Skip to comments.Venting about the Senate (go ahead and flame me)
Posted on 11/03/2010 7:23:28 AM PDT by cartervt2k
Look, this was a good night in the House, but I cant look away at all the missed opportunities in the Senate.
First off, we should be thanking our lucky stars John McCain won his primary in AZ. He sucks and is a RINO, but how would you like reading this morning that the rats picked off Hayworth along with Angle going down and Christine ODonnell losing by 17? This is a state that installed Big Sis as governor youre telling me they couldnt have picked this up?
Im taking odds on anyone who thinks Buck is going to pull it out in purple CO. Whatever you think about gay marriage, what the hell is he doing talking about it on Sunday morning talk shows when the rats are sprinting from their record? Their agenda is imploding and you give them a sound bite on gay marriage?!
This is a year where our senate margins should have been wider than normal. Candidates matter. If the media can find anything on you, they will exploit it to the hilt never more so the case in statewide races. If you are perceived as a weak candidate, the media will make you weaker. If anyone thinks beating Obama is going to be a breeze in 2012, theyre dreaming. Look at the way all of Harry Reids machinery and corruption carried him to victory last night. When was the last time Rasmussen showed him ahead? Youre telling me Obama is going to play it straight up? Hes just as sleazy and corrupt as Reid.
With the exception of Rubio (arguably our best new conservative ambassador) and Johnson (another strong candidate), look how close these pretty safe R pickups in PA and IL. The only reason Kirk won in blue IL is because he is a RINO that was fortunate enough to get the nomination before RINO hunting season opened, or wed be talking about Senator Giannoulias along with Senator Coons. Rossi is an establishment guy, and look how close hes been able to keep it in blue WA. If Angle were running against Murray, this one would have been called when the polls closed.
Ive been on the record here about this before, but if you seriously value social issues, as I do, then you need to fight to win: get as many fiscal hawk Rs in power as possible (along with the social Rs in solid red states) to hold our majorities. They will appoint originalists to the courts, and we wont have Sotomayors or Kagans creating abortion and gay marriage laws by judicial fiat. Or would you rather have smaller, concentrated numbers of Rs who will be helpless against activist courts? You decide.
You again Karl ???
You again Christine?
Angle and COD cost us 2 very winnable seats. Not getting the majority in the Senate is a dissapointment to me, this should have been a 12-13 seat win
We went 24 wins and 11 losses in senate races with 2 pending.
That’s pretty darn good.
If that’s disappointing to you then your bar for success was set too unrealistically high.
McCain should have lost the primary. The only good thing about him “winning” is that he will be spending his last term in office in the minority intead of chairing any committee. Add to that the fact that he didn’t win by near the margin he’s used to winning by (to a dem who didn’t bother to campaign against him). It was a real hoot.
Interesting point of view, but the conclusion makes an assumption that doesn’t consider the all of the dynamics. Take CA for example - RINOs everywhere in a state that has been hit hard and people are hurting, and they lost after having a RINO governor. Is the reelection of Babbs not a lost opportunity? Or what about Schumer and Gillibrand in NY? Their opponents were RINOs. Two more lost opportunities right there.
I’d say that TEA candidaes not only had Democraps to fight off, but also the RINO establishment who stood on the sidelines and took potshots at them.
It was a great day yesterday. Here in blue State Wisconsin we literally ran the table. Knocked out Feingold. Won the State legislature. Won the Governor. Knocked out two dem congressional seats.
All done with solid Tea Party endorsed conservatives. All great candidates. No RINO’s anywhere to be found.
Interestingly enough we were able to do all this without having Sarah Palin visit and help select our candidates and blessing them with her magic wand.
My 6 yr old was really mad at me for not letting her eat Halloween candy for breakfast. No matter that she got some in her lunchbox, and was promised a piece after dinner. No, she whined and stomped and huffed and puffed, convinced that not having that candy now, right this instant, made what she DID get less enjoyable.
Know what I mean?
Let’s face reality. Even with all three of those seats (NV, CO, and DE), the GOP still loses the Senate on a tiebreaker (Biden), so it’s not like these candidates cost the GOP the Senate.
Despite her large loss, O’Donnell at least prevented a “Republican” Castle from being elected, which would have given Obama the “bipartisan” cover he needs on Cap & Tax and other issues. Tellingly, O’Donnell won independents but didn’t get enough GOP votes to win. Remember that the next time a RINO demands “loyalty” after a primary win.
Reid likely would have stolen the election from anyone, so running Angle wasn’t a net loss, either.
Buck may not have been the best candidate, but like the others, losing (or more precisely, not picking up) a few seats here and there, when the balance of power isn’t at stake, is a small price to pay to send a message loud and clear to the establishment GOP that it’s not just the ‘rats who are being targeted. The RINOs had better be worried, too. The Maine twins, Lindsey Graham, and others had better play “tea party” if they want to keep their jobs in the next couple of cycles.
Under it’s rules conservatives now control the Senate...
and you’re unhappy!
Heck, it’s a waste of time pointing out how silly your post is.
You have nailed it well. As for the post itself, I agree with much of what the writer is saying, but not the reasoning behind it. Taken to the extreme, the writer should be praising the sore loser Lisa Murkowski. Is there any doubt Miller would have won the seat without Lisa running. Let's hear it for Mark Kirk. Don't we all feel good that he won? Apparently, according to this writer, we should fill the senate with Mark Kirk's, McCain's, and Murkowski’s. Yeah, that's the ticket.
It was a bad night in the senate. But not because of the Tea Party.
After an expensive medical procedure, a “party change operation,” John McCain looked to many like a Republican.
However, just like looking for the Adam’s Apple on transvestites and transexuals the socialism and gave his true nature away...
Let’s be a little more measured about this. I originally didn’t want O’Donnell as the nominee and generally am someone who supports moderate Republicans in liberal states (at one point I supported Specter, a long time ago, and was a big Giuliani fan). Having said that, I have been frustrated during the Bush years that the “Republican” president and “Republican” Congress did nothing to advance conservatism and limited government. In fact, 2000-2006 were the warm-up for the Dem spending binge that we just had. Based on that, I’m a lot more willing to take risks on more conservative candidates if the choice is a Republican hack who has been in office for years vs. a raw but right on the issues conservative. Its still a balance though and you can’t put up any idiot just because he or she says the right things.
Suppose the supreme court doesn’t pull out the rug on Obamacare. It took 60 senators to get it passed. Do you think it will take any less to get its repeal to a Republican president’s desk? Do you think we’ll close that gap anyway after the next election? What if Coons’s seat is #60?
Comment of the Day. +1000
If the old-boy GOP had better candidates, then we wouldn’t have needed the O’Donnells and Angles.
Palin said exit polls showed that Castle would have lost DE as well so your point is moot.
I will take odds McCain does not live out his term.
I concur. The victory came in the primary. Yes I wish the candidates were a bit more polished and not so gaffe prone, but their primary wins sent a resounding message to the GOP. The GOP had to clean their own house first, before they were ready to take back power, and in that sense, "Mission Accomplished." Now we'll be in better position for 2012, now that the deadweight in the party has been dealt with.
As long as the GOP controls the House, they can kill it by simply not funding it.
OK, I'll go first.
Palin cannot be elected President.
Palin is a damn liar there. COD changed the entire dynamics of that race. Coons was simply a sacrificial lamb for this race
The loses the Tea Party took was Rino doing and it will be their undoing. If they screw up over the next couple years and act as if nothing has changed, the GOP will die. Without voters, there is no GOP.
The massive wins in state legislatures across the country also helps to build a solid "bench" for future federal candidates.
It’s the fiscally promiscuous “conservatives” like Bush that get us in trouble with the electorate and tarnish the brand. If there’s not much daylight between R’s and D’s in terms of spending restraint, then it’s not a big deal for independents to break hard for the D and give us professional spending marxists like Obama. (Unpopular, however righteous, wars don’t help either.)
Chris Christie is a great case study. He is regarded by many around here as a RINO and has a 51% approval rating in deep blue NJ because of how he’s trying to straighten out their finances.
The main problem is the closer the GOP gets to 50 seats in the Senate, the more power it gives RINOs like the ladies from Maine and Juan McCain to sell us out to the left.
That’s your long term solution?
That's really was the big story of the night.
That was largely a "I want to vote for a woman" and "I hate mormons" vote.
As an add on to my last post, two races stand out as good examples of voting to win vs. voting for conservatism:
The obviously good example is Crist in Florida. If we had no Tea Party, Crist would have won and his lack of principle and rank opportunism would have come out after he was a senator. The Tea Party knocked him off and we now have a rising star in Rubio. A clear positive.
In other cases—O’Donnell and, to a lesser extent, Angle—you had people who were right on issues but who got out-campaigned and made amateur mistakes.
It comes down to the question we asked and debated a million times before. Do we want a majority if you have to have a bunch of Castles to get there? Can we get a majority of principled conservatives? The answer to the first question depends on the second, and the answer to the second is a lot harder than many conservatives think it is.
So you would rather have Giannoulias than Kirk? I would like to see you write that.
I wish Nevada had a "I hate Mormons" vote.
Supporting liberals who have no intention of voting your way, just because they have an "R" after their name is yours?
If the GOP can't maintain a legislative majority long enough to permanently dismantle Obamacare, then it ain't going away, period (presuming it survives court challenges in the first place).
>I have been frustrated during the Bush years that the Republican president and Republican Congress did nothing to advance conservatism and limited government. In fact, 2000-2006 were the warm-up for the Dem spending binge that we just had.
This is *exactly* what I mean when I claim that the Republicans, AS A PARTY, are worse than the Democrats. The Democrats at least put effort into advancing their stated party-planks while the Republicans are “whitewashed tombs” that make appeals to their constituents about morality, ending abortion’s legality, limited government, fiscal responsibility and so forth; yet when in power they don’t even make the symbolic gesture of proposing such legislation. (And look at the reputation of ones that do propose doing things differently, like Ron Paul, who suggested the use of Letters of Marque & Reprisal instead of the Global War on Terror and the massive military spending; people [republicans] call him a nut and deride people who think he has some quite valid points.)
And *DON’T* bring up Reagan. I’m not even 30 yet; meaning when he was in office I didn’t have *ANY* care about politics. His *actual* advocacy of the conservatism that the Republican-party-plank is based upon seems to me to be something of a “statistical anomaly.”
When a Republican running for senator says he’ll support Cap and Trade he doesn’t deserve to win. Hell there is a new democrat senator from W. Virgina who says he won’t support Cap and Trade. How ironic is that.
At least Christine O’Donnell had the same principles as most of us “republicans”.
>>Suppose the supreme court doesnt pull out the rug on Obamacare. It took 60 senators to get it passed. Do you think it will take any less to get its repeal to a Republican presidents desk?
>As long as the GOP controls the House, they can kill it by simply not funding it.
Realistically, what are the chances that they will have the balls to “oppose with manly firmness” the funding of such legislation?
Or will they, once in power, kiss butt and hand out the KY jelly hoping to be let into the circle-jerk-fest that is DC?
California and New York are exceptions. Those states are gone - too far entrenched with the public sector unions. If we can’t win there with RINOs this year, we’re not winning out there for the foreseeable future. Period. The NRSC would be wise to not spend another dime out there. We should only target certain congressional districts. If the RGA wants to go for future governorships, they may have poor but slightly better shot, but that’s probably going to be a waste of time too.
We all would prefer all conservatives.
But the LIBERAL democrat party will hold the senate with the (supposedly) conservative Manchin. Pelosi took the House with (supposedly) conservative democrats.
If we had Castle and the few others we kicked out they would be a few liberals voting to put the conservative republican party in power. It helps us not one bit to have Reid, Coons, now Bennett in the senate for the next 6 years.
Harry Reid is no Mormon. MINO. (:
We have to think about 2012 as well. Yes, the terrain is favorable in 2012 (we definitely lose MA, but have opportunities in NE, ND, MT, MO, OH, PA, VA, WV and perhaps a couple more).
But since we threw away 3 seats this time (DE for sure, NV and CO almost certainly), we will need to score 4 or 5 pickups in 2012 to get the majority. And even then we’ll have to rely on Lisa to get anything done. This is way more difficult than it should to be.
Look - Angle ran full 9% behind Sandoval’s numbers in NV. That’s how terrible a candidate she was. And O’Donnell was a disaster, I think she cost Toomey some votes as well, good thing he had some to spare.
He’s certainly a Mormon with one ‘m’.
Yeah, and part of the problem is trying to make absolutist principles out of it.
It completely depends on the situation. *This* RINO may be a good thing for us....but *that* RINO may not be. *This* conservative may a great chance to knock out an establishment guy. *That* one may not be.
I was one of the ones saying Christie was a RINO. Dead wrong. We need to think in terms of each situation, and not blindly following absolutism over a cliff.
Let's just each of us vote for who we want to represent us, and let the chips fall where they may.
BTW, for a number of reasons the republicans can’t simply refuse to fund all of Obamacare. One reason is it doesn’t all take effect until after the next election, so that election will be crucial. In the meantime, they can’t just use defunding to stop a law already passed. They need to repeal or change the law. The senate democrats will block those changes, and Obama will veto them anyway.
The fact is we saw in this election many voters will not elect a Tea Party newbie over an experienced politician. Sad but true.
In retrospect, I can’t see how adding Castle as a republican vote would dilute a conservative republican senate, versus having Coons there as an absolute leftist democrat voting with the democrats.
IF Christine, Angle, etc could have won that would be great. with 20 20 hindsight, they didn’t.
Sure, if you consider the "us" to liberal RINOs. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal, no matter if there's a "D" or an "R" before their name. Replacing a "D" liberal with an "R" liberal is useless.
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.