should've mounted back in 1994 (indeed, he should've been concluding 3 terms in the Senate and retiring). The one candidate we should've run was a no-brainer, and that was Paul Ryan. Now poor WI is stuck with a Stalinist lesbian until January 2019.
"Rubio is already often off script."
Rubio clearly wants to be the Presidential nominee in 2016. How he behaves and votes from this point on will have to be viewed through that prism.
"There are certainly stalwarts (Johnson, Paul, DeMint) but my point is that even if the Tea Party candidates are totally successful, you still end up needing to replace 1/3 of them within a couple of years when they "go Washington." So not only do you have to elect the right people once, but then you have to unelect them sometimes in the very next cycle. And the threat of unelecting them or primarying them never seems sufficient incentive for them to toe the line, partly because they only get home a couple of times a year."
Eternal vigilance. Gotta ride them and remind them why they were sent to DC. Some rot soon, some stay fresh for a long time (like Jesse Helms, who was truly a treasure and sadly one-of-a-kind. He plugged away at his job and didn't give a damn what the media, culture and elites thought of him. Too many get to DC and worry they won't get invited to the parties with the popular kids and all the beautiful people. If that's their goal, it's time for them to come home). DC is such an immoral cesspool that even the very best people can get pulled under.
Of course, this sounds a bit like I'm supportive of term limits, but I'm actually torn. While it sounds good, explicit limits could diminish the effectiveness of the members while the real power would be in the unelected staffers, chiefs-of-staff, etc. If we put in term limits, they'd have to go all the way down to office volunteers. I'm one of the few whom is actively supportive of repealing civil service and a return to patronage. Patronage as such with term limits means few to no lifetime gov't workers. Bring in your people, and 2 years, 4 years, 6 or 8 and they're out. That way you're utterly responsible for your people and don't have a perpetually protected class of folks (mostly leftists) that have their own agenda of undermining Conservatism. I understand why it was implemented in the 19th century, but with out-of-control growth of government to the point its impossible to trim, what other choice is there ? Of course, that's something a bit out of the aegis of Congress and more applicable to the various governmental departments.
"TN is great. I'm sure TX is pretty close too. But future electoral success MUST be fought in all states. We cannot keep conceding 150 electoral votes before the counting even starts. And for that, we need a strategy and a better rationale than "Obama wasn't as strong as he was in 08)" or, "The Tea Party's not quite dead yet.""
Well, we also have to be realistic. We have to be sure to nail down what we know we can win and then move on from there. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to waste resources in states that are out of reach. As an example, California, unless we can recruit a self-financing candidate for Governor, there is little point in wasting money there. But we should target those Congressional seats that are competitive. Ditto for New York state (an enormous mistake was in 2010 not fielding Giuliani for Governor -- and despite concerns many FReepers have for him, we'd be foolish not to support winnable candidates and stopping potential future Dem Presidential contenders like Andrew Cuomo). Unless said GOP candidates are viscerally antithetical to the Conservative agenda (i.e. Tisei in MA or Arnold Schwarzenegger), we should try to get the best we can get out of a state or district. We need to be ginning up now for 2014 and laying the groundwork to increase our numbers in the House and capture the Senate (and only incompetence as bad as this year would keep us from winning the latter next time -- at least 12 seats should be targeted: AK, AR, IA (if Harkin retires), LA, MI (if Levin retires), MN, MT (if Baucus retires), NH, NC, SD, VA & WV (if Rockefeller retires). Indeed, if John Kerry replaces Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, Scott Brown might be able to beat a return to the Senate in another special election in the coming year.
Can’t disagree with one thing you said.
Gentlemen:
Back before the 17th amendment, didn’t most senators serve only one term?