I am afraid that I am not interested in what is popular, or in what is practical. Therein lies the ground of the pragmatists.
Conservatism is well defined, and if one is to support Conservatism, that is done by supporting Conservatives. That is really the only practicality to worry about.
I think that the PAC must define itself with certain and immutable criteria. in order for a candidate to qualify for support by the PAC, the candidate must meet that standard, period. IMHO, that standard must fall largely along the lines of Reagan Conservatism, in order to satisfy all of the Conservative factions and garner support from all groups.
Now, as far as how to divide monies and support between various candidates that have met the standard, that is another thing. That process is open for debate and decision making to be sure, But the principles we support should be set in stone.
Well, in terms of what I meant by ‘most popular’ ie for the organization to relay possible ways forward and to see which ones are most liked by those whom donate.
That in no way dicates that there is some rhino(s) developing the plans or what is to be done, but involves the people in what direction the organization goes. The PAC could be established as Reagan conservative and those plans could be mandates under specific principles; but I think going the extra mile and reaffirming what’s desired from those donating is plus.
If I know I contribute to getting conservative leadership in the House or the Senate...I’m much more likely to be involved than getting some no-name-no-potential conservative in the presidental office. One has more potential and I think if you just leave all choses up to the people at top, you’re bound to be a bit dissapointed at times.
Results are important to me, and I think that must be an important aspect to any credible PAC.
Thanks for your feedback