I'd prefer they think for themselves and do what's best for the conservative cause. So, for example, I will vote for McGavick because he's far preferable to Cantwell. But in CT, I'd vote for Lieberman over Schlesinger. In RI, I'd probably not vote at all for Senate. OTOH, if I thought the Rs were going to lose the Senate unless Chaffee were re-elected, I'd probably vote for that scumbag.
But, typically, you're missing the point. It's entirely reasonable, based on a historical comparison to 92/94 to conclude that losing the House this year could lead to greater gains in '08. I for one don't think the Ds could help themselves, the moonbats have too great an influence.
You've made it quite plain that you don't think what's good for the GOP is necessarily good for the "conservative cause."
I for one don't think the Ds could help themselves, the moonbats have too great an influence.
On that we agree, but not for the same reasons I am sure; I believe the first thing they will go after is the Electoral College and then your "plan" for 2008 goes right down the drain.
ed, I already told you I am not replying to you again in Freepmail.
"But, typically, you're missing the point. It's entirely reasonable, based on a historical comparison to 92/94 to conclude that losing the House this year could lead to greater gains in '08. I for one don't think the Ds could help themselves, the moonbats have too great an influence."
Wrong. A Dem House will make a Dem PResident in 2008 more likely ... there is historical precedent.