unseen on November 20, 2012 at 3:25 AM

THIS. In spades.

supporting Angle in the Nevada race in ’10. It’s heartbreaking to watch our party throw away winnable seats and ensure the election and re-election of liberal Democrats for no higher purpose than to satisfy the vanity and self-indulgence of self-proclaimed True Conservatives.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM

first off. defeating any majoirty leader is a very tough hill to climb. It almost never happens. Dashele was a one off. So no the NV seat wasn’t “winnable” the only reason it was close in 2010 was because of the tea party wave that swept the nation. Take away the Tea party and candidates like Angle and Reid coasts to a 10 or 20 pt victory. And for the life of me I can’t understand the idiots that look at 2010 and they see the angle miss instead of the other 700 wins and landslide. they are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater because instead of 701 wins they only got 700. the Senate wasn’t really in play in 2010. there was an outside chance of the GOp getting it. But it would have taken an almost perfect string of victories. the house wasn’t in play either until the Tea party rose up. To switch the House and so many state government in a single election is something not seen very often. SO instead of moaning about the one that got away understand if it wasn’t for the tea party the house would still be dem many state gov would still b ein the dems hands and the senate would have a fillibuster majority and Obama would have gotten everything he wanted. So if it takes an Angle and/or a COD or two to get people fired up off their seats and into the voting booth then that’s the price we need to pay. You want perfection in politics and there is no such thing. and if the old guard GOP would have got behind the “odd candidate” like a COD and Angle they might have won also because of the wave.

2012 gave us the “perfect candidate” in Mitt. good looks, well off, self made man with a nice family a decent record and he lost to a chitown thug who happens to be the worse POTUS in modern history.

IMO if the person has the right ideology no matter the quarks of theperson then they are lightyears ahead of the “perfect candidate ” who has the wrong ideology.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:48 PM

4th group: to hell with the bush GOP and return to Reaganism and the founding principles.

to the party’s K Street, Wall Street and big business base

this is the problem and why the GOp message about the 47% doesn’t sink in. What are these groups but takers. they are the GOp’s 47%. when the gop talks about the 47% the avg joe looks at the K street wall street and big business sweet heart deals the GOP gives out and says so what about the 47% If they are going to get theirs im going to get mine. If the GOp is worried about a nation of takers I think they need to clean house and kick these moochers from wall street big business and k street to the crub. Then and only then will thier message about taxes and cutting spending reach the majority of Americans.

Hybrid of first and third first here. We have NO idea what 2016 will bring. Let’s just take it one day at a time.

Such hyperbole. Let’s focus on the actual enemy, Obama.

thebrokenrattle on November 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, it’s not.

We as a movement have got some differences to hash out. So far as I can tell, there are three burgeoning schools popping up: we-got-unlucky (Romney wasn’t conservative enough, Obama Claus, etc.), let’s-start-chucking-principles (amnesty now, let’s raise taxes on the rich, etc.), and the wait-and-see (let’s take action, but let’s not do it right now).

The first group seems to think: new election, better nominee, no Obama, better results. No real changes necessary.

The second: we’re screwed in the long term so we’d better start changing policy stances or we’re sunk.

The third: we’re screwed, but only in the short term. We can make appropriate changes without altering policy stances, but changes will have to be made.

I’d like to think I’m in the third group, but I can’t say that honestly quite yet.

The GOP…and KingGold will betray you

True_King on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM

I want you to know that I consider being called a traitor by a reactionary zealot to be a mark of honor.

I thank you for your praise.

thebrokenrattle on November 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Oh, I do like Gabe’s writing quite a bit. Ace’s as well. I like how Ace has the stones to look zealotry in the eye – even among commenters on his own blog – and say, “This isn’t helping the greater cause. Stop.”

I consider advocating against terrible candidates to be my atonement for supporting Angle in the Nevada race in ’10. It’s heartbreaking to watch our party throw away winnable seats and ensure the election and re-election of liberal Democrats for no higher purpose than to satisfy the vanity and self-indulgence of self-proclaimed True Conservatives.