Replies

Your points 2 and 3 above are nearly identical, so in your mind it really comes down to 2 points, not 3. Furthermore, your rhetoric is self-serving. You don't elect conservatives by supporting liberals and liberal policies. You might elect more moderate Republicans, but they don't support conservative policies (or conservative judicial nominees, for that matter). The moderate Senate Republicans, such as Lincoln Chafee and the Republican twins from Maine, prevented Bush from achieving a permanent tax cut plan. What do you propose to do about these folks? No, the president should be out there talking about limited government, individual liberty, and those things that distinguish good Republicans from bad Democrats. The goal isn't to obscure, but to project. it's not to win empty victories, but to win real ones. Oh well ... on to prescription drugs, right?

We've got primaries to deal with that.

I see a difference, though, in points 2 and 3.

Point 2 probably paplies more to primary battles, although it can apply to general elections. Point 2 is about replacing a Roukema with a Scott Garrett.

Point 3 is aimed squarely at general elections. While Connie Morella, Olympia Snowe, Greg Ganske, and Susan Collins are not people I agree with much more then 50% of the time, the fact is, IMHO, the most important vote they cast is for Speaker/Senate Majority Leader, with the chairmanships that some with that.

Electing Connie Morella could keep John Conyers from running the House Judiciary Committee, Charlie Rangel from running House Ways and Means, and George Miller from running the Resources Committee, for starters. On the Senate side, it can be safely argued that there is a significant difference between Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That means we have to work with Ganske, Snowe, and Collins until we can get a enough votes so that a bloody primary challenge WON'T cost us the Senate, or put us at the whim of the next Jeffords.

Let me add another quote, dating about two weeks from the time the first quote was made.
"I did not feel justified in risking a night encounter with possibly superior enemy forces[.]"

The quote is from the admiral who the first quote was addressed to. Now, I defy anyone to tell me that the Battle of Midway was an American loss because Raymond Spruance pulled back after sinking or fatally damaging four Japanese carriers, and shredding their elite corps of naval aviators.

The fact is, we have to pick our spots, especially where the Senate is confirmed. We've got areas where we can make a principled stand that will resonate with enough people to get the Senate back (the death tax). But we have to pick our spots for now, and save fights on other areas until we have the margins where we can fight and win those battles.

Aagin, I'm not just going to pick a fight just to fight them. I define winning as getting conservative legislation passed, defeating Democrats, and replacing moderate Republicans with conservatives. Admittedly, success in the first relies on success with the other two parts.

We have to stand for principle, but we have to get conservatives elected first, and to do that, we have to win polticial battles - or at the very least, avoid losing them.

I cannot help it if you consider me a sell-out because I prefer to do things this way. But I do not see how our principles are served by burning bridges and allowing our avowed opponents to win because we picked the wrong fight.