I just would prefer to field candidates (esp in the case of the US Senate) that will vote for Bill Frist for Majority Leader (or maybe McConnell if Frist moves up the political ladder) than a Dingy Harry or Dasshole or for even Denny Hastert for house speaker over Nancy Pisslosi. The lines it is organized by are the most important right now, not merely in getting policy through, which is where Bush is suffering, but successfully waging the war on terror and winning it. Since 9/11, the Republicans have kept the worst of the terror attacks off our soil. If that means more Lowell Weickers and less Zell Millers being supported, so be it....
Well, my comments were specifically aimed at William Weld and whatever office he would seek under our party label. If he wants to run, let him do it as a Democrat. Seems to me, like another "political giant", the city-killing ultraRINO apostate named John Vliet Lindsay, they'd not want that bull charging through their china shop, either.
And where Lowell Weicker is concerned, at least he had the common courtesy to LEAVE the Republican party after CT voters bounced his despicable ass from the Senate before he ran as the self-created Independent wingnut party candidate for Governor. That's one thing that puts him just a cut above Herr Weld in the intellectual honesty department.
Yah, you don't seem to understand what you are saying.
Weicker endorsed HOWARD DEAN for President.
Miller endorsed Bush.
If I could vote for a Senate with 100 Zell Millers in it, I would.
Heck, I'd vote for 100 Joe Liebermans over Weicker.
If you are trying to say, that generally speaking, you'd rather a moderate R then a 'conservative' (so called) D, I think you are dead on. I certainly perfer the Lisa Murkowskis over the Ken Salazars of this world, but you chose poorly the people you meant to represent this conundrum, because Miller was one of the only D's that was actually better then most R's, and Weicker was one of the only R's that was actually worse then most D's.