Yeah, let’s blow a few million in conservative and Republican dollars to try to oust a moderate conservative like Bennett (and conservative is the key modifier, here – as his 64 ACU score shows, he’s no Snowe (ACU 12) or Collins (ACU 20) or Scozzafava. After all, it’s not like we don’t have enough Democratic targets out there, targets that will be very tough to unseat but whom can be unseated.

Dodd? Seriously, it’s Connecticut. We’re not gonna beat him. Burriss? No way we’ll win a seat in Illinois, no matter who the Dems nominate. Reid? Hey, I’m sure his opponent doesn’t need cash and volunteer time. After all, we here at Red State don’t like Reid, so it’s hard to believe anyone in Nevada would vote for him.

Who really cares that a decent conservative, Rob Portman, will have a tight battle to win in Ohio against Jennifer Brunner, an ACORNer? And Biden probably won’t run in Delaware, so no need to support Mike Castle, who’s pretty RINOey anyway. David Vitter has a tough race in Louisiana, but there’s better senators so what do we care if we lose that seat?

Pat Toomey? Why use money to try to help Toomey beat Specter, when we can spend it on a primary in Utah? New Hampshire is going Democrat anyway these days, so the h*** with the Senate race there – better to get Bennett out in Utah and elect a liberal in New Hampshire, than to win two seats with moderate conservatives. And there is certainly no point in trying to pick off Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas – after all, if we’re picking targets on which to use our scarce resources, well, at least she’s not a RINO like Bob Bennett, right? Let’s keep our priorities straight.

We’ll need lots of money in Florida, but hey, down there it’s warm and sunny, so money must grow on trees. I am sure none of the millions that will be spent in Utah would otherwise have found its way there. And while I like Jim Bunning well enough, well, he’s retiring and you can’t hold both Kentucky seats forever. Besides, maybe the Democrats won’t really contest Kentucky, saving their ammo to take on Mitch McConnell in 5 years.

We might lose a couple seats, but it’s not like we need Senate seats, anyway. I mean, we’ve got 40 senators, all we need is unanimity and one Democrat on any bill to launch a filibuster.

And Bennett’s been totally unreliable. I mean, Bennett voted for the stimulus, right? Oops? He voted AGAINST the stimulus? Well, it wasn’t an important vote, since it passed anyway. He’s never with us when it matters, right? Oh sure, the guy led the successful fight to prevent the Dems from extending McCain-Feingold like regulations to all grassroots lobbying, but what’s he done for us lately, other than vote against the stimulus. What’s that you say? He voted against government funding of abortions, and for a ban on partial birth abortions? A “zero” rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood? OK, so other than the stimulus, abortion, and McCain-Feingold, what do we get from Bennett? Conceal and carry, you say? He supports that, and other gun rights? An “A” rating from the NRA? A “90″ score from Americans for Tax Reform?

OK, so other than guns, abortion, campaign finance, taxes, and the stimulus, what do we get from Bob Bennett?

No, I can scarcely think of a better thing for conservatives to be worked up, or a better race to spend our limited time and money, than trying to oust Bob Bennett in a GOP primary. If it works, we may even get to spend more money to hold the seat in the general election!

But we’ll send the “GOP establishment” a lesson! Huzzah!

Not much for sarcasm, are ya? Look, contrary to Erik’s opening line, I’m not focused on picking off Charlie Crist at all. I like Rubio, to be sure, And maybe we can do better than Bennett (maybe we can do worse, too). My point is, of all the 34 senate seats up next year, there’s no way I would rank defeating Crist or Bennett anywhere near the top 10.

Look, we’ve got limited resources. This is, I think, a basic given of the conservative understanding of the world. So where do you want to focus. Bennett and Crist (BTW, I think Crist is quite a bit more liberal than Bennett), or Dodd, holding Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Ohio, Burriss’s seat in Illinois, beating Barbara Boxer, unseating Blanche Lincoln, keeping Hutchison’s Texas seat, taking Delaware, knocking off Harry Reid, winning New York and Colorado, getting Pat Toomey elected…

and that’s before we get to House seats, which will also need resources of time, treasure, and publicity.

We can’t allow centrists to expose the flanks? wtf are you talking about?

Let’s get honest – tell me which of the races I mentioned, and the 50 seats we’ll need to take back the House, you think are less important than defeating Bob Bennett. If you are correct, and now is the time to swing big – and by the way, I think it is – why would you possibly want to dissipate your big swing worrying about getting someone “purer” than Bob Bennett, rather than taking out Democrats in the Senate and House? Or do you not believe that, in fact, resources are limited, and choices must be made?

Look, the GOP’s problem right now – conservativism’s immediate problem – is not Bob Bennett. It is that we’ve got too many lefty Dems in the Congress.

If it’s any comfort to you, I spend a lot of time making the same arguments, in the other direction, to my more moderate Republican friends who say things like, “we’ve got to run these extreme conservatives out of the party.”

Well, I’d to move the debate beyond “is too,” “is not,” which requires some point of objective reference. The ACU ratings are handy, widely respected (if not by you), and well known. We can use some other marker, if you want, but I’m not going to go just by your vocally stated opinion. The thing is, you can take literally any rating of congress done by any interest group of the right or left and you’ll get the same result.

What am I supposed to take seriously: the unsupported opinion of some guy I don’t know who writes under an alias and cites no evidence to back up his opinion? Think I’ll take the ACU. Give me another marker if you want.

Huh? I’m LOL. Well, chuckling anyway. You believe that it’s not? You’ve got to meet more conservatives, my friend. One thing I like about conservatives is that usually, they are nicer people, better people, and more tolerant people than lefties. But by no means always.

Who’s combative? Who is deliberately obtuse? And what the heck are you talking about, that I’m “in a snit over a recent, triumphal example of the advance of conservatism?”

Get out of academia? Do you know who you’re talking to? Do you know much about my life over the last 30 years? LOL.

And do you mean to imply that you think it is bad to have moderate friends? If that is what you mean, I think that illustrates the problem I’ve been addressing. I hope that is not what you mean. If you mean that it is good that I have lots of moderate friends because I’m a reasonable guy, cool, but I don’t think that’s what you meant.

And in the FWIW category, I did not take from what you said that “conservatives are the problem,” and I didn’t write that. What I did was to question what you wrote – you wrote that you really think that the conservative problem is that, “we keep being undermined by our own people.” That strikes me as a pretty straightforward statement that you think the problem is that Conservatives are being undermined by own people, who would be … conservatives. Or by “our own people” did you mean “liberals”? Curious phrasing, but OK, now I know.

Look, I’m glad you’re here, Third Street. I’m glad you’re fired up. I’m glad you want more conservatives in Congress. I’ve pretty much devoted my life to promoting conservatism. I’d say I’ve been doing it before you were born, but I don’t know your age so maybe that’s not true. But a long time, for sure, in academia, in government, and in the private sector. And I’ve heard ya, you don’t like Bob Bennett. I do like Bob Bennett, I’ll admit it. On issues I care most about, he has quoted me on the floor of the Senate in successful efforts to kill really bad legislation. From what I’ve seen in Washington, he is one of the most effective Republican senators in actually winning battles for conservatives (which is not the same as saying he is one of the most conservative senators, but it does suggest that Bennett may be more helpful to us than some Senators who are more conservative). So I’m partial to the guy. Putting that aside, I’m sticking to the position that of all the races Conservatives need to be worrying about, Bob Bennett is pretty far down the list.

Now let’s go bag some donkeys.

We live in a political system in which there are ultimately, at the electoral level, two sides. This is a structural feature of the system. And I firmly believe that if you think Bob Bennett is the problem, you’re unlikely to get very much accomplished in that system.

In the world of ideas, I believe that there are many strands of conservatism. Burke and Freidman and Aristotle are quite different in their thinking and approach, and so – to use political figures as examples – are Pat Buchanan, Jeff Flake, and Bob Dole. But in the big battles that matter most – the philosophical/political disputes over virtue and the role of government – all are men of the right against the other side in this two-party, bi-polar system. And if we are to defeat that other side, we must all pull together. Occasionally, intra-party battles can be beneficial and necessary; most of the time, they are harmful and unnecessary. Bennett is not Scozzafava. We benefit from focusing on what unites us, not on what divides us. We generally do not benefit from trying to purge “libertarians” from the coalition; or “the religious right” from the coalition; or “moderates” from the coalition. I have seen, and fought against, all of these impulses for many years, and will continue to do so. When it comes to politics, if you’re 51% with me, you’re my ally, and so long as there are those who are 51% or more against me, that’s where I’ll target my anger and efforts. I believe that resources are limited and must always be used in the most effective fashion. I am interested in practical results, not emotional satisfaction. Symbolic victories are, to me, losses.

This site is called “Red State.” The origin of the “Red State” name comes from the network use of the color red to show a state going Republican in a presidential race. That suggests that this site ought to have not merely a conservative slant, but a Republican slant. I would rather have 41 Republican senators with 2 Bob Bennetts than 40 Republican senators with 1 Chaffetz and one liberal Democrat. I think we will have more victories on issues that way.

Does all that help?

I don’t think Third Street likes me.

Third, I hope you will try to read people’s posts more carefully, and take them on their own terms. I also hope you are able to the chip off your shoulder. It will make you a better person, and a better politician.