Posted on 11/03/2010 7:23:28 AM PDT by cartervt2k
Look, this was a good night in the House, but I can’t 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 O’Donnell losing by 17? This is a state that installed Big Sis as governor – you’re telling me they couldn’t have picked this up?
I’m 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, they’re dreaming. Look at the way all of Harry Reid’s machinery and corruption carried him to victory last night. When was the last time Rasmussen showed him ahead? You’re telling me Obama is going to play it straight up? He’s 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 we’d be talking about Senator Giannoulias along with Senator Coons. Rossi is an establishment guy, and look how close he’s been able to keep it in blue WA. If Angle were running against Murray, this one would have been called when the polls closed.
I’ve 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 R’s in power as possible (along with the social R’s in solid red states) to hold our majorities. They will appoint originalists to the courts, and we won’t have Sotomayors or Kagans creating abortion and gay marriage laws by judicial fiat. Or would you rather have smaller, concentrated numbers of R’s who will be helpless against activist courts? You decide.
>>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?
>As long as the GOP controls the House, they can kill it by simply not funding it.
Question:
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.
I agree with primarying Graham - we can do better in SC.
The only good thing I can say about a Mike Castle loss is at least we don’t have to hear him as the “counterpoint” to Chuck Schumer on Meet the Press. Still, I’d rather have him around than the bearded marxist.
Reid may have beaten anybody, but looking at this 5 point loss on Nov 3rd, I would have been interested to see how Lowden or Tark would have held up. At the very least, I think that 2% none of the above would have been ours. I think we might have pulled it out.
You are 100% correct and kudos to you for posting what should already be obvious to everyone.
That so many people here refuse to understand that ideological purity is useless if you can’t win is elections is very frustrating.
The Tea Party is a growing, powerful movement that has helped revive the Republican party and had a very positive impact on these elections, but its leaders and strategists will need to understand the importance of finding the most conservative candidate that CAN actually win. Backing candidates like COD who have absolutely no chance and damage conservatives down ballot is utterly foolish.
It takes GOOD candidates to win. Period. Conservatives have not only the very powerful Democratic party and its turnout machine arrayed against them, they also must deal with an incredibly hostile media. To overcome this, we will need to sometimes sacrifice ideological purity in favor of electability in many districts and states.
All this whining about Rove is silly. Rove was exactly right about COD. O’Donnell lost by 16 points - that has nothing to with anything Rove, Krauthammer, random forums posters or anyone else said or did. She lost because she was a terrible candidate to run statewide in Delaware.
Sorry, but you are wrong and Palin was right according to this thread:
Thank You.....from Delaware post#16 and #17
The Democrats are more unified than the Republicans. Until the voting system is reformed, you’re going to see right-leaning voters divided, losing elections, and letting the leftists hold seats they shouldn’t be able to hold.
The only reason Republicans won seats this election is because they had much more energy than the Democrats. If it were a matter of that energy alone, the Republicans would have won the Senate. But unity plays a big part in winning. It was a lack of unity that doomed O’Donnell and I think the lack of unity on the right is going to make the 2012 elections more difficult than they should be.
I might agree with your assumption about CA and NY, except I live in NY and grew up in CA. We are not commies or hyper-liberals. We have hopelessly entrenched RINO leadership in the Republican party here, and the TEA candidates who managed to win the primary were attacked by them publicly, while they endorsed the Democraps instead.
So, tell me, just whose side are they really on? And it’s not really that much different than what happened to Sharon Angle or Christine Odonnell.
Your assumtion that RINOs win in what appears to be blue-state mentality or even purple-state is incorrect. The economy is a mess and we’ve been strapped with hyper-liberals making the mess larger. Republicans should have won big nearly everywhere Democraps are in power, but they didn’t. So if you can tell me why, without making broad assumptions about the voters that you cannot prove, then maybe I’ll be able to at least understand your logic that we should run RINOs eveywhere.
You think Olympia Snowe will move a bit to the right rather than face a primary challenge in Maine in ‘12? If she gets beaten within the party I hope it is by a conservative with a good message and organization who can win the general election.
Looks like Repubs will go into 2012 with only 47 seats, including Murkowski. Gaining 4 is doable but won’t be easy.
I guess anyone can find the cloud in the silver lining.
Yes, RINOs truly are disgusting little creatures. Purging them from our ranks is a long-term plus. And if in so doing we have to wait another election cycle to capture the Senate, then so be it. We have the House now and can at least block any more of the insanity we've put up with for the last two years.
Two-thirds of the Senate seats up in 2012 are controlled by Democrats. That's a lot of seats to defend, giving the GOP many opportunities for pickups. Four seats will be quite doable. We got that much last night.
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.