Posted on 11/05/2013 9:08:54 PM PST by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny
The Virginia gubernatorial race was a huge victory for the Tea Party movement. Wait a minute! Democrat McAuliffe “won,” you say. How could this be a victory for the Tea Party movement and a positive precursor for the 2014 mid-terms? Here’s how:
(Excerpt) Read more at tpnn.com ...
You’re right. There is no solace in losing. In politics, a narrow loss is still a loss, you go home and the winner takes the win to the bank. And you can bet the ‘Rats will do that. They are already crowing about a “mandate for Obamacare”.
Spin it how you want, but a loss is hardly a victory.
I am disgusted with idiots who elect cheaters, scoundrels and liars. I am disgusted with voter fraud and low information bums.
I am glad I am old and won’t have to put up with this crap too much longer.
You might have won in NJ but conservatives surely did not. The lesser leftist kep his seat, the opposition was a moonbat.
Only Democrats win by “miniscule” cheating ( oops! margins).
Oh brother.
Can the Tea party win some where the Democrat Doesnt take the office?
Really? What's so "incredible" about a Marxist (aka - moderate, socialist, progressive, liberal, RINO...) winning in a state chock full of like minded idiots?
The DNC chose not to oppose Christie.
This is the guy they want to be the Republican nominee...They’ve got the goods on him....They are just going to wait until he’s the nominee.
...good question. Not mentioned is that the Attorney General elected last night for Virginia is a republican. Me thinks he will be very busy in the future. I just hope he personally arrests McAwful after he loots the state treasury!
Oh BS. That is about the dumbest analysis I've seen anytime recently. No one puts a VP on the ticket to shove a stick in anyone's eye, they pick a VP nominee in order to help them win. Period. Reagan and his team calculated putting Bush on the ticket would unite the party and put a more moderate face on the ticket (due to the fact the left wing media had for years portrayed Reagan as a right wing fanatic).
I know full well the GOP establishment hated Reagan. That's the point, he overcame them to win 2 electoral landslides. He didn't whine and moan about running off and going 3rd party or spend all his time crying about the establishment. Reagan became a great candidate that could overcome the complacent establishment and liberal mainstream media - and won. So stop the cryfest about the establishment and work for and nominate GOOD conservative candidates that at least have a chance (no EW Jackson's in a purple state)to win.
I don’t think this is a win. But neither is it a “TEA Party” loss, in the sense that despite all of the obstacles in Cuccinelli’s path, he still managed to make this close. You can’t indict the TEA Party for losing when a TEA Party style message closed the gap from “foregone conclusion” to “nail-biter” in the last couple of weeks.
But, claiming a victory from a loss is still too far to go in the other direction. At most, I’d say the result is neutral with respect to the TEA Party’s fortunes.
What exactly is the point of ‘winning’, if we elect Republicans in Name Only, who operate no differently than Democrats?
Neither party has ever been denied the White House for that long, and it's not going to start now. The political pendulum inevitably swings back to the other side after a couple of terms, and it will do so again.
You've got to stop and reflect on how much strife this administration has brought to the country. A majority of the public are going to be eager to give the other guys a chance to restore a sense of calm and security after eight years of "fundamental transformation".
This isn't a black and white issue. Ideally you nominate that most conservative candidate who CAN win their district, state, etc.
There are awful lot of stubborn purists on our side who wouldn't have nominated a guy like Rudy Giuliani for mayor of NYC because he wasn't pure enough on the social issues. Now I wouldn't want Giuliani as a statewide candidate, and I definitely would not ever want him as our presidential candidate, but for mayor of NYC he was the best we are going to do. And as it turned out, he did one hell of a great job turning that city around.
EW Jackson never had the slightest chance of winning statewide in VA, so what was the point a pastor on the ticket that would only drag it down?
Nominate the most conservative candidates that CAN win. Reagan understoond that sometimes you gotta take less than 100% of what you want. If the Democrat supports 0% of my policies, an electable Republican supports 75%, and an unelectable Republican supports 100% - I'll take that electable Republican every time.
You’re making way too much sense not to get mercilessly flamed for posting that here. That kind of common-sense thinking can be very unwelcome.
May as well wrap your mind around this reality and get right with God before it's to late. His return is imminent.
Yes, instead of conservatives adapting, overcoming, becoming better candidates/politicians, honing our message, etc, half the people here seem to want to spend all their time crying and whining about the "establishment". If we nominate good conservative candidates they CAN and WILL overcome entrenched interests and the mainstream media - but they need to be GOOD candidates that are electable in their district, state, etc. People like EW Jackson were lost causes the very second they got the nomination. So what was the point of that?
God ain’t looking out for America. We murdered 55 million unborn children and our #1 export item is porn and God is looking out for us???? I don’t think so. God lets people have what they want. The people wanted a scum bag like Obama, and God gave him to us as punishment. Nope, God ain’t giving America no special get over card. He expecs America to repent and He has given us plenty of warnings to do so and we continue on our merry way into oblivion.
I see no yardage gained in running candidates who have the right message but obviously can’t win. We need to run candidates who can win and have the right message. We have to understand that in politics you can’t effect any changes unless you win office. I’m not saying abandon principles, but run candidates who are smart, effective campaigners, and have the most winnable conservative message.
As lousy as this election turned out, I will not forget the idiocy of the last national election where we threw away two perfectly winnable Senate seats (Missouri and Indiana) because we ran candidates who couldn’t keep their stupid mouths shut when they were obviously being set up for a trap by the ‘Rats. Instead, we got two extremely liberal ‘Rat Senators from what otherwise would be conservative (Indiana) or moderate-conservative (Missouri) midwestern states. How much did that help us in the Senate this session?
forget VA, HUH, are you for real?
Sarvis was a Dem plant and sadly the fools in VA fell for it, probably thought they were going to get their free drugs, prostitution, no sex age law, open borders and homosexual agenda
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.