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.
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.