[zarf]

Besides he will take a strong majority of swing voters and independents in which will more then make up for any tantrum they decide to throw in the future.

Leading to the obvious conclusion that we need to move to the middle because the damned right wing is so unreliable. If we can't count on them to stand by us when the candidate's not "perfect", adjust the strategy to appeal to those who will.

[Wallace T.]

What's the point of supporting the GOP if the candidates are liberal, but only less so than their Democratic counterparts? If being moderate were the solution to the Republican Party's electoral problems, why was the elder George Bush humiliated electorally in 1992 after four years of his "kinder, gentler" Administration? Not since Hoover in 1932 had a incumbent Republican Presidential candidate been so soundly defeated.

Pay attention to the signs. The GOP base did turn out well if not spectacularly. Had the Republican Party moved further leftward, the 2006 election setbacks might have been a rout that exceeded the losses of 1932 and 1964 for us and 1952 and 1994 for the Democrats. The Constitution Party has bragged about how well they did in this election cycle due to disgruntled conservatives deserting the Republicans. Going entirely RINO will cause the trickle to turn into a flood. There are not enough soccer moms, perverts, and metrosexuals to replace the real Americans that the Republican Party will lose.

[Mr. Silverback]

Moving to the middle is as stupid as the stuff you're criticizing. We lost the Congress because the Dems got to the right of us. We need a candidate who is strong on fiscal and social conservative issues...fiscal is more important given the recent spending spree, but we will ignore the social end at our peril.