[Question Liberal Authority]

Look at what the establishment did after O’Donnell won the primary.

You're right. I still hear some fervent anti-Newt people railing against O'Donnell to this day. Yet, those same people will never mention the "acceptable" candidates like Linda McMahon or Meg Whitman who also lost.

Someone recently compared the "Mitt Is Most Electable" crowd to the John Kerry supporters in 2004. Their skewed polling and twisted logic told them that Kerry won the election before the votes were even cast. Then, when the votes were actually counted, they screamed fraud.

If you're going to use the "electability" argument, it should be used with someone who actually has a track record of winning elections. And even then, you should take it with a grain of salt.

[JediJones]

I don’t think the GOP elites have any room in their party for a middle class, genuinely religious person who doesn’t have an Ivy League education.

I think the “gay marriage” issue or at least gay rights in general could create a huge fissure within the party at some point, if it isn’t already, similar to how it has in some of the churches. I think the wealthy, “we like low taxes” wing of the Republicans are becoming more and more socially liberal and less and less religious, but the grass roots aren’t changing. One wing think it’s immoral and distasteful to promote homosexuality, the other wing thinks it’s immoral and distasteful to “discriminate” against gays. We’re always told that “gay marriage won’t be an issue in the election,” but I tend to think it’s the elites telling us that, so that they can slowly keep sneaking through their agenda on the issue without anyone speaking up or talking about what they’re doing.