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.
So "ideological purity" has to win 100% of the elections to be useful?
Last night was a blow out- even in the Senate and the complaint is it wasn't enough because a few candidates ran amateurish campaigns.
We won elections, your way, in 2004 and exactly what did it get us?