Posted on 04/24/2014 8:41:28 AM PDT by Moseley
The GOP needs to adopt one powerful reform: Stop taking “advice” from people who want Republicans to lose. Almost every problem, dynamic, and force within the Republican Party is currently driven (sometimes in obscure ways) by the naïve assumption that the “advice” freely offered by the GOP’s enemies is sound wisdom the GOP should depend upon.
Republican insiders fight any nominee or action which the GOP’s enemies criticize. Insiders think that their enemies’ “advice” shows which candidate will have broad appeal. So if liberal organizations, the liberal news media, or Democrats say a candidate is a bad choice or a policy is a bad idea, GOP elites eagerly join their enemies in the attack against their own candidates. They want a nominee or action that their enemies can support.
It never dawns on gullible insiders that the advice is intended to make the GOP fail or even spark conflict and civil war within the Republican ranks. Democrats benefit by keeping the war raging within the Republican Party. So do Democrats and journalists really want to heal the strife within the GOP?
During the Republican Party civil war, the establishment’s main and really only argument is that establishment-backed candidates are more “electable” than conservative candidates and the policy agenda the establishment advances is more likely to win elections.
Unfortunately, establishment “electability” is a myth. Establishment-approved candidates have no better record in contested general elections than do conservatives. Most candidates backed by King RINO Karl Rove lost their elections in 2012. As Bloomberg reported: “10 of the 12 Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates the Rove groups supported also lost their races. Some calculated that only 1% of Rove’s Super-PAC money went to candidates who won.
(Excerpt) Read more at aun-tv.com ...
Are GOP elites over-promising their special expertise to pick the best candidates? Insiders have the unique ability to choose candidates who get 40% of the vote while avoiding those other candidates who get 40% of the vote. Can you say “margin of error?” Can you say “no statistically significant difference?”
What really is the big difference, the big deal? The GOP establishment promoted a candidate who won 40% of the vote in Delaware for President in 2012 while condemning in shrieking horror a candidate who won 40% of the vote in Delaware for U.S. Senate in 2010.
Could it be that Karl Rove is really no better at picking candidates than Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin? Their actual results are exactly the same: 40% of the vote in a blue State, Delaware, for both candidates.
Why shouldn’t the GOP listen to advice from dim-bulb-crats?
After all, GOP leaders are “Dim-Bulb-Crats Lite” and are all charter members of the “Future Dim-Bulb-Crat Club”.
I f*rt in their general direction.
The RATs have fouled their own nest and are now willing to help the Republicans.
Rubio rues the day Schumer sidled up to him and promised him votes up the kazoo if he’d join Democrats backing amnesty.
Likewise, Biden told Arlen Specter all he had to do is “trust me” and switch over to the Democrat side.
The difference between the GOPe and Democrats is more a matter of philosophical fine points than policy, so it makes sense that they would agree with advice from Democrats.
For atheistic Democrats, government is God, and their purpose is to shape God in their own will, while forcing the masses into obedience of that will.
While not thinking of government as God, some, if not most, Republicans think that government is power, and by its enlargement they can play like gods, or be the colleagues of gods, the Democrats.
Conservatives believe that government at best is a necessary evil, and it needs to be limited and beaten down from time to time.
Who will the GOPe listen to?
I’d disagree that Palin’s choices fare no better than Rove’s. In the past couple elections, hers have won several and Rove’s have lost nearly all. When you look at the actual numbers, she is doing much better, percentage-wise. You cannot claim that ALL tea party candidates are Palin choices. She doesn’t automatically endorse all TP candidates, because, as she well knows, people are fickle. Some she has endorsed have not been true TP candidates in the end, but she also stated QUITE PUBLICLY, that if they didn’t vote TP after being elected, then they deserve to be voted out next time around. One cannot always tell, and in the pressure by others to endorse, you can certainly be wrongly influenced, but Palin has also learned from these experiences, I’d say, and she is more careful whom she endorses.
But but but...the democrats assure us if we dont support amnesty for illegal aliens, we will lose/s
I didn’t mean to denigrate Palin’s choices, just address the dominant assumption that conservative / tea party candidates lose while establishment candidates win. of course, you are way more informed than the average “expert” or journalist.
A law professor called in to Rush a while back and said he tells his students not to take advice from the other side of the table.
Beg to differ. Listen, then do the opposite!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.