[FourtySeven]

I think what we have here (in this race) is a demonstration of how the simplistic principle of “vote conservative” is not the only way to political salvation.

There needs to be more definition given to what it means to be “conservative” if there are going to be fights as this after elections like this.

This race is emblematic of a real problem in the conservative movement (beyond not being willing to put small matters aside) and that is the simple fact different people define “conservative” differently.

In races where it’s clear, for example Eric Cantor’s loss, the Tea Party movement does have success. But in races in Kansas where the lines are a bit blurrier, there will sometimes be outcomes like this.

Ultimately, is it a bad thing? I don’t know but it seems to me we have two choices:

1. we can argue even more, further dividing the movement, if there is no ultimate decision forthcoming (and I don’t see how there could be, since the Tea Party movement has no leader or even leadership).

2. If no leadership is forthcoming, then there is no point in dwelling over results like this because really, who’s to say who’s “right”? The people who voted for Roberts? The ones who voted against him? It should be obvious to anyone who is reasonable that without a leadership to make such a decision, any fights along these and similar lines will only weaken the movement over something that ultimately has no resolution. At least not on a national or even state level. So it’s best to just move on.

It thus seems to me #2 is in order. Or else factionalism will rule the day, which is really what the leftists want.

What’s the ultimate message here? Unless there is some way to agree upon basics beyond mere platitudes like “vote conservative”, then there are going to be times as this where we are going to be FORCED to be pragmatic. I know some around here recoil in horror at that term but this is simply the reality of the situation.

I’ve read this thread; both “sides” have good points for their arguments. There is no clear contrast like there is between simple conservatism and liberalism. So we can either spend this time tearing each other apart or both “sides” capitulate, and concede there are valid points from the other, and then just move on.

It’s either that or we are forced eventually to accept a “Romney” again as we busy ourselves with minutia such as this, the elitists benefit from the distraction and sneak in another lukewarm national candidate. And then the pragmatism becomes nauseating.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for a thoughtful reply which is very well worth considering. I have done so but I would like to suggest to you that there is another perspective through which to see our state of affairs.

Essentially, it comes down to whether you believe that we are in a phase of our American history which amounts to politics as usual. If you look at my exchange with 1010RD he says in his last reply:

We’re winning, despite your misgivings.... We’re winning on jobs, immigration, gun liberty, abortion, debt, forced unionism, etc.

I do not think we are winning I think we are losing and unless we overcome at least two perils we will certainly lose much of our liberty and probably face a fiscal crackup and serious dislocation. I cite the coming demographic tsunami which is bound to turn the country to the left because the old saw has it right, demographics is destiny. The second peril as to do with our raging deficits and our accumulated debt now in excess of $17 trillion; we literally have no idea how big our unfunded liabilities reckoning is.

If these two problems are not properly dealt with we are going to lose and lose very, very big.

In keeping with that background I wrote in my reply #91 the following, a tease of what one must believe about our current state of politics in order to be content enough to oppose and Article V reform:

12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.

I obviously do not believe that. In another post I asked concerning the defense of moderately conservative senators, "what have they done?" Meaning, what did they do to address the debt, did they add to it or do they subtract from it. If you say they subtracted from it we have a factual argument. If you say they added to it, then I beg to know why you think it is preferable to have one moderately conservative Senator in place who has contributed to the problem over another moderately conservative Senator who promises to help solve the problem. If you do not think the nation is in trouble, then we should split hairs about which candidate is more or less conservative than the other because we are going into the arena to do business as usual.

I do not think we can afford to carry on doing business as usual. That means on the one hand we need an Article V solution and on the other hand we need warriors not placeholders in office, at least from safe seats. If we must shoot a few "to encourage the others," so be it. We are not talking about moving the decimal point up and down the gross domestic product curve, we are talking about survival. I don't give a damn about the survival of these placeholders I care whether the candidate will shut the border down, whether he will get spending under control whether he will wage war and move heaven and earth to do so. I do not believe that the people who brought us to this place by their profligacy have suddenly experienced an epiphany. They are what they are and have always been.

Thank you again for your reply.