How many times does it need to be said, nominate the most conservative candidate who CAN ACTUALLY WIN. It generally does no good to nominate people who are just going to get blown out in liberal states or districts. What is it people are not getting here? Scott Brown, for example, IS a RINO. Would you have preferred someone like O'Donnell in Mass who wouldn't have had a chance in hell of winning? How about we run arch conservatives in Maine and lose both those seats? Yeah, I get irritated as hell at Collins and Snowe, but we get their votes enough to put up with all their BS.
I am all for voting for the conservative in a primary, just try to maybe pick one who is electable in the general - O'Donnell is almost certainly not.
Saying that, I do agree that after the primary we need to circle the wagons - but that does not mean the discussion of why it is important to nominate the most conservative candidate who CAN actually win won't continue.
Using that same logic, the republicans would never have nominated Goldwater in ‘64 nor Reagan in ‘80. The republicans certainly did not win in ‘64 but the enthusiasm engendered moved the nation forward to the Reagan victory in ‘80. And I might add the overwhelming majority of pundits declared Reagan an extremist that could not possibly win. Hello!!
The days of being satisfied with a candidate simply because they have an "R" after their name is over.
We did get Obama care as result of their votes. Isn't that just great? You stand for something or you fall for anything. As to Scott Brown he is for cap and trade. What is the difference between him and the Democrat?People in MA. voted for something different than a RINO but they they got stuck with one. If you are being screwed does the title of the person doing it Matter?