CNN/ORC Poll: GOP Lead Growing for 2014(happy days are here at last)

Breitbart ^ | December 26 2013 | William Bigelow

[jjsheridan5]

Again with the “pure” reference. It’s not about purity. It is about the damage done by establishment Republicans, to our country, to conservatism, and perhaps most importantly, to the message.

Harry Reid would do far less damage, if he didn’t have so many allies on the other side of the aisle, especially allies from conservative states, who have little to fear from the electorate.

[Principled]

I agree billhilly and I know you’re in for a flaming.

I’d like to add this:

That the GOPe crap is real. But the time to deal with it is in the primary - NOT the general - as you’ve stated.

It is of utmost importance to minimize dem elected pols. We do this by NEVER voting for a dem in the general.
It is of utmost importance to minimize GOPe elected pols.We do this by NEVER voting for a GOPe in the primary.

But whatever you do, vote for whatever R gets in. Just do work beforehand to avoid the wrong one getting in.

[sirchtruth]

Only after we achieve majorities in both houses can we afford the luxury of purifying the GOP.

This is STUPID idiotic nonsense! Why not NOW? What prevents conservatives from taking control NOW? Ted Cruz tried to do something, and is in a better position NOW.

As far as I'm concerned the idiotic, rino, liberal coddling GOP can go, YOU KNOW WHERE!

[jjsheridan5]

I agree billhilly and I know you’re in for a flaming.

Not a flaming, just a genuine question. Here are two scenarios. Take a generally conservative state, like Kentucky. Option 1) Continue electing McConnell in. He has little to fear in a general election, given the R next to his name. Because he is free to "govern" as he sees fit, he undermines conservatism whenever he can, and in any way he can. Sometimes, he votes "correctly", but over time, the country continues to lurch leftward (even as the rest of the world trends to the right). He blocks, by deed and word, any attempt to create a positive, cohesive, and simple message of conservatism.

Option 2) McConnell loses the general. A democrat wins the seat. Holding little power within the democrat party, its only impact is one vote among 100. Embattled at home, this entity votes correctly sometimes, just to appease a generally conservative electorate. In 6 years, the candidate is replaced by a genuinely conservative candidate, and one who can articulate conservatism in a simple positive way.

These two scenarios are incompatible with each other. Personally, I would take the second in a heartbeat over the first.

The problem with the "vote conservative in the primary, Republican in the general" approach is that it actually emboldens Republicans hostile to conservatism, since they know that incumbency is very powerful in primaries. But it also creates a situation where Republicans hostile to conservatism, in conservative states, rise to the top of the power structure (given their safety at home).

We would be much, much, MUCH, better off if the Republicans hostile to conservatism in states like S. Carolina, Texas, Georgia, etc. were defeated (general or primary is irrelevant), go through 6 years of a weak democrat control, and then start to take control, but with a cohesive message and committed members.

[maddog55]

Plenty of time for the GOP to blow it... only poll that counts is the day after elections.

[aruanan]

It is a close call as to which is the greater enemy of conservatism, but in general, a traitor does much more damage than an enemy is capable of.

When you make up pronouncements simply for the purpose of using them to buttress your argument, you just end up sounding as ridiculous as any statist Democrat since this is their stock-in-trade.

So, "in general," which did "much more damage" to all the nations that fell before the Assyrian armies, the Egyptian armies, the Babylonian armies, Alexander the Great's army, the Roman army, the Continental Army, Napoleon's army, as well as to the Confederacy, to Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany, to Hitler's Germany, to Mussolini's Italy, to Hirohito's Japan, to Gorbachev's Soviet Union, to Saddam's Iraq, to the Taliban's Afghanistan, to name a few, traitors in their midst or the enemy?

The other will have an "R" next to its name, and will play the role of traitor, undermining those same principles at every opportunity.

Most Democrats, especially the incumbent Democrats, are statists. Not all Republicans, especially those running for office in the primaries, are statists. It's the difference that makes the difference, something you and others are apparently unable to see.

As I said before the last two elections in different forms and at different times to some who were bloviating about starting a "conservative" third party to run against Obama and almost salaciously eschewing "the lesser of two evils" concept to champion the "greatest of all losers" approach:

1. The moral relativism of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy has been draining the heart and soul of America for decades.

So begins an intellectually vacuous screed with a simple misstatement of fact. "Lesser of two evils" is not and has never been an example of moral relativism. You may as well say that any mention of "the greater good" is also moral relativism. That would be an equivalently whacked-out judgement. An example of moral relativism is this:

The Muslims don't eat pork, this other group doesn't eat human flesh. Each system has its own proscriptions that are valid within their systems but have no reference to any overarching moral order because there is none. One may or may not eat pork or long pork as one wishes. Its degree of evil is relative only to the system in which it is found. Do your own thing, baby.

2. "Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party" is exactly what folks like George Soros are saying. You can bet some of the biggest supporters (probably even financially if you could dig deep enough) of conservative third parties are liberal Democrats and other leftists who have taken over the Democrat Party and are busily working to take over the Republican Party. They know that dividing the vote amongst a variety of "Hey, I'm more conservative than you cause I didn't vote for any Republican" nitwits is one their most effective ways to destroy their opposition and to solidify a political hegemony.

Over the past thirty years they have taken control of one of the two largest political parties in a country where winner takes all in elections and are busily working to fracture the only opposition they have by encouraging conservatives to leave the Republican Party in the hands of RINOS rather than working to take over the party apparatus as they, the Leftists, have taken over the Democrat Party. For those who say, "Well, I'm a proud member of the Constitution Party or the Declaration Party or the Conservative Party or the Southern Principled Conservative Party of Holy Ghost Fire on the Mountain Pre-Rapture Remnant of the Real Thing Party and someday we'll be big enough to replace the Republican Party, just like the Temperance Party or the Bull Moose Party did":

Doofuses: we don't live in a parliamentary system where representation is divided proportionally between the losers!

It's winner take all, baby, and the sooner you realize that and stop wasting time fighting like cats and Baptists to multiply the number of me-so-conservative parties the sooner you'll have turned back the liberal encroachment on the existing main opposition party to their main vehicle for political power, the Democrat Party, instead of complimenting yourself on just how wonderfully more conservative your loser party is going to be than the one you deliberately abandoned to leftist takeover.

"Hey, I don't like these liberal bumper stickers on this fully functioning vehicle or the places its driver is taking us, right? So, I've got, like, this great plan to deal with that, 'kay? Instead of tossing the driver out on his butt and getting some more appropriate body detailing and then driving it wherever we want to go, we're going to get out at the next corner, wag our fingers really hard at the driver as he speeds off, and then from scratch build our own new most perfectly conservative vehicle and, someday, maybe, enter that into the race! And won't that glorious day be, oh, so grand?"

And you think Jesus, or anyone other than a utopian statist, is going to say, "Well done, good and faithful servant for refusing to take back the existing opposition party and, instead, throwing your vote to something that couldn't possibly defeat a known enemy because you thought being considered a more nearly "true" conservative party than any other was more important than actually conserving and preserving the Republic against an ongoing enemy onslaught"?

Dream on.

We face far great danger from idiots than from traitors.

[billhilly]

“I for one am tired of being screwed by phony SOBs “

I get the point. You prefer to get screwed by the real thing, unabashed left wing dictators. Good for you. Maybe the democrat party is the best place for you misfits. At least you can believe that they are uncompromising.

[darkwing104]

A Rino is worst then a "D" any day of the week. A "D" is an enemy, A Rino is someone who aids the enemy while pretending to be your friend.

Like drinking poison, you can gulp it or sip it. It will still kill you.

[Principled]

Well I don’t think the two scenarios you posted are an exhaustive list - and I don’t think even they are accurate. Most shocking was your assertion that if a D is elected instead of a GOPe, that surely the next election would instal a conservative.... WHAT THE WHAT? How would that work? If a D is better in one election, why would the D no longer be ok in the next? What would the catalyst be for such a change?

So we’ll just have to disagree on this.

What we DO agree on i think is that work MUST be done in the primary to get the right person on the ticket.

What we don’t seem to agree on is what to do if the ideal person is defeated in the primary.

I suppose it’s a matter of degree but almost always I’ll vote for the R in the general. But as you or someone else noted - it would be worthwhile to eliminate a few bad apples. Lindsey for example.

But I would so much prefer an R majority in the senate and the house than not.

[billhilly]

You, sir or lady, have my permission to speak for me at anytime. My proxy is yours. Maybe you should just copy and repost every day. God knows it is a message that needs to be read.

[Buffalo Head]

"The most certain means of electing liberals is to believe in and vote for 3rd party Candidates and nominate candidates like Romney, Mccain (sic).

Yeah, the kamikaze Conservatives proved that by staying home and not voting for RINO's that some high cause was served.

Not voting or wasting a vote on a third party candidate is how many liberals are elected. You could serve yourself and our country better by waking up to reality.

[Buffalo Head]

"....whomever stands up for conservatism, both rhetorically and in practice, deserves your vote. No one else does."

Such an all or nothing attitude just allows more liberals to get elected or retain their seat. The kamikaze Conservatives just can't seem to understand that to govern and change things, candidates must win more votes than are in the choir.

[Drango]

That had to give CNN a butt clench.

[Drango]

MIA LOVE BUMP!

[steve86]

Why would I vote for a liberal like Romney or McCain? I thought that’s what we were trying to avoid LOL

[Buffalo Head]

"Why would I vote for a liberal like Romney or McCain? I thought that’s what we were trying to avoid".

No. We were trying to avoid Obama.

No wonder we lost. And shame on me for once believing that low information voters elected Obama. You make a good case that it was folks who couldn't differentiate between Romney or McCain and Obama that made the difference.

Perhaps you should just stay home for the next election cycle. At least you won't get it wrong again.

[usconservative]

Not to worry, the Stupid Party has a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory.