« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Sarah Steelman Called

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 26th, 2009 at 03:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Well I’m really flattered. I was headed out of a meeting on the Hill and an unknown number showed up on my cell phone. I usually don’t answer unknown numbers, but I did. I’m glad I did.

The other day I wrote that people in Missouri, including people who had given Steelman large sums for her governor’s race, were calling to tell me she is a jerk.

I verified the people so I know they are who they say they are. I don’t know why they felt the need to call. They know, I’m sure, that I really like Roy Blunt, but they also know, I’m sure, that Roy Blunt and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of fiscal issues. He’s great on life issues and social issues, but he’s not really a fiscal conservative. And I have real issues with that.

So it’s no surprise, I guess, that people would be calling to push me toward Blunt and away from Sarah Steelman, with whom I share many, many common positions.

Anyway, Sarah Steelman was on the phone.

She wanted me to know she’s not a jerk. She certainly did not sound like a jerk. She said she figures a lot of the rumor mongering against her stems from her lack of participation in the general with Kenny Hulshof, the eventual GOP nominee.

In fact, according to Steelman, she did endorse Hulshof, but was asked to participate in only one event — one she could not make because she does not participate in political events on nights her sons play football. She did not get asked to participate in any other events.

Here’s what it all boils down to. Sarah Steelman does not seem like a jerk. And frankly, the jerks either never call or call to yell. She did not call to yell, but to introduce herself. That’s classy.

So I’m impressed. This may be one of those races I sit out of because, again, I think I’m closer to Steelman ideologically, but I know Roy and like him personally.

By the way, Steelman did not say she was running. But the fact that she called suggests she is. And I’m hearing more and more that conservative groups are going to rally to her if she does, while the Republican Party of Missouri will probably back Roy Blunt.

I don’t know if the conservative army can beat the GOP establishment. And I don’t know if, after a very bloody primary, either could beat Carnahan. Something’s got to give. We cannot afford to lose this seat.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Swamp_Yankee

    … comment turned me off… Did she ever apologize. What was the story.

  • http://dezignworx-ae.com tsquare

    know you are taking ‘nice’ phone calls from tall good looking blondes while out of town on ‘business’?

    Just asking….

  • Michael Dugas

    I mean Blunt IS another white guy in a suit …literally. Hehe, and as she is white also….
    She did follow it up saying she meant it as he is part of the good ole boy system that people want to see change. Gos I hate to use that word “change” anymore.

    I think it was just a misspoken attempt by her to say Blunt is an entrenched politician more into cronyism and self than fixing the party.

    Maybe not but that’s my 2 cents…….need change? AAArrrgghhh!

  • Michael Dugas

    My first Kowalski in over 3 yrs!

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I’m also sharing a hotel room with Jeff Emanuel.

  • Paul Seale

    Thats the kindest way I know how to put it.

    This whole thing goes beyond an “idealogical” struggle and reaches back, I believe, to the 2006 GOP auditor primary.

    Without going into any great detail a few people got bitter because Matt Blunt backed someone who ended being the GOP nominee who eventually failed.

    That combined with a laundry list of things made some people very bitter. I unfortunately know some of those people.

    Some of those people have the ear of a few conservative – and left wing media (who are out to destroy state GOP and conservative candidates).

    It is also important to note that in 2008 Sarah Steelman started to lean toward running for gov before backing off.. then when Matt Blunt decided not to run again, she jumped in.

    As I posted before this goes a lot deeper than anyone outside of the region knows or understands.

  • IJB

    Frankly, I’m not a MO resident, and I’m not sold on either Blunt or Steelman.

    But the facts are these:

    1) Blunt is already in this race.

    2) He’s the frontrunner either way.

    3) There is only one Dem candidate on the other side.

    4) If Steelman runs, she will inevitably force (another) divisive primary, that she will almost certainly lose (again), once again damaging the GOP candidate going into a general election against an ultra-liberal.

    This boils down to a pretty simple equation – if Steelman runs in this primary, she’s putting her own personal interests above those of the party (and the conservative movement), for the second time in just two elections.

    I don’t care who you are – if you pull this kind of ****, you pretty quickly get on the black list. And I’m pretty sure there will be a number of party activists who will feel the same way.

    If/when we ever get back to the majority in D.C., then we can play around with divisive primaries like this.

    But we have to get back in the majority first. Anything, or anyone, who detracts from that in 2010 needs to be shown the proverbial door.

  • bs
  • AceInTX

    I know what you look like Eric…I’ve never seen Jeff…but you just put an image in my head and I’ll never forgive you for it!

    Quick…Someone poke out my mind’s eye!

  • AceInTX

    to do what they say and stick by our principles…to do less is to continue the erosion of the Conservative brand and keep us in the minority for years to come..

    Tell me to compromise what’s right for what is politically expedient and all I hear is Blah Blah Blah!!!

  • bs

    by Roy Blunt to counteract the impression that he’s a fiscal squish. I don’t think he’s quite as bad as we think. I need to go do some House vote research and look in detail.

    But tonight is game night…

  • bs

    So you can sit in your easy chair and be proud of yourself in stading up for the “conservative brand” and watch seat after seat fall because we ran people that can’t win.

    Great strategy, that.

  • IJB

    Because that’s what this boils down to – are we going to get some Specter ‘squish’ with Roy Blunt?

    If the answer is anywhere near a pretty certain “No”, then there’s nothing to talk about, and no need for a primary.

    (And, while we’re on the subject, I can feel pretty certain that Blunt is not a ‘squish’ – can we say the same thing about Steelman? The fact is *we don’t know*, and no one should advocate throwing over a ’90% guy’ for a total unknown who could easily “grow” into a “Specter” or “Snowe” in office.)

  • AceInTX

    nt

  • AceInTX

    I don’t think bloody primary battles are bad things…and I don’t think anyone should tell them not to support the person they more align with because they supposedly have no chance. That’s all I’m saying…and I really dislike the backbiting and game playing that is going on and goes on far too often with the whisper campaigns behind the scenes spreading rumors about what jerks people are or how much they spent on campaign cloths to name another well known example.

    To answer your question, I’m content with Blunt…your point about the unknown is well placed and I acknowledge it. It’s the compromise thing I get sick of and what’s killing us!

  • stldave

    It can be divisive, and this one could be, but maybe that is because there are some real issues that divide us. There are plenty of Republicans who are willing to overlook people that will use and abuse the Washington system if they deliver the votes on the issues they care about. I’m not making judgments on those people here, but that isn’t me and there are plenty of other people like me.

    If push comes to shove, I am pretty sure that I’d hold my nose and vote for Blunt in the election. I know there are plenty of people that just flat won’t show up, though. They won’t if Steelman runs. They won’t if she doesn’t. The problem just comes to the surface faster with a primary.

    Blunt’s lobbyist ties are going to be used against him in the general no matter what. It’s going to be effective with many. He has the advantage in that the vast majority of the voters outside the cities will identify with him better on the issues, but I think 2010 is going to be all about fiscal responsibility and Blunt doesn’t have the credibility there that he should. It’s going to hurt him no matter who Bond, Hulshof, and the others support. No matter what groups give him endorsements.

    It’s an off year election. Having enthusiastic grassroot support is going to count more than it will in 2012. If Steelman wants to run, she almost has to do it this time. People suggest she can wait it out to 2012. She isn’t going to be the establishment’s choice then either. She never will be. And overcoming the establishment, both in the primary and the general, likely will be that much more difficult in that race.

  • bs

    Steelman’s stunts in 2008 did the GOP no favors. A repeat performance not only dooms the GOP, but it probably means she doesn’t get elected to anything except maybe PTA president after that.

  • bs
  • IJB
  • whatifidontwanna

    And there is another MO Senate race right around the corner that would probably be better suited for Steelman to run in anyways.

    I say cut a deal… get Blunt elected and then that clears the way to run against that crazy Claire!

  • AceInTX

    that folks agree more with Steelman because she’s more conservative and will get most of the activist votes but Blunt is the party candidate.

    It’s the idea in the abstract that we’ll support the party guy though I agree with the non party guy that I object too

  • AceInTX

    or do you just want the number to be bigger to make you feel better and don’t care if the bigger number gives us any advantage over our enemies?

  • whatifidontwanna

    I live in Plano, and I can tell you it’s a reliably “Republican” area, but it isn’t as monolithic as you seem to think the Republican Party is.

    Here’s a hint, you are definitely hellbent on making the Republican Party a regional (if even that) by a whole myriad of different posts you’ve made.

    Where are you going to get these people we (read: that only agree with you on 99%) to get elected from?

    Seriously, Arnold is probably the ONLY Republican who has a chance to win in California.

    Where else are you going to poach a Senate seat? Knowing that the Obama/Burris Senate seat used to be held by Fitzgerald, was he conservative enough?

    Or how less than the late 90s, BOTH of Oregon’s senate seats were held by Republicans… that won’t EVER happen again under your view.

    Neither Hutchison or Cornyn meet your nearly impossible to meet requirements.

  • AceInTX

    Should we go out of our way to save them? Voinovich was at 48%…what about him?

    We’re all bent out of shape right now about the run away spending and socialism run amuck and we can’t even stop a pork laden government boondoggle because we can’t get certain republicans to help the party on fiscal issues…am I to gather from your post that you agree with Snowe, Collins and Specter because you accuse me of trying to make us a rergional party simply because I’m pointing out that we can’t trust these people on fiscal issues let alone on Social issues which I know is your real axe to grind here.

    But they’re not even the issue I raised…I’m not even griping about squishes here…my comment had to do with the idea that someone would say I agree with A…but I’ll go with B because the Party says to and the press tells me the person I really think would be best can’t win…as long as we follow the script…or enough of us do…the prophesies of the gloom and doomers and the establishment party crowd will come true because we made it true!

  • IJB

    Where Ace is wrong is throwing a reliable Republican from a *Red* state overboard for someone who we frankly know very little about (and what we do know, e.g. re: tort reform & her last primary, isn’t good).

    But running a more “regional” party is exactly a way we *should* go – the GOP should make the majority population of MA, NY, CA, WA & IL the most despised people in the world to the other 40-45 states.

    It’s worked for 150 years, for both parties. No reason to quit something that works, now.

    As to your question – you ‘poach’ Senate seats in purple or red states: mostly those in the mid- and mountain west.

  • 1SGinTN

    nt

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    Aren’t contentious primaries the way that ideas get tested in the cauldron of public opinion? Do we conservatives believe in market forces when it comes to automobiles and hamburgers but not when it comes to political candidates? I trust the people of any state, even Missouri, to pick the right candidate more than I trust the party mavens.

    Don’t you?

  • AceInTX

    Though I would throw the four I mentioned overboard…where Blunt and Steelman is concerned, my only point was that one should vote for the one they think is best and stop being influenced by the Party Bosses and the press telling you who is electable and who is a wasted vote etc.

  • AceInTX

    than have the first moment we find out about a candidates weakness be after they’ve become the nominee and we’re forced to back a broken down horse in a lost cause!

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller
  • whatifidontwanna

    Then name states where you can get over 50 senators so you can even have a chance of getting even a sliver of your agenda across.

    Tell me how you’re going to get there.

  • whatifidontwanna

    doesn’t add up to 50…

    And even worse, the red states are where all these idiot blue people are moving to.. and F’ing them up.

    I grew up in Oregon. And watched fine Republicans who would be raving liberals to some here, get beaten by the likes of Wyden.

    Please.

    There isn’t 50 possible seats. the Mountain West is slowly slipping away, as are other places too.

    Trust me, I think we’ll come back… but let the Federal wing of the Republican Party limit government, including what it says we as citizens of the states say we must do… and then let the States wing of our party worry about the appropriate social decisions for those areas.

    The Party would be stronger for it.

  • AceInTX

    I think the field we had this last time was maddening…the one thing nearly all Republicans agreed on going into 2008 was that McCain sucked…but none of us could get past the faults of the other guys…so we got the leftovers…

    two person primaries though are totally different and I think they can serve to strengthen a candidate as much as it can weaken them because it enablers them to learn from mistakes, counter troublesome arguments against them and limit surprises in the general since the dirty laundry is aired early enough for it to be a memory by the time the general comes around

  • AceInTX

    It’s simple really…all the states and seats we’ve lost since 2006 we’ve lost because we’ve shown ourselves to be nothing more than democrats in Republican Clothing on spending, on social issues, on issues involving individual liberty and on down the line.

    Sure demographics have changed…but not enough to cause an 11% shift in congressional seats and a 10% swing in the Senate in 4 years!

    Maybe I’m full of crap…and maybe I’m a dreamer but I think we can turn things completely around with a little party discipline. The big variable would be getting the American Public to believe we’re serious and that they can trust us again!

  • AceInTX

    Oh…and we’ll never be able to do that as long as Snowe, Specter, Collins, Voinovich are helping the Demorats pass their agenda!

    As for Arnold and who could win California…How do we know a Reaganite Conservative or even a simple fiscal conservative can’t win in California because we haven’t ran one there have we?

  • whatifidontwanna

    You are a dreamer if you don’t realize people moving to Red State big cities are going to turn these red states purple, and our former held seats in purple states are now blue, and it’s not trending better.

    Here’s the reality you simply can’t seem to understand… even with Specter, Snowe, and Collins (heck, even that dufus Chafee) we had a different Majority Leader and we wouldn’t have had the porkulus bill in it’s form.

    That there is the point. Arnold would be a vote for McConnell (or someone else as majority leader.)

    But look, we’ve lost New Mexico (we’d probably lose Arizona if not for McCain), we can’t win the Landrieu seat. We’re on the brink of losing the Florida seat. We’ve lost in the Carolinas and no thanks to Charlotte that state is trending purple.

    We have a huge laundry list of things to do to turn some of these purple states back to red, at least at the Federal level…and I say we do it by recognizing that nationally, we can have a different standard.

    Let the Federal Republican Party keep taxes low and government out of our lives.

    Let the States GOP deal with social issues.

    I think that is a much better approach.

    I guess in my mind, more tax cuts and smaller government and good judges. And less Terri Schiavo type debacles.

  • whatifidontwanna

    Where are you going to get the votes for a Reaganite social conservative? Northern California and Orange County?

    It’s CALIFORNIA!

    I’m beginning to think electoral politics is not your strong suit.

    Remember, you play with the cards you’re dealt.

    Name the Republican that is going to win in Ohio right now… particularly with the entire state government that matters being Democrats and ACORN allowed to run amok.

    I agree with you on a lot… but you also seem to write off a lot of people who believe they are Republicans simply because you don’t agree with them. And honestly, I have to wonder, would two of our three best Republican Presidents be allowed in the Party if you were “in charge?” Would you kick out Lincoln and Roosevelt?

  • Achance

    with the conservative purists who’d rather lose an election to a communist than compromise their principles that one in fifty can articulate and none can agree on.

  • AceInTX

    I said it above an hour ago…

    am I to gather from your post that you agree with Snowe, Collins and Specter because you accuse me of trying to make us a rergional party simply because I?m pointing out that we can?t trust these people on fiscal issues let alone on Social issues which I know is your real axe to grind here.

    In reply to your rant accusing me of wanting to limit us to a regional party….

    Here?s a hint, you are definitely hellbent on making the Republican Party a regional (if even that) by a whole myriad of different posts you?ve made.

    Where are you going to get these people we (read: that only agree with you on 99%) to get elected from?

    And here it is:

    Trust me, I think we?ll come back? but let the Federal wing of the Republican Party limit government, including what it says we as citizens of the states say we must do? and then let the States wing of our party worry about the appropriate social decisions for those areas.

    I don’t recall mentioning social conservatives in this post…or even recently…My comments for the last two weeks have almost exclusively been directed at Specter, Snowe, and Collins who profess to be socially moderate and fiscally conservative but then go out and vote fore an $850 billion dollar, pork laden mislabeled stimulus package that defines the term boon doggle!

    I’m not requiring 99% fealty from Republicans in Congress…Hell I’m not even demanding 80%…But I will scream untill I’m blue in the face that Snowe with a 28% ACU rating in 2007, Collins with a 36% ACU rating in 2007, Specter with a 40% ACU Rating in 2007, and Voinovich with a 48% ACU rating in 2007 aren’t Republicans…never have been Republicans and have no business being in the Republican Party because their voting records show them voting with the Democrats more than with Republicans!

    and again…no matter how hard you twist what I have said here…and try to drag the argument in a different direction…I didn’t say anything at all about social issues, I didn’t say anything against Blunt, I didn’t say anything supporting Steeleman…Again, All I said was…that people need to start voting for who they think is best for the office they are running for instead of listening to people telling them the person they think best for the position can’t win so they have to vote for the party guy, or the media’s favorite useful idiot with an R by their name!

  • whatifidontwanna

    It’s like they have forgotten that the “types” of Republicans elected in 1994 was a wide cross section, that oddly enough, included Specter, Snowe, Al D’Amato (of New York), Fitzgerald (of Illinois) and Hatfield/Packwood (of Oregon)

    I could go on and on… these are states that we could win again on the Federal Level if we didn’t have people think these states are stupid to go after.

  • whatifidontwanna

    You and I both know how you define the “Republican” Brand.

    It’s not a schtick and I’m not accusing you of anything other than not understanding where we are and where we need to go.

    I didn’t say you said anything about Steelman or Blunt.

    Heck, I even offered a way to avoid some stupid, unnecessary bloody primary.

    Perhaps both of these candidates are needed, and we could use both of them if we do it right.

    That is my entire point. I’m interested in maximizing gains and getting Republicans into office.

    Whether we like the two Maine Ladies or not isn’t at issue. What is at issue is that for the time being, they are preventing a 100% of the time filibuster proof Senate. And for me, that’s important.

    And remember, if we can get more Republicans into office, it won’t matter how far they wander off the reservation. That’s my point.

    I don’t think we can afford to lose Florida, Missouri, Ohio, etc. This is where we need to hold the line and rebuild the Party with Real Ideas.

  • whatifidontwanna

    You didn’t try to find 50… because you know full well that can’t happen under the premises you operate under.

  • AceInTX

    and again…my comment was that people should vote for who they agree with instead of letting the press and the party bosses convince them that anyone else has a chance.

    As for who can win in all the states you mention…there will be a new dynamic at play in 2010 and that will be the Democrats over reaching and naked display of their socialist agenda and I don’t think everything is lost as you insist on declaring…if it is all lost…and the Democrats are destined to defeat us anyway…then why not just go vote for the Democrats and get it over with?

  • AKSteveB

    ones you can’t. The Maine ladies are as good as it will get from that state, they can hang out as long as Sen Byrd if they choose to. Specter can definitely be had. He is older, cantankerous, and very far off the reservation in a state that can elect a conservative (e.g. Santorum).

  • whatifidontwanna

    I agree, I vote for the guy I want, always have. And there have been times I’ve voted for the less Conservative guy because they’ve been able to actually govern better than the other guy.

    Sometimes choices are between a B- and a C+. That’s just life.

    I recognize a new dynamic… but again, you fail to realize that in 2010, we’ll have a WAY better chance of winning like we did in 1994 with a broad spectrum of “Republicans,” whether you like it or not.

    And remember, Reagan had the Senate for like a couple of years, and never the House. I just point back to 1994 and tell me if all of them were the Republicans you want in government or would you have preferred to have still had a Democratic Congress?

  • Achance

    You and some others want to make this some sort of binary proposition; it isn’t. No, I don’t think there’s a hope in Hell of Republcans doing much on the National level in ’10 or ’12, but that isn’t the defeatism that you characterize it as. You don’t fight battles you can’t win. We need to get control of and defend our states and get a grip on our Party. That is plenty to do for awhile, but it is something that we can do and we can begin to try to retake the Republican irredenta. This is not going to be a short campaign.

  • bs

    you’d sing a different tune. That bloodbath primary pretty much did in the GOP. We could have had a chance if Steelman hadn’t slimed Hulshof six ways to Sunday.

  • AceInTX

    NO!!

    So you can snark all you want about Conservative purists…but for all your snarking…did we win with those three carrying the water for Obama Reid and Pelosi?

    Maybe purity isn’t possible, and I don’t expect purity…but what have we gained by keeping these people around?

    It’s why I called all the comments around here a joke when everyone was squealing that we needed to keep the Democrats from getting to sixty….they were already at 60 when they seated 56 Democrat Senators because there are four Republicans who would never stand with the Party to support a filibuster!

  • whatifidontwanna

    I probably contributed taking us off point.

    I’m all in favor of working a deal. If Steelman is an up and coming leader in Missouri, perhaps let’s stick with Roy in 2010, and let Steelman tackle Claire McCaskill’s seat in 2012 when I think we’ll have the wind at our backs even more in 2012.

  • jkumatsu

    as a party and that means boiling off some RINO and go PRO

    As in PRO-life and mean it. As in PRO-gun and mean it. As in PRO-supply side and mean it.

  • whatifidontwanna

    Santorum could have run against the Anti-Christ and I still think he would have lost. Maybe if his re-election was this year he would have a chance.

    Heck, I’m hoping that when Byrd goes his way, that’ll be a state we can win in.

  • AceInTX

    if it’s a B- or C+ that we can count on…then great…I’d even be happy with a C- or D+in certain areas if that’s the best we can do…but that’s not what we’re talking about is it?

    I’ve given the numbers….Snowe 28%, Collins 36%, Specter 40%, and Voinovich 48%…in case you didn’t know…Those are Fs. and they don’t vote against us on just social issues…again I point you to the Pork Boondoggle they helped Ried, Pelosi and Obama pass, (Excepting Voinovich of course…Blind Hog meet nut!…But I have no doubt he’d have swung if the big three needed him to save them)!

    Seriously…what do they give us? Even if we end up with Rs in leadership, they can’t accomplish anything because these same people are there to undercut the Republican Leadership…but the consequences are even worse IMHO because then it’s the Dems getting what they want and the Reps getting the blame!

  • AceInTX

    Obama is out there trying to tamp out the bank nationalization fires and telling his guys to STFU about it…but here’s Little Lord Fauntleroy screaming from the rooftops that we have no choice!

    I mean…come on whatifidontwanna and Achance…if that doesn’t set your teeth grinding…then we have nothing more to discuss!

  • whatifidontwanna

    Democratic incumbents
    -Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
    -Barbara Boxer of California
    -Michael Bennet of Colorado
    -Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
    -Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
    -Roland Burris of Illinois
    -Evan Bayh of Indiana
    -Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
    -Harry Reid of Nevada
    -Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
    -Chuck Schumer of New York
    -Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
    -Ron Wyden of Oregon
    -Patrick Leahy of Vermont
    -Patty Murray of Washington
    -Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

    Republican incumbents
    -Richard Shelby of Alabama
    -Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
    -John McCain of Arizona
    -Johnny Isakson of Georgia
    -Mike Crapo of Idaho
    -Chuck Grassley of Iowa
    -Jim Bunning of Kentucky
    -David Vitter of Louisiana
    -Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
    -Richard Burr of North Carolina
    -Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
    -Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
    -Jim DeMint of South Carolina
    -John Thune of South Dakota
    -Bob Bennett of Utah

    Retirements:
    -Ted Kaufman (D) of Delaware
    -Kit Bond (R) of Missouri
    -Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas
    -Mel Martinez (R) of Florida
    -George Voinovich (R) of Ohio

    I for one think of the retirements, we have to worry about all but Kansas and I think we could have an opportunity in Delaware.

    I also think we ned to worry about Kentucky and New Hampshire.
    I do think that we could actually have a real chance in California, Illinois, Colorado, Arkansas, one of the New York seats, Nevada, and maybe North Dakota and Connecticut (if we can tar Dodd).

  • whatifidontwanna

    48% < 0%

    So… you’d rather have Sherrod Brown, Jr, than George Voinovich?

    Because that’s what you seem to always advocate.

  • Paul Seale

    I would say if you looked at his voting record, he decided to vote the party line in 2002 through 2004 with some big government programs which have been discussed on this very blog.

    More recently, though, Blunt took a more hard line approach to spending.

    He was the House negotiator during the TARP bill hearings – and had to face nine Democrats in the room.. and was able to strip out a lot of junk.. Unfortunately things didnt work out.. but that wasnt because Blunt was wanting to throw money to the wind.

  • whatifidontwanna

    he doesn’t have to say it, he is doing it.

    He just doesn’t want anyone from the Right to say that’s what he’s doing.

    Lindsey Graham fought hard against Stimulus.

    So If we have nothing more to discuss are you labeling us RINOs too?

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/ Brian Simpson

    I don’t see this being like last year’s primary.

    For one, there is actually time to have a real race. Not the sudden cluster**** that happened after Matt Blunt ran off scared of Jay Nixon.

    Two, Steelman has to know that Roe can’t hang with the big boys. If he tried to do what he did to Hulshof, the Blunt people would tear her apart…and quickly.

  • AKSteveB

    to the states, and you realize that a Republican in New York has to be different than one in Arkansas. The problem is that there has to be SOME boundary. These three went too far off the reservation by voting for the stimulus. We’re not a parliamentary system, so we don’t have the same enforced party discipline, but the Dems do a good job of keeping their folks on the ranch. There has to be some “this far and no further.” As I said before, Snowe and Collins are as good as Maine will get, and can, if they want, stay as long as Sen. Byrd. Specter should be primaried. This is case by case stuff.

  • AceInTX

    I pray you’re wrong about 10 and 12 but I fear you’re not. But you tell me how we will ever win if people won’t believe we’ll do what we say we’re gonna do when we can’t do it because of these people cutting out legs out from under us and destroying our credibility…

    and while we draw back to regroup and regain control of our states and the Party…Rome Burns! I know the regrouping needs to be done and all but I don’t believe it can be done to any effect if we allow the above mentioned useful idiots continue to trample our credibility on the national level.

    Most people don’t pay attention at the locale level…I know because I am guilty as charged…what they see is Republicans standing up and proclaiming an end to the nanny state and big government. I hear them preaching about fiscal restraint and limiting the scope and reach of the federal government. I hear the sermons about Law and Order…but I see them do the exact opposite of everything they preach.

    You tell me how we’re going to build the state parties while the thing most people see is the hypocrisy, vapidness, and hubris of the National Republican Party?

  • whatifidontwanna

    without them if they weren’t in office as well.

  • Achance

    we’d have been the obstructionist “Party of No” who caused the 2nd Great Depression. That’s what got Herbert Hoover to be the Poster Boy for uncaring Republicans, no matte how unjustified that might be.

    It is never black and white and it is never simple if your name is on the door or your finger over the red or green button. It is, however, simple if you’re blogging.

  • AceInTX
  • AKSteveB

    The next time I’m guessing Specter loses either to a Dem or a conserv. Repub. WV should be a good bet depending on how much further the exurbs of DC grow.

  • bs

    That was my take as well. And that’s why I posted above that I think he’s nowhere near as squishy as people seem to think.

    For crying out loud, the guy is 92+ in ACU. How freaking right-of-center do you have to be to please people around here?? To read some of the comments you’d think he’s just left of Schumer.

  • whatifidontwanna

    I’d rather have him then Specter for sure.

    Heck… as Ace points out, I’d rather have a 55-60% ACU rated Republican than Specter is most of the time.

  • whatifidontwanna

    It’d help you understand why many of us seem to think you’re out in left field (or should I just say right field).

  • Achance

    what happens in “Rome.” In fact, I’d kinda enjoy seeing a “long hot summer” or two. I remember the originals; close up and personal.

    One thing I know for sure about Lefties, Looters, and Moochers; you can never give them enough. The One thinks he’s going to loot the rich honkies and give the money to the bros. Well, he can, some of it anyway; the rest will be far offshore and away from the IRS. But no matter how much he gives them, it ain’t enough and they’re going to start burning their houses and then going out to the suburbs to “get some.” Then all Hell breaks loose.

  • bs

    It’s at 50. When we get back to near majority, we need every R, no matter how moderate they are. At 50, everything changes. We have the majority AND the ability to name committee chairs, make rules, etc… no matter how off-the-reservation they vote. All that matters is what they SAY they are. Turn over those seats now and it’s just that much harder to get to 50.

    I will definitely, DEFINITELY take a moderate R over a D any time.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    It didn’t choose the candidate the people wanted. It just turned out that Mack was more persistent than the others. At the start of the primaries I thought we had a field of giants. But then they quit, one by one, dwarfs all, until only the pseudo-Democrat was still in the game. And then he torpedoed his own campaign when the economy tanked, which was predictable because it was Mack and he always shoots from the hip instead of acting on principle.

  • AceInTX

    Oh…and before you accuse me of throwing anyone off the boat…you tell me how you get to 50 by ignoring the wing of the party that you insist sit down and shut up!

    for your information…I’ve described my definition a hundred times here but just for you…here goes…

    I am a classical liberal…and a federalist…in every sense of those terms…In my heart of hearts I am for the most limited central government possible. Most people who declare themselves classical liberals however stop there…I also believe as the founders did in natural law…that our liberties come from God not Government…Government can’t give me liberty…it can only constrain it…the only useful function for a strong central government is the national defense and to ensure to the maximum extent possible free commerce between the states and to deal with foreign governments in international commerce.

    Am I a Socon…Yes…in a word…but SoCons are far more complex in their thoughts than you characterize us as…Do I want to see Roe Vs Wade overturned…Hell yes…do I want to see the Federal Government be the one to restrict all abortions? Not necessarily because I can see the danger in the power that would bestow on the national government….But as long as the Central Government is going to have it’s hand in the issue anyway…why shouldn’t I have it support my view?

    As a Classical Liberal/Natural Law proponent…if the Federal Government would get out of the areas the Constitution restricts them from…and would constrain itself to those areas that it is limited to in the Constitution…I don’t think I’d even be interested in politics because most of the things I now fight for or against would no longer be an issue…But that isn’t the world in which we live is it?..We have a Fedeal Government that takes anywhere from 15% to 35% of everything we earn and uses it to control us…We have a Federal Judiciary that has taken away the ability of our representatives to represent us…We have a legislative branch and executive branch that have ceded their authority and obligation to represent the people who elected them to a federal judiciary that are not elected or accountable to the people…We have a Federal government telling us how we can raise and educate our children, whether or not we can own guns for the purpose of protecting ourselves, we have a federal government who has made it impossible for States and local governments to do anything without going hat in hand to beg some bureaucrat’s benevolent indulgence in carrying out it’s obligation to it’s citizens…and you ask me why I have a purity test? Why I dare question what we gain by keeping people who have been complicit in running up a deficit approaching $2 trillion in a single year?

    Come on man…what is this all about? If we can’t hold back the Democrat tide with these people in office…then why keep em…and if we’re destined to lose this nation to socialism or a lighter form of Communism…then why fight it any more…and why be involved in politics at all?

  • bs

    to destroy one another.

    Not to mention the amount of $$$$ that will be drained by this…and all the while, RC gets to sit by and watch the action, saving her pennies for the real race. And the MO electorate gets sick of the negativity before the “finals” and is PO’d at the GOP before they ever get started.

    Real race or not, a negative primary accomplishes nothing.

  • AceInTX

    Whether we like the two Maine Ladies or not isn?t at issue. What is at issue is that for the time being, they are preventing a 100% of the time filibuster proof Senate. And for me, that?s important.

    Blah Blah

    Why didn’t we see a filibuster of the porkulous bill?

    Oh…I know…because the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority…it’s just not official!

    Here’s a hint…they got 61 votes to pass the boondoggle and it didn’t matter a hoot in hell what party the 58 votes came from because it wouldn’t have passed without three Republicans!

  • AceInTX

    helping the Dems…again it’s about credibility…Republicans have none because of people like these three…and Graham demanding we nationalize the banking system while the Democrats are running away from that idea like scalded dogs!

  • bs

    He said “preventing a 100% of the time fillibuster proof Senate”. That doesn’t mean that they will never vote with the Dems – in fact I’d expect it probably 50% of the time. It means that they will sometimes vote AGAINST them (again, probably 50% of the time). If there is a D in those seats, chances are they vote WITH the Dems 100% of the time. Some is better than none.

  • AceInTX

    I know your kidding…and I think I’d get a moment of satisfaction seeing it burn too…but then I’d step back and remember what was lost!

  • AKSteveB

    Open primaries aren’t. I can tell you I’ve crossed party lines in primaries to either vote against the candidate I thought was truly the most dangerous or the one most likely to beat my guy/gal. It wasn’t just Repubs who chose McCain.

  • whatifidontwanna

    I know what the deal is…

    Ace is a good guy, and I just think his frustration about things makes it seem that he’s not willing to work towards 50.

    But you did get it right. Any number of votes, specifically procedural we can get means that’s better than ZERO.

    And I’m all for getting to 50 or more. If that includes the ladies from Maine, the Terminator in California, Rossi from Washington (I wish!) or someone from Illinois and New York…

    As long as they don’t pull a “Williams” and help pick a D leader, I’m all for them defining themselves as Republicans if they will be with us on Judges (the Federalist part of Ace’s philosophy) and on shrinking government (classical liberal part of Ace’s philosophy).

  • AceInTX

    How many of thos purple states are purple because Republicans stopped giving people a choice?

    How many of those blue states are blue because Republicans have stopped contesting there?

    How many more votes could Republicans pick up in those states if they’d run someone who contrasted themselves with the Democrats they are running against….especially in 10 and 12 after everyone has gotten the taste of what Obama is serving up…

    How many votes are out there that we’ve never seen because people gave up a long time ago and just don’t go to the polls anymore because they can’t see any difference between the Democrats and Republicans?

    Are there enough to swing New England or California purple? or to swing the west and midwest solidly Red…I doubt it…but if you pick up enough new seats in those areas you swing the congress…and I don’t see how you pick anything up by saying…”hey…vote for me because I’ll give you everything my opponent will…I’m just like him”

    Rahm Emanuel proved a 50 state strategy works and he had to run Conservative Candidates to pick up some of those seats…after 4 years of socialism, gun grabbing, high taxing, deficit spending by Obama and Company that some of those red seats that went blue because the Dem’s ran as conservatives won’t become vulnerable?

    Maybe I’m wrong…but I think you’re giving up way to easily!

  • whatifidontwanna

    Seriously… I’m not giving up, I’m being realistic.

    There is a huge difference between Barbara Boxer and Arnold.

    There’s a difference between King of New York and Chuck Schumer.

    I just understand the people of these states are actually allergic to the current Republican brand, particularly what they see as social extremism.

    I think that’s the reality out there. It might not be, but I grew up in Oregon with two Republican Senators. You would probably call them Liberal, but I think they were well respected (except Packwood apres the sexual harassment stuff came to light) and they helped us have a Republican majority in the Senate in the 80s and then again in 1994.

    It’d be great to rely on places like Oregon and Washington for at least one R senator a piece.

  • AceInTX

    The only people living in that state are United Coal Miners, Welfare Recipients, Retirees and government workers…We got Capito because she’s liberal enough and because WV gerrymandered the districts to protect Mollaghan…but statewide a Republican has as much chance of winning a Senate seat as a house cat has of dragging down a bull!

  • whatifidontwanna

    we weren’t to give up on any place?

    Yet your very next post was to signal we shouldn’t even try!

    Come on Ace!

  • AceInTX

    Specter, Snow and Collins are Democrats…and they’ll never stand by and support a Republican filibuster!

    We’ll see in a couple years bs…let’s revisit this in 2010 and count how many successfull filibusters the Republicans will mount!

  • AceInTX

    Or Collins with 36? or Specter with 40?

  • whatifidontwanna

    We’ll make sure Michael Steele checks with you on every candidate from now on.

    After all, in less than 3 minutes, you say we shouldn’t give in anywhere on running principled candidates and then immediately follow that up with saying, we should give up automatically in West Virginia.

    All I can say right now is I’m glad you not a Whip. The chief job of the Whip is to count. Our goal should be maximum number of Republicans in office. And let’s hope at minimum they don’t want to spend money.

  • AceInTX

    Brilliant argument that!

  • AceInTX

    who helped us avoid the label of obstructionists and ensured the Democrats get the blame for the $850 billion dollar pork bill they helped pass…

    I guess we should consider them heros for sticking us with all that debt and all those leftist regulations we’ll never get rid of….

    Now I see….Brilliant really!

  • whatifidontwanna

    You clearly don’t get politics.

    You don’t understand winning when you can… You’d rather lose 100% of the time instead of win, even 30% of the time.

    But whatever. It’s clear you don’t understand micro or macro-level politics.

  • nod90

    The bottom line is that defeats have consequences. Conservatives no longer have enough votes to sustain a filibuster. Snowe, Collins and Spectre will be helpful on some issues and they are far better than the liberal Democrats who would replace them.

    The Northeast Republicans are moderate because they want to win in the northeast. Remember Sanctorum? He was a pretty conservative guy. He lost.

    The problem is not too many moderates. The problem is too few conservatives. I can’t understand conservatives who appear to be more interested in beating other Republicans than they are in beating Democrats. I see disturbing signs that the national party is headed down the same road that California Republicans have traveled for the past 15 years.

  • AceInTX

    and we had the ability to name the committee chairs in 2004…did that get us anywhere?

    Are the bush tax cuts permanent? Have we confirmed all those judges Bush appointed?

    Specter who opposed most of Bush’s appointment was the man tasked with seeing them confirmed…yet the Republican Caucus kept him as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee…so I don’t see your point there either since the Republican Caucus didn’t use the power to remove him to keep him in line

    so what’s your point?

  • whatifidontwanna

    the power of an effective minority.

    Because as we know, our majority was 58 and we had 3 really conservative Democrats willing to work with us.

  • AceInTX

    It’s that he has enough sense to keep his big mouth shut about it and to tell his people to STFU about is

    Little Lord Fountleroy is actually out there advocating it and calling for it…so I don’t see how hard hr fought against the stimulus package is relevant here!

  • AceInTX

    and equally as many times as Specter!

    So what’s your point?

  • whatifidontwanna

    not only do they have to agree with you on the questionnaire they fill out before they run for office, but if they disagree with you once, they then have to leave the Party.

    The Republican Party of AceinTX

  • AceInTX

    nothing wrong with having that view…but I still don’t get the point?

  • whatifidontwanna

    And who does she advocate people elect for Governor of LA, and President?

    Hmmm… she votes CONSERVATIVELY at TIMES… because she lives in Louisiana… just as the Maine Twins vote MODERATELY, because they live in Maine.

    So what’s your point?

  • whatifidontwanna

    Because if Republicans are being Fiscal conservatives,

    they aren’t Republicans.

    I thought that was one of the parts of your questionnaire for admittance.

    And if they vote for conservative judges and leave moral legislation to the State Legislatures, then that’s what you were advocating.

  • AceInTX

    My whole point is that we shouldn’t compromise the brand to win in CA, WV or anywhere

  • whatifidontwanna

    Read what you said about West Virginia below.

    You wrote it off because of the welfare deadbeats and the Union thugs.

    You said so…

    And FYI Sir, the Brand isn’t just what you define it as. It was around probably 100 plus years longer than you’ve been born.

  • AceInTX

    and what or who you are willing to sell out to get there!

    Oh…and are Snowe, Collins and Specter for Federalist judges now?

    Pray tell…when did that happen?

  • whatifidontwanna

    I’ll let you look that up.

    And for the record… those who you disagree with, have a much better chance of getting to 50 and doing 30% of what “we” agree to than you do of getting to 50 because your way will never get there.

    And honestly, the thing seems to be that you don’t realize that we all want what you want, be we operate in a political reality.

    It’s not selling anything out to get the best candidate you can for the place the poll will take place.

  • nod90

    The big problem in California is that the state party insists on trying to elect social conservatives in a very socially liberal and libertarian state. California has never elected a social conservative to state wide office.

    When in comes to taxes, Californians hate paying them. Californians understood the immigration issue a long time before the rest of the country. California still has many defense jobs. We are not a big union state. There are quite a few issues a California Republican Senator could be helpful on.

    I think that this state could do a lot better than Arnie, but thanks to the leadership of the California Republican Party he is the only guy we have who can challenge Boxer. Arnie is the only pro-choice Republican to run in the past, ten years, and he is the only Republican to win in the past ten years. Unfortunately Arnie turned out to be a moderate Democrat. If we had run more socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republicans out here then we would have more high profile office holders to choose from and some of them would be a lot better than Arnold.

  • AceInTX

    After all, in less than 3 minutes, you say we shouldn?t give in anywhere on running principled candidates and then immediately follow that up with saying, we should give up automatically in West Virginia.

    I didn’t say either so I don’t know if that’s two straw men…or one really big one?

    That said…when I’m having a debate opponent putting words in my mouth and making straw man arguments at 1:00 in the morning, I know it’s time to go to bed becasue the discussion has run it’s course and there is nothing to be gained in continuing it

  • AceInTX
  • whatifidontwanna

    Won’t happen…WV is union blue and will stay that way…I grew up there…
    AceInTX Friday, February 27th at 1:30AM EST (link)
    The only people living in that state are United Coal Miners, Welfare Recipients, Retirees and government workers?We got Capito because she?s liberal enough and because WV gerrymandered the districts to protect Mollaghan?but statewide a Republican has as much chance of winning a Senate seat as a house cat has of dragging down a bull!

  • whatifidontwanna

    I just read what you’ve said… in multiple posts in this thread….

    And notice that you say one thing, then another, then back to the first.

    I respect exactly what you want, I just recognize you can’t get there unless you compromise.

    I’d be happy to have a Republican in every Blue State if we can get them and keep two Republicans in Red States and split the difference two in some and one in some of the purple states.

    I’d like that more than just 35 diehard AceinTX approved Republicans.

    And FWIW, if the Democratic leadership would allow ANY “conservative” AceinTX approved Democrats vote that way when it mattered, ONLY 35 diehard AceinTX approved Republicans wouldn’t matter.

    But it goes back to party discipline and the ability to allow those to vote for their states.

    Anyways, I hope you have a great night’s rest and see you tomorrow to fight the good fight.

  • Achance
  • nod90

    ….right next to Daschle’s. It would be a great morale booster for the party.

    I think that if you want more conservatives you need to go to places like South Dakota, North Dakota and Arkansas. Flip those states red, and they will probably stay red for a long time. Nevada, Missouri, Ohio and Colorado can probably give us wobbly conservatives. My perception is that Socon issues play well in the Plains and those states are good candidates for reliable social conservative votes.

  • AceInTX

    but I’ve not lived there and wasn’t thinking about the fact that WV has elected several Republican Governors and have gone Red the last several Presidential elections.

    And when did I say we shouldn’t run conservatives in WV…especially after 4 years of Obama…his gun grabbing will drive WV residents to vote Republican to stop him on that one issue so you are right…I shouldn’t have made the post I did about WV because it’s not in my nature to cede WV to one party rule either…and having lived there I know first hand what giving the Dems a lock on one state can have!

  • AceInTX

    I’ve said it over and over…but that’s not what we’re talking about…we’re talking about 4 Senators with 48, 40, 36 and 28 percent voting records aren’t we? and again I ask you…do we gain anything by continuing to allow a fifth column in our midst?

    You don’t see the Democrats allowing members with those kind of numbers to remain in their caucus do you? and they won this time and in 2006 using a 50 state strategy! and they did it running Conservative Democrats to attract conservative votes…we can win thos conservative voters back…but not by letting these four have their way with us!

    Do we need 80% Republicans…Yes…do we need 70% Republicans…yeah though I don’t like it…Do we need 60% or even 55% Republicans…I’ll lve with them as long as their numbers are limited and they don’t dictate to the rest of us the way things are going to be…but 40%, 36%, 28%…especially when they hold us over a barrel and have their way with us….Hell no and I can’t believe anyone can’t see the foolishness of the idea!

  • AceInTX

    they won this time and in 2006 using a 50 state strategy! and they did it running Conservative Democrats to attract conservative votes

    You’ll say that yeah…that’s why we need to use moderate Republicans just like the Dems used Conservative Democrats….but that’s not the point at all…you keep telling me how the Demographics are against us…but you refuse to acknowledge that the Dems win elections by acting like us…they win elections by using Conservative Democrats to defeat us…but when it comes to governing…those Conservative Democrats toe the line because the Dems make them toe it….they don’t bend over and take it!

    I’ll say it again…we lost because people don’t see a difference between us and the Democrats…We lost not because there were more Democrats voting in 2006 and 2008…we lost because Conservatives were so disheartened an d didn’t turn out and the polls show it as a fact…so spare me the crap please…

    We don’t win with these guys we lose…and the Stimulus bill is yet one more example of what we get by allowing to run rampant and force their view of the world on the rest of us!

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    You clearly don?t get politics.

    I know you don’t win buy constantly giving the other team the ball…and you don’t win by having 4 members of your team insisting on giving the other team the ball!

  • AceInTX

    and you know it all?

    I know your experience…but I also can see 70 years of history and what doing what you guys advocate have gotten us…

    But what do I know…I’m un-teachable!

  • AceInTX

    this is mind numbing!

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    by keeping liberals with Rs by their names entrenched!

    But what do I know…I don’t understand Politics…and I’m unteachable!

  • IJB

    What liberal CA Republicans like SteveLA never fail to mention is that the CA GOP has run both conservatives and moderates statewide and *lost* both ways.

    The same thing happens in Senate races in states like MA.

    What some Republicans fail to get through their thick skulls is that Republicans simply *can’t* win in certain Blue States (remember – Arnie only got in on a fluke). ECons like to pretend that everything is SoCons fault, but the fact is *neither* ECon or SoCon policy (or even NatSacCon) plays in states like CA – these guys (the majority Coastal voters) are Commie Red, Red, Red and will be for the forseeable future.

    So rather than wasting resources on these states, we need to run against them nationally, and scare places like OH and WI that “if they’re not careful, they’ll become just like CA & MA”.

    But in states like CA, the GOP should focus on the inland GOP areas, and basically write it off statewide and Coastally (failing some massive scandal that tarnishes the Dem brand statewide – but those only come along every couple of decades) – it’s not worth the time or the effort.

  • AceInTX

    and it’s besides the point…they were all part of the gang of 14 that got us a couple good judges…threw a couple more good judges over the side…and resulted in the last 4 years with most of Bush’s nominees not confirmed and never to be confirmed!

    But by your math 2 or three good appellate and circuit court judges at the expense of hundreds more is a victory because we avoided being excessively partisan and we cat 1% of what we wanted!

  • TxCon

    is that they have never stood against their leadership when it comes to actually blocking bad legislation. The “Blue Dogs” all talked big before the Stimulus vote. When it came to pressing that final button, all but 7 caved in.

  • AceInTX

    but we reward our moderates when they destroy everything we’ve worked and voted for!

  • Scope

    that only a few days before the election is when Obamas tape about bankrupting the coal industry came out. If I am not mistaken there were all kinds of messages sent out from the Coal Miners Union asking them not to vote for Obama. Again, it was only a few days before the electon. The message apparently didn’t get out to enough Union members as they Obviously still voted Obama. Now, it is more than clear, Obama is going to kill the coal industry either with massive regulation and/or Cap and Trade policies. WV is not a very wealthy state, and a major hit to coal will make them more poor and will increase the unemployment rate tremendously. By 2010 WV will be begging for Republican elected officials.

    BTW, wasn’t WV the home of the Hatfields and the McCoy’s? That is what this thread is starting to sound like.

    Ace, I respect and admire you for sticking with your principles and opinions as to the fate of the Republican Party. It seemed a no-brainer to me that we were told at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008 that when you become a slightly darker shade of pale, the real Democrat/Liberal will win every time. With the Liberals you know how they are going to vote every time. With the quasi-Republicans you just never know what surprise good or bad might be lurking around the corner, which spells no confidence to the discipline Republicans need to grab onto and hold if they ever dream of coming out of the wastelands.

    From the comments on this thread, and on the site in general there is no sense of unity between the moderates/compromisers and the principled conservatives. The party is as broken as it ever was, and I don’t have much hope that Steele will rally anyone into one place, particularly using language like “hip hop.”

  • Achance

    at minimum that a member of the caucus vote with the caucus on all procedural votes. Then they can be free to represent their particular constituency on the actual vote on the bill. That has long been the rule for the R majority in our legislature and some have required that a member also vote with the caucus on the final budget. As you may be aware, there have been several instances of people being banished from their committees etc. for straying off the reservation. Of course, when you do that, you catch Hell from the Ds but it doesn’t last any longer than any other root canal.

    Something like that is what I’d do with “our” errant three senators; get a committment on procedural votes including cloture votes and if they won’t give it, who needs them in the caucus? Then they can officially suck up to their Democrat “friends.”

  • AceInTX

    And I won’t…I don’t have a dog in this fight…The only thing I said that got this ball rolling was that people need to vote for the person they think is the best one for the job and stop letting the Media and the Party bosses convince them that to vote for their chosen candidate is a wasted vote! It’s the way a minority of the party has been able to stay in the driver’s seat since I started watching politics.

    What I find so mind numbing about all this is hearing now what I heard 20 years ago…and it hasn’t changed…Democrats keep advancing the ball toward the Socialist end zone and we keep giving ground because we’re in prevent defense instead of on offense…

    Well…we’re in the red zone and they’re about to win the game with a last second touchdown…the time for prevent defense has long since past…either we focus on aggressive Defense…with the entire team focused on stopping them and those on the team who refuse to stop turning over the ball to the other team need to assume a long overdue seat on the bench! ONce they’re stopped…we can’t afford to let them have the ball again…we need to stay on offense and start focusing on reducing the size and scope of government. I’m not talking about limiting the amount of growth in government but in driving it back towards it’s natural constraints as prescribed in the Constitution!

  • itrytobenice

    You walk in, tell them if you want a D ballot or an R ballot and go vote. No party ID of any kind.

  • 1SGinTN

    We need to end open primaries. I can’t think of any good reason for them. A primary is all about the party chosing its candidate. Why let outsiders get involved in the process?

  • Achance

    If the state Leg balks, sue them; it’s black letter law and the SC gives you your closed primary.

  • 1SGinTN

    Thanks

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    No way the congressional republicans will ever go for it.