Replies

>> Thanks but “What have they done”? “What have they done”? More than one person has repeated that line, someone on the radio must be using it a lot. What as Roberts done? Voted conservative for his entire career. What has Wolf done? Flapped his gums, looked in the mirror and wished he was a Senator, and joked about people’s x-rays on the Internet. <<

Yep, one set of rules for the incumbent, another for the challenger.

The Wolf fan club wanted to make this race about "what have they done?" but ONLY demanded an answer from the incumbent. The challenger was held to a different standard and did not need to demonstrate any such commitment to conservatism throughout their career. All they had to do is TALK conservative for a few months during a Senate race -- ironically the very thing they hypocritically blasted the incumbent for doing!

Mark Levin claimed he KNEW Wolf was a sure thing because Wolf was conservative "BEFORE becoming a Senator". He's wrong. We never "knew" that about Wolf. In fact, the question had been posed dozens of times asking when Wolf had demonstrated conservative principles BEFORE he decided he wanted a Senate seat, and NONE of his fans could demonstrate a single example.

Blasting Roberts for not living in Kansas was an example of the same set of differing rules for the incumbent and the challenger. If Roberts HADN'T held elective office and was screaming "TEA PARTY!!" at the top of his lungs, they'd have no problems whatsoever with the fact he was living most of the year in Virginia and had done so for decades. We know this because numerous candidates who screamed "TEA PARTY!!" weren't living in the state they were running from. They had absolutely no problem with those candidates doing so, but we're supposed to believe it's an unforgivable sin that PROVES they're "out of touch" if the incumbent does it. No sale.

Credible conservatives with track records don't play these games. A meme all over the internet points out how Ronald Reagan didn't spend his entire term blaming Carter for the economy being bad. Instead, he went to work and fixed the problem. That's the difference between him and an empty suit like Obama. Nobody needs to ask Joe Carr or Chris McDaniels "what have they done?" because they have track records SHOWING exactly what they've done BEFORE they decided they wanted people to elect them Senator. That's the difference between them and empty suits like Wolf.

What's amusing here is NathanForrest creates this vanity thread specifically trying to "analyze" his candidates losing and ask people "what went wrong"? that caused incumbents to win and Tea Party candidates to lose. Numerous people here have chimed in here and told him the same thing over and over (you need to pick your battles carefully, you needed to concentrate more on beating actual RINOs, there was nothing wrong with Roberts record that merited a challenge, Wolf was not a credible challenger, you can't make up standards for candidates as you go along and be inconsistent, etc.) Now he's doesn't what the hear it.

I guess the truth hurts. Sorry, sometimes you just have to man up and accept that your team screwed up.