>>. He was a poor candidate who did not attract attention or votes. He lost.
And you want to blame us?<<
Agree 100% And he lost for not being Conservative enough! How sad that But for a few worm-eaters we would have obozocare repealed.
We need the BEST and MOST CONSERVATIVE candidates we can get (see my post about my guy Ted Cruz).
But I 100% guarantee NO ONE will meet the FR “R U CNRVTV ENUF” test. NO ONE!
So we need to understand that the Scott Browns are sometimes the best we can do (like my 1st HS g/f). If you can get and run a Ted Cruz, GREAT!! Do it!
If not, it is time to settle for the lesser of all evils: The lowest RINO is 1,000% better than the most moderate liberal.
But a lot of people are like me. We vote for people who are not perfect. You know that a lot of people who voted for McCain were not voting for McCain -- they were voting for Sarah. The TV was filled with hate for Sarah. We were constantly told how flawed she was. Definitely not "perfect". But an awful lot of people rushed out on election day, eager to vote for her because, even with her flaws, she was the real deal.
The GOP has two paths:
1) Tell the voters to jump on the bandwagon and support anyone the Establishment picks for them.
2) Break away from the GOP-e mindset, find a candidate -- even if flawed -- who can excite the base.
We've been doing option #1 for a long, long time. And I'm tired of the voters taking in the shorts when it turns out that option #1 is a bad option. Maybe -- just maybe -- the GOP should develop a tolerance for Conservative candidates, even if those candidates have flaws. I mean -- Herman Cain? Do you realize was a small, petty, insignificant thing was used to get him out of the race?? The GOP does not stand up for anyone who isn't "perfect". Mitt Romney sure seemed "perfect". How did that work out?
My view is that the voters will embrace imperfection -- but the GOP will not. And that's the problem.