Poll: 51% of Republicans would rather risk losing elections than win with RINOs
posted at 6:40 pm on November 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Reminds me of Jim DeMint notoriously saying that he’d rather have 30 pure conservatives in the Senate than a centrist Republican majority, presumably so that he could lose with honor on every single vote.
Remember that old commercial about pollution where Iron Eyes Cody turns to the camera and a single tear rolls down his cheek? That’s Frum when he reads this.
The poll indicates that a slight majority, 51 percent, of Republicans would prefer to see the GOP in their area nominate candidates who agree with them on all the major the issues even if they have a poor chance of beating the Democratic candidate. Forty-three percent of Republicans say they would rather have candidates with whom they don’t agree on all the important issues but who can beat the Democrats.
Democrats polled seemed to place a slightly higher priority on electoral victory: 58 percent say that they would like their party to nominate candidates who can beat Republicans, even if they don’t agree with those candidates on all the issues. Fewer than 4 in 10 Democrats say they would rather see their party nominate candidates who agree with them on all major issues, but have a poor chance of beating the Republican candidate.
“One reason for the difference between the parties: the Democrats have a relatively even split on ideological grounds. Thirty-four percent of Democrats are liberal, 40 percent are moderates and less than one in four call themselves conservatives,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
By contrast, 73 percent of Republicans questioned in the poll say they are conservatives, with only 26 percent describing themselves as liberal or moderate Republicans.
Democrats are +20 on whether they’d rather win with centrists than lose with true believers; Republicans are -8. That’s not a huge problem when moderates are trending right after gagging on Hopenchange for the better part of a year — note that The One’s approval rating is now 45 percent among independents, down seven points in just a month — but if/when unemployment starts to recover and the trend stabilizes, it’s a major problem. A 28-point spread between the parties on this point essentially places the GOP’s fortunes in the Democrats’ hands: The only way the right wins a majority is if the left screws things up so egregiously that even staunch conservatives are apt to beat centrist Democrats head to head. It’s a passive strategy, but it’s a strategy, I guess. Exit question one: If the GOP’s so conservative these days, how is it that only 44 percent of Republicans want Palin to run for president versus 48 percent who don’t? Exit question two: Isn’t Romney’s candidacy likely to be the ultimate test of whether CNN’s poll is accurate or not? He’s going to end up as the anti-Palin, after all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Exit-Answer Number One- Being a conservative doesn’t mean you have to support every candidate who shares your views.
Sarah Palin has some glaring flaws, including a lack of experience and foreign policy credentials. Then, there’s the question of whether she’s intelligent enough to be President. I think the rhetoric on the left has been outrageous, but there should be a high standard of what we expect in this criteria, when we’re referring to the highest office in the land. Romney, Jindal, Daniels, Thune, Whitman, Gingrich, Bloomberg, Ryan, Cantor and Sandoval all unambiguously pass that threshold.
Mister Mets on November 18, 2009 at 5:58 AM
None of the people you list have the foreign policy credentials.
In fact, as Governor of Alaska, Gov. Palin has had to deal with incursions into American territory and also negotiated with Canada for the Alaskan pipeline contract.
(BTW, Bloomberg isn’t a Republican anymore.)
I’ve never heard of Daniels or Sandoval…and probably won’t.
None of the Governors you list besides Palin have as good a track reocrd as she does, with the exception of Jindal, possibly.
Sarah Palin has more executive experience and foreign policy “credentials” than our current president ever dreamed of and I guarantee Palin wouldn’t make a mess of it like he has.
What is it you hate about her that you’d prefer a nonentity like Sandoval over her–that she’s a woman or what?
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Exactly Jenfidel. Mister Mets is a sexist individual. He deserves a special seat at Newsweek and all MSM misogynist output.
Beware of misogynists. They think that their wives are nothing but …. you know what. Of course, it’s within their sub-concious … they couldn’t even tell their MENTAL DISEASE TO THEIR VERY OWN RESPECTIVE WIFE.
TheAlamos on November 18, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Mittens Romneycare’s candidacy will test the saleability of socialism dressed up as conservativism. I think the other socialists, the dummycrats, are going to make Mittens’ brand a tough sell, but we shall see.
And please, give us some more quotes from your man, Frumpy.
james23 on November 18, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I really think anybody and I mean anybody who is the republican nominee will win in 2012.
Just look at all the damage that has been done to Obama just in the health care debate.He is fixing to tee up immigration right after this and then soon after we will have the KSM trial and then somewhere down the road you have cap and trade.What few independents he has not pissed off now will be by the time immigration and the rest of it is decided.
Not to mention the failure to prosecute the new black panthers for voter fraud.The amount of ammo the repubs will have on this guy by 2011 will be incredible.
kangjie on November 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Long term strategy
Requires we stand for something
Other than “Not ‘Rat”
Folks need a reason
To vote for Republicans.
Ideology.
The ‘Rats have ideas
That are manifestly wrong.
We have the right ones.
We should not run from
Our core ideology.
It is our great strength.
Often, long term growth
Requires short term sacrifice.
This is such a time.
Haiku Guy on November 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Sarah’s problem is strictly over her policy answers. She has to get beyond talking points in a way that is convincing that she fully grasps issues, understands how to implement solutions, and knows the political landscape.
Tall order.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I think part of the problem here is that everyone has a different definition of “RINO.” I’ll take a gay marriage-endorsing pro-choice Republican any day of the week as long as he doesn’t support ObamaCare, bailouts, and bogus stimulus spending. Charlie Crist isn’t on the outs because he’s a moderate. He’s on the outs because he crossed the line into supporting liberal tax-and-spend policies.
Caiwyn on November 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Good points.
Geochelone on November 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
She’s already there; Read her Facebook Notes.
And she’s light years ahead of the current (sometimes) occupant of the White House.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
The problem is, that the difference between losing and winning with RINO’s is hard to see. The major difference being that Republicans have to share blame when the liberal program being pushed by the Dems and the RINO’s fail.
MarkTheGreat on November 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Like your work, but don’t agree with your choice of one word. Conservatives are not ideologues; we do not have an ideology. We have a philosophy.
either orr on November 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I like Senator DeMint. I think 30 is a conservative estimate.
Is there nothing you would die for?
FREEDOM!
Blacksmith8 on November 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Hehe. The mental midget has spoken!
What you really mean is that the majority of people on TV must tell you that Sarah Palin is now qualified to be President. And of course that will never happen.
The hard-core airhead vote will go for Obama, or whoever is the propagandists’ choice du jour. No matter what occurs in that strange land known as “reality.” Every time the economy drops, it will always be because of those evil business owners. Liberalism is not a theory; it is a religion; and it’s not just a run-of-the-mill fanatic cult. Lberalism is at its core fanaticism itself; everything else about it is a means to that end.
And that is why it is so dangerous. Any attempt to compromise with fanatacism is always doomed to fail. Each time, liberals “generously” offer to only Socialize HALF of the economy, instead of all of it. Trying to stop it seemed like a good idea in 1980. That won’t work now. It has to be undone; all of it. And no re-treaded version of George Bush is going to do that.
logis on November 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
AP: “Purity”
Me: “Principled”
Reagan on 2/6/77 …….
Continued…
.
GT on November 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM
As you may know, Von Mises pooh-poohed the notion that there is a difference between Communists and Socialists, and I agree. So when people refuse to vote for Communists, they should be applauded rather than mocked.
As for your use of Rush’s image for this thread: maybe Rush got to be as popular as he is by some calculus HA’s management has yet to decipher.
Akzed on November 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Reagan continued….
GT on November 18, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Her FB Notes? Really? I guess Obama has a good grasp of the issues because he posts detailed papers on Whitehouse.gov and gives good speeches.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Rather ironic but here’s someone who self-identifies as a RINO and admits he won’t support candidates who don’t meet his criteria (voted for Obama vice McCain) and yet conservatives are being told that for the good of the party they have to stop expecting candidates to agree with them. Why is it acceptable for a RINO to bail on the GOP candidate but terrible for conservatives to do the same? Both actions produce the same result.
Personally I can accept that some districts are more or less conservative than others and therefore the people who represent them may be at different places on the scale of moderate to conservative. There should be some basic principles the GOP stands for and an openness to lesser points where there is disagreement. But I don’t see the value of electing people who are willing to fold on ever principle – both basic and secondary – just to “win.” What value is winning if you end up with people who will yield on anything and everything?
katiejane on November 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Well, we haven’t been doing so well lately with the “moderate” republicans running for the White House or in Congress. The last few elections didn’t turn out so well when, as Rush puts it (paraphrased), we went with the candidates selected by the media, etc. I saw how horrible that woman running as a moderate was in up-state NY. That was a disaster and if that’s any representation, no thanks! Plus, the past 80 or so years have been pretty pathetic with the combinations of democrats and republicans so it might be nice to see some real “change” in the future instead of recycling the same old, same old.
mozalf on November 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
PR is not indicative of most Centrists. In fact, I would not be suprised if he is a fake trying to stir the TC’s up.
I am a centrist, I stuck by a bunch of candidates who I did not actually agree with 100%. Here in FL, Jeb did many things that I thought were pretty lousy (Schaivo, the Earnhart Sunshine Amendment), but he was a good man who had the best interests of Florida at heart and he was better than McCay or McBride.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Her Facebook Notes: NObama responds to them (re: “death panels”) and they’re quoted in front page stories in the Financial Times of London.
Any more (idiotic) questions, Squid?
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I enjoy following her talking points on Facebook, but that’s all they are.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
They are policy positions, with footnotes.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
I do like Palin’s remarks about primaries and how competition is good. I agree with her about that. Watching the discussion from some of the moderates about how this is bad for the party doesn’t make sense to me. If people prefer fiscal conservatives and don’t want to risk electing moderates who could flip like Snowe or Collins, that makes sense to me.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I agree, better to have conservatives, who can be counted on when it comes time to vote on issues. Rinos can’t be trusted with our liberty or to be fiscally responsible. You know how a Dim will vote, with a Rino it’s always an unknown factor as to what they will do.
la.rt.wngr on November 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Socialists and Communists START OUT differently, but they all end up at the same place. If the government redistributes all the wealth then, of course, it ends up owning all the businesses. And if the government starts out by taking over businesses then, of course, it ends up distributing all the wealth.
I have no idea who Von Mises is, but Stalin figured that out a long time ago: just collectivize or centralize whatever you need to whenever it’s convenient, and don’t worry about all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that matters is centralizing the economy. everyone who believes in that, whether they realize it or not, are all working toward the exact same goal.
At the top ranks, all modern liberals are Stalinists. Obama and his team are interested in absolutely nothing but consolodating power. And they couldn’t possibly care less what route they take to get there.
The rank-and-file moonbats were momentarily shocked to see Obama using those “evil” Fascist tactics, instead of the “good” Communists ones. But liberals worship nothing but power for the sake of power. After the deed is done, they won’t care in the slightest how it was accomplished.
logis on November 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
So are you a regular reader of Palin’s FB Notes?
Because she’s written about more than the NY-23 race.
As for “competition” what are you referring to?
Palin backed Hoffman because he was the clear Conservative whereas Scuzzyfavors, chosen by NY state GOP and not by GOP primary, was a DIABLO (Democrat in all but name).
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Let me spell it out nice and slow for you.
She probably does not write many of them, they are likely written by staffers like all of the Presidents prepared talking points…..
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Yeah, sure I follow the FB. I was actually thinking about the Rubio/Crist primary that is shaping up to be quite interesting.
I happen to agree with her that tough primaries are good for voters. I do not agree with the idea that everyone has to get behind moderate GOP for the “bigger good.” That’s not serving voters, in my opinion.
Let the people choose, in other words.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
You’re just dead set on her being “unqualified” aren’t you?
The FB Notes, like her books, are in Palin’s voice.
She writes them-Trust me.
Some of them are written in the middle of the night!
(Who’s writing them, Todd?)
And if staffers are writing O-Bow-ma’s talking points, he should fire them!
They suck.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Rubio-Crist is shaping up exactly like Hoffman-Scozzafava.
Crist, of course, is the obvious RINO.
He’s going down in the polls, too, and voters are getting behind Rubio.
It’s all good.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I dont agree with that either. I just dont agree with the whole “lets mold someone into the ‘conservative’ candidate and dogpile on the ‘RINO’” game that is playing out in Florida.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
You don’t think Rubio is authentic, then?
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM
When Crist starts hitting back on Marco’s lousy record, the hardcore Rubes will not give up, but those who came over because someone told them Rubio was the Conservative Messiah might think twice before pulling the lever.
It will be a close one, and Rubio will probably win (specially is Crist continues to ignore him instead of nailing his fake butt to the wall). I didnt agree with the NRSC endorsement either. I am glad my local REC is staying out of the race.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM
There’s no “molding” involved!
Rubio has a record as head of the Florida legislature.
He has Conservative values and principles.
No one is “molding” him.
Charlie Crist is a RINO–he supported NObama’s Porkulus and allowed Florida to suck up those federal funds.
He deserves to be “dog piled” onto.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Do we want instant gratification or to save the country? A principled minority will become a majority if they have the right principles.
Imagine the confusion and anger among the less politically informed when candidates run on a plank of “if you don’t like the way things are going, vote for me, I am just like the other guy!”
Otherwise we go back and forth on this see-saw of statists driving this gravy train to destruction. Or ensure a third party, with a much longer time frame for restoration of our republic.
Why fight over who gets to steer when the destination is set and we are on rails heading down hill?
Somebody has to do the less glamorous job of being the brakeman.
Any journey begins with the first step, the lesser of two evils siding just postpones that step.
We have to work hard for 2010, but we cannot lose sight of 2011 and beyond or our effort is wasted.
numbeddown on November 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I have been watching him for years, he is just as ambitious as Crist, probably more. He is a pork hound, he was lousy as Speaker (in FL Speaker of the House has incredible power over the budget, he failed to show any leadership in delivering a balanced budget leading to the clusterfrak we have today), his ethics have always been questionable in my mind (jobs for pork, land deals, etc), and his self-styled “Conservative Savior” image makes me want to retch. I would love to believe he has had a come to Jesus moment, but as Reagan said, “trust but verify”
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM
“Marco’s lousy record?”
You mean when Rubio starts hitting back on Crist’s lousy record!
I don’t know what a “squid shark” is, but smart isn’t one of your characteristics.
Jenfidel on November 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Rubio is already hitting at the warts in Crist’s record. Marco is no saint, and if Crist is smart he will hit back. This is not the White Knight taking on the eeeeevil tan RINO. These are two guys who are very hold part of the blame for Florida’s current fiscal situation.
The problem will the fact that the Rubes are just as bad as the Hardcore Palinistas, completely dedicated to the preconceived narrative about their guy.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
BTW, insulting debaters intelligence is a sure-fire sign of a weak argument.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Then it should be a very fair primary fight. He has a record. Crist has a record.
Hoffman was odd because he really didn’t have a record.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I agree, it will be close.
The “X” factor is Former Sen Bob Smith, who has a largely conservative record, but for some wierd reason endorsed Kerry in 2004. He has a hardcore, loud and loyal following.
The debate will be good. Smith is crazy as a loon, but Charlie and Marco are excellent debaters and good on their feet.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Look at the 2006 elections…50% of the ‘moderates’ running lost while 95% of conservatives won reelection…
I believe the RINO faction of the party all tell themselves that their numbers are far larger than they are …I am reminded of this quote…
“Nixon can’t have won; no one I know voted for him.” – Pauline Kael, disbelieving the outcome of the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972
As far as I am concerned, RINO’s should be addressed like this:
“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” – Cromwell, Address to the Rump Parliament (20 April 1653)
JIMV on November 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
How many of those conservatives were in safely conservative districts? Centrists by definition are generally elected in diverse swing districts.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 11:30 AM
LOL Love it.
beachgirlusa on November 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Centrists are generally defined as having no positions that cannot be changed if pressed. The shortest book in congress is the ‘Book of great moderate accomplishments’…Moderates infest our party way out of proportion to their numbers, and are despised by the conservative base.
JIMV on November 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I don’t take the punditry talk about purging the party seriously, frankly.
That’s just fear-mongering.
A good primary fight sorts stuff out.
AnninCA on November 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Nationally, Republicans don’t win with RINOs.
If RINOs won, we would be blogging about President McCain.
Can HA stop salving the battered egos of Team McCain for once.
Angry Dumbo on November 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Never. And it is all (somehow) Sarah Palin’s fault.
Any other questions?
logis on November 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM
If you believe a CBS poll, I have a 2004 inagural plaque for John Kerry I wish to sell you.
By anti-Palin you mean that basically noone will show up for his book-signing, his interviews will be rating snoozers and he can’t get more than dozen to show up for rallies.
Norwegian on November 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM
“Staunch Centrist” is an oxymoron.
fossten on November 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM
AP goes on these obsessive fits. Lately it has been Frum.
JeffB. on November 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Yep. All those “hard core moderates” out there. They’re the only people who can save America – from having Democrats get the blame for making this depression indefinite.
logis on November 18, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Centrists are not Moderates. You confuse the two terms, like most.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 12:11 PM
There you and fossten go again. I have very strongly held views, some of them are not shared by you. Thus I am a centrist. A moderate is a squish.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Beautifully spoken and no wonder it wasn’t responded to because they can’t.
On Sarah, her book, and FB, I have 3 points: 1. Since Rush (who RARELY gives interviews) had her on his radio show yesterday talking 3rd party and “policy” talking points his photos on the front is appropriate. 2. Juxtapose her “CLOSED TO MEDIA” speech in Hong Kong to Pres. Obama’s CURRENT time in Asia and then tell me whose issuing ‘policy” talking points and offering ‘real world’ solutions to our current economic crisis. 3. At least her FB page is more accurate to the “human errors” on the WH’s tracking of bogus Congressional District and where $750,000,000,000.00 of OUR taxpayer money is being spent.
Elites process information just like these same Progressives in the WH. Logis is right, it’s Centrist who are sheeple, listen to media Talking Points, and SEE what they are told to SEE. They certainly aren’t looking at things there a clear lens.
Sultry Beauty on November 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
there=through…autocorrect
Sultry Beauty on November 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Why is this poll suprising? 90% of Republicans would rather lose an election than vote for a winning Democrat…if you understand why most conservatives choose not to be “Clinton Republicans” then you’d understand why we don’t want Big Bad Government of any flavor.
Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Please give an example of a ‘strongly held’ centrist view.
fossten on November 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM
When we conservatives trusted the GOP, a group with which many of us held a lifelong identity, it gave us GWB, Tom Delay, Dennist Hastert, Bill Frist, et al.
They didn’t squaner away their majorities because Ron Paul was the GOP candidate in 2008.
They did it by cutting so many deplorable deals with Democrats who were sponsored by the same corporate interests who supported them that they became indistinguishable from each other.
Hence, Obama, who vanquished Hillary by running decidedly to her left, looked like someone with a vision for our country.
There will be groaning and gnashing of teeth over the next 1 – 3 years, but the GOP will once again begin running candidates who espouse conservative principles.
The Democrats will have bullseyes on their chests next year, and they know it.
Conservatives will win decisively in many, many key 2010 races.
The only difference is that the GOP will come to the conservatives and not the other way around.
There is simply nothing left in the RNC which is worth saving.
No more sacred cows, everything is on the table.
molonlabe28 on November 18, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Debating issues is how the public becomes educated. An educated public is sorely lacking, hence we are get the leadership we have.
Debate will only occur if the two whoever candidates disagree. Nominating a RINO who agrees with the Dem does v not promote debate, does not educate the public.
When the argument becomes the advantages of big government vs the advantages of small government, small government will win. With RINOs, the argument is my form of big government vs your form of big government, and only the politically connected can win.
exdeadhead on November 18, 2009 at 1:04 PM
One that I hold personally is the belief in the rights of states to decide the Marriage Question. I dont believe in the Federal Marriage Amendment, but I also do not advocate for legalization of Gay Marriage by judicial fiat.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Well, the record shows that the centrist pubs would rather lose and blame the the people to the right of them than to run a conservative candidate who they feel has NO SHOT at the middle.
And how do you get a message out there that you ARE centrist when the media plays along with the idea that you’re just as “extreme” as the guy whose a couple guys down to your right (who thought he’d put an end to Reagan conservatism). How do you do that without understanding that the media is complicit–but you play into that manufactured middle of the MSM by appealing to it??!!
Axeman on November 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
“Extremism” is wrong? (Better to pander to the media-manufactured middle.)
Axeman on November 18, 2009 at 1:13 PM
That viewpoint doesn’t qualify you as centrist, merely ignorant.
You are aware, are you not, that if any state grants a marriage license, all states have to honor it, just like a driver’s license?
fossten on November 18, 2009 at 1:14 PM
We shall see, there is no precedent case law in the instance of gay marriage, so no common law exists to back up your assertion.
Since 1939, the court has recognized the “public policy” exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the states generally recognize things like that unless it is against the strong public policy of that state (such as if it is enshrined in the State Constitution like here in FL).
Assuming that one license being approved under FFC means that all licenses are approved under FFC is misinformed.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Please provide an example of a MA marriage being forced on a state with a DOM amendment or statute?
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Bingo!
And no one is agreeing on anything.
Oh another hit!
There it is again!
This is all crap.
You know, this ideological purity stuff is mostly wacked, but at some point, as someone here mentioned, you have to talk about some kind of purity or what the heck, we’ll just shove everyone together & call it good?!
As I recall, that happened with the Nationalist Socialist party of Germany before WWII: they lumped EVERYONE together & everyone was NOT together.
This crap is nuts.
There are gray lines & there are black & white lines.
But there are some gray lines that are really almost black & that’s the kind of line that the RNC needs to decide upon.
Major stuff. Not the minor stuff.
Problem is, there is a lack of LEADERS in this country.
Many of our real leaders are busy right now in places like Afghanistan & Iraq.
Hopefully in a few years some of those guys & gals will start running for offices across the country.
Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Why not draft Pat Buchanan to run instead of the know-nothing airhead Palin? He is more conservative than Palin yet not so hated by the left and best of all, he instills confidence which Palin does not.
JC Silverberg on November 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Actually, I’d bet a lot more people would rather win with a conservative, public-servant-minded candidate than 51%.
The analysis takes the idea that preferring to win is the same thing as winning. And framing that is the RINO speculation that the conservative position only alienates the swing vote. I would bet probably a large majority of the 51% don’t believe that, but say “Fine, you think we’re going to lose, then I’d rather lose, you can put that down.” Just to send a message to the centrists that we’re not on board with a GOP-rebranded progressivism.
We want to see what can be done. Not settle for the way things are. Everybody ought to be alarmed that the dems want to UNINDEX tax rates from inflation!! And if we get that message out there, that the dems sell “stick it to the rich” but will let more and more people slide into “rich” tax brackets as your employer (hopefully) gives you COLAs–if we get that message–out to the people on all sides, we need to have a group that we know will reverse things and are not so willing to “make a deal” to keep the status quo for some pork thrown their way.
We’ve already had “Republican” majorities–some of us don’t see how it did us any good. Fine let’s lose the phrase RINO, because the name “Republican” just doesn’t stand for much, it might as well be just a name.
Axeman on November 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Sadly, the Rino’s agree with the poll.
HonestConservative on November 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Love the picture of Rush!!!
bridgetown on November 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM
So, here are my choices?
1) Win the election, then get nothing for it while squishes push a liberal agenda; and our side has no convictions to hold to.
2) Maybe lose an election; trying for something meaningful and real instead of a Pyrrhic victory with no meaning.
Tough call. DO I want the appearance of a win, with no meaning or gain; or am I willing to risk losing to get a win that means something?
I’m thinking that the appearance of a win is the most important thing. Meaningful change, conservative ideals; these aren’t useful at all. Once we’ve got a majority, who cares what the majority does. Let them raise spending; it worked from 200-2006 with no penalty… lets do that again. If it looks like we win, that’s good enough for me.
/sarc Sadly, this does require a sarc tag; because Frum and others seem to actually believe what I’ve written… although I can’t imagine why.
gekkobear on November 18, 2009 at 2:50 PM
What a joke – Conservatives are required to accept results antithetical to their beliefs in order to have a “majority.”
A majority of WHAT?
I for one owe no allegiance to any political party. It matters not to me if a mush-brained moderate is a D or an R: When they win we all lose.
Filecchio on November 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM
A North Port, FL guy here. Rubio is not all that but he’s better than Crist. Crist has no principles whatsoever. He’s the typical politician like Obama that says different things to different groups. He has no central set of principles that he adheres to. He lied about supporting Spendulous until he was hammered with the video showing just that. Enough of this stuff. Taking a chance with Rubio is better than going with Crist as we know what we’ll get with him, another RINO loser like Mel Martinez.
Laddy on November 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Why don’t you guys run Bill Clinton against Obama? He seems willing to oppose Obama, he didn’t object to nukes or wars, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and he allowed right-wing Republicans to draft the budget. Also he’s popular…I guess the question is, are you so tied to professional Republican hacks that you’d lose rather than support Bill Clinton for a Republican nomination? /sarc
Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Conservative Republicans understand that RINO’s give conservatives a bad name.
RINO’s can’t win. The only reason that McCain was the nominee was the conservative vote was split between Romney, Huckabee (perceived as a conservative but agrees with McCain on almost everything)Fred Thompson, and the like.
We need to more to instant runoff balloting. That would make it impossible to split the vote.
The Rock on November 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM
You aim for perfection…that is the goal, a pure conservative ticket, you may fall short, but if you accept flaws, then you will get flaws.
Imagine sending a rocket off to space and say that it is acceptable to have inferior parts…
The goal is to have conservatives leading the way, preferably all conservatives, but if the majority are, then they can sway the RINO’s.
But if we say, we will accept anyone who is a Republican, then we end up with the Snowes, and the Graham’s…
Nothing wrong with having a high standard…
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Yeah, all eight of Pat’s supporters will push him over the edge…
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Hmmm.
@ AllahPundit
Except that we tried YOUR way. We conservatives voted the party line. We voted in dozens of RINOs. We voted for liberal Republicans and the “big tent”.
And what did that get us?
Shafted by the GOP.
So here’s the deal: It doesn’t work so your way is a proven loser.
memomachine on November 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Right2bright
-
Well you should have voted for Pat before, and we wouldn’t have this fiscal mess that Bush helped to create and we wouldn’t have Obama now. Neither would America be outdone by its Chineese competitors (both diplomatically and financially) at every turn. I blame YOU and your ilk for this situation.
-
Many of the conservatives that made this three-legged bed in the first place are now complaining that they have to sleep in it. As I see America got Obama for your sins.
-
Repent and vote Buchanan or Huckabee!
JC Silverberg on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I’m probably the last Sarah Palin fence-sitter in America. To be specific, I’m certain she has the raw tools — including the smarts — but I’m less certain she has done the intensive study of issues and policy that a President must do. Her Facebook entries are pretty good. Does she write them herself? I don’t know, and neither do any of the other commenters here, yourself included. Let’s face it, cute girls can be as smart as anyone, but they can also always find some nerdy guy to do their homework for them.
So how will we know if she really has the stuff, or if her handlers have just found a good policy team? Simple enough: when she can sit down — in realtime, with no prepared notes, laying off the talking points — with an interviewer, and speak comfortably and fluently of conservative principles, middle-east policy, and Russian and Chinese diplomacy, I’ll be thrilled to become a Palin supporter. Until then she is merely “better than brand ‘D’”.
BTW, it would also help if, when someone asks her about her daughter or her former future son-in-law, she would wipe off the grin and say something like “I’ve neither he right nor the inclination to discuss my family’s personal business. Are you just a sleazy gossip columnist, or is there anything relevant you’d like to discuss?”
RegularJoe on November 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM
While I disagree with you on Crist and Marco “Barack” Rubio, I just wanted to say that I grew up just south of North Port :)
Squid Shark on November 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I wasn’t polled, but I’d agree with the 51% in this case.
hawksruleva on November 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I wonder. I’d rather have a President who can make good decisions based on the latest information provided by their staffers than one who already thinks they know all they need to know. Sure, it’d be great if she had more policy chops, but Al Gore was the Supreme Policy Wonk. He would’ve been a terrible President. Can Sarah make good decisions based on the facts? Interesting arguments could be made either way on that question.
hawksruleva on November 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Hate to pig pile on Buchanan, he still writes/says some good stuff now an then but when he wrote a book about how we should not have fought WW2 and giving up Poland was a great plan, I think he crossed over into goofyville and I’m not even bringing up his.. (issues I guess you call it) with all things Jewish.
kangjie on November 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM
The problem with RINOs is that they ruin the Republican/Conservative brand.
Conservative ideals only work when they are actually used. Giving lip service to lower taxes/smaller government and then in practice raising taxes and expanding government only produces more statism and destroys all credibility in future elections.
“More statism more slowly” is not a winning formula for the GOP to distinguish itself from the the Dems, it is a recipe for irrelevance.
dKap on November 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM
People were complaining about the lack of a conservative catolic vote previously in the thread. Well, Pat Buchanan is a conservative catholic faitful to the church and youa re still complaining… some people just can’t be happy! Is whining and moaning your raison d´être? Maybe the reason for Pat’s criticism of the jews is their constant lobbying for war on Israel’s behalf, wars that just get America in further economic, diplomatic and political trouble? don’t forget that without the Iraq war the dems wouldn’t have had a such a great opportunity in the 2008 election.
JC Silverberg on November 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM
But that’s what I’m saying — I think she DOES have everything else. She has great instincts, seems deeply principled, is politically savvy, is tough — all those things Gore (and we could name others) were not.
But making “good decisions based on the latest information” is greatly aided by an understanding of what has been done in the past, and to what effect. A certain amount of background knowledge is essential to making wise choices. I don’t give a whit whether she went to an ivy league college or no college at all; I care what she KNOWS and how she’ll USE that knowledge.
She clearly didn’t have that background knowledge a year ago. Maybe she does now; if not, maybe she will two years from now, when it will REALLY matter. I really hope so.
RegularJoe on November 18, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Ditto… :)
ray on November 18, 2009 at 7:22 PM
I haven’t read through the comments, but I think this could just as easily suggest that people generally gravitate more towards our positions. This is why Obama and other liberals will always position themselves as centrist pragmatic types if they are running for statewide (other than Ca, NY, Mass)or national elections. You will never hear a candidate in an election say they are liberal. You have people falling all over themselves on the republican side calling themselves conservative. Even if they really ARE the centrist types, they often run towards the conservative label.
Maybe this simply suggests that democratic candidates can’t really stand up for what they believe until after they are elected. This also has the benefit of being proven true again and again anecdotally.
stldave on November 18, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Musical interlude of course!
Burning Down the Tent!
Mr. Joe on November 18, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Allahpundit has been a pinko plant from day one.
voxpopuli on November 18, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Uh, I actually think your a troll sent over from another site hoping someone takes your bait and rolls with you.
Trying to smear hotair. Been tried before but please continue its always fun to watch
kangjie on November 18, 2009 at 9:51 PM
That’s easy:
There is, and needs to be, only one strongly held centrist view:
They hate and fear ANYONE with ANY strongly held principles.
(Including themselves, for having that one strongly held view…. But of course they will always deny their own self loathing.)
Really, the only difference between a centrist and a moderate is that centrists are a bit more informed, a bit more articulate than moderates. Not any wiser though.
LegendHasIt on November 19, 2009 at 1:37 AM
We need strong conservatives in office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, while marxist democrats are trying to tear it down. RINOs are not up to the task, period.
BottomLine5 on November 19, 2009 at 7:06 AM
Wow, a lot of arguments about what I said or implied.
My defenders are mostly correct.
All I meant about my comment about social conservatism is this: if I must support a “moderate”, it better be a moderate on social issues. I have no give whatsoever on fiscal ones at the moment.
I have said this numerous times now, but I’ll repeat it. I understand that for the GOP to be a majority party, we will have to elect candidates that I would have to hold my nose, at best, to vote for.
We’re not going to elect a “toe the line” fiscal & social conservative in Maine, or Pennsylvania, or Vermont, or Connecticut, or Massachusetts? Does that mean that I think we should give up on those states? No. But it means we need to choose candidates there that are A) electable AND B) understand that the country can not continue on its current path.
If I can get a fiscal and social conservative in office, yippee. If I have to chose between a fiscal conservative/social moderate and a social conservative/fiscal moderate, I want the fiscal conservative.
AP and his ilk are correct that we will never be a majority party if we require everyone we vote for to fit into the “true conservative” mold. What I did was lay down my MINIMUM requirements to receive my vote and support.
They are:
1) Belief in small federal gov’t
2) Belief in fiscal restraint
3) Belief in a strong national defense
(I’m pretty sure I phrased it slightly differently last time, but that’s basically it)
That’s a minimum to get my support. I’d LOVE it if the candidate brought more to the conservative table than that. But I won’t accept less. Even if that means being a minority party.
Chris of Rights on November 19, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »