Red State Uprising: The cure for Republican pseudo-socialists
Erick Erickson is one of the leading, outside-the-Beltway conservative activists reclaiming the Right and rattling the old GOP guard. He’s out with a terrific new book today from Regnery:
Red State Uprising: How to Take Back America
With attention focused on the fight between Washington elites and the new generation of technology-empowered conservative activists demanding real choices and not more Soros Republican echoes, the timing couldn’t be better.
From Erickson’s foreword:
The Republicans gave us progressivism (read up on Robert LaFollette and Teddy Roosevelt). The Republicans gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. Heck, Republicans gave us Earl Warren, Nelson Rockefeller, Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist, and the list goes on and on and on.
The Democrats, by contrast, have given us over to European socialism, degenerated our moral society, destroyed the nuclear family, never met a race they didn’t bait, and mushroomed the GOP’s spending programs.
For too long the Republican Party has decided to be the Democrat-lite party, and the American voters in 2008 decided just to go with the real thing. Turns out, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. While both may be terrible, the Democrats are worse.
Therein lies the terrible conundrum for voters. We’re not choosing the lesser of two evils. We are choosing between the assorted evils of two lessers. The problem is compounded by a very simple fact: there are no betters than these two lessers. No third party is or will ever be viable. The deck is stacked against them.
Contrary to what we may say and the polemical frustration conservatives too often are forced to express about the Republican Party, there remain very real differences between the two parties—life and death differences that cannot be underestimated or ignored.
It is easy to say both parties are appalling. They are. It becomes very difficult to figure out what to do about it. There is, however, a starting point. As bad as you or I may think the Republican Party has been at times, at least it will not sell us down the river to our nation’s enemies. At least it will more often than not support businesses and individuals against the government. At least it will support you working for yourself over you working to give money to someone else.
Despite the real differences, too often Republican leaders prefer to find ever-shrinking common ground with the Left rather than make a stand on opposing ground fighting for free people and free markets against the leviathan of government. With the rise of the tea party movement, conservatives must unite to clean up the Republican Party.
If they don’t, voters will keep rejecting Republican pseudo-socialists in favor of authentic socialists.
With the starting point being to clean house within the GOP, the next question is how. To figure out how, we must examine the past as the path to the present. Both parties have used the tax code, spending, and power to reward their bases, enact their preferred social policies, and expand their own preferred government programs.
Politicians of both parties have gone to Washington not to reduce its size, but expand what it can do for preferred interest groups. Some conservatives have become devoid of ideas other than the acquisition of power. The GOP started making shortcut calculations like big business = good, instead of entrepreneurs = good. There is a difference; but
too many have grown too complacent to see it.Enough is enough…
Read the whole thing — and tell all the pseudo-socialist Republicans you know to do the same!
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
22 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
47 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
112 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments
Categories: Politics
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
“Wolverines!”
I’ll order a copy based on your recommendation Michelle.
I’m still annoyed the stupid networks were able to label us as the “red” states during the 2000 election. It just doesn’t make sense. Obviously the liberal/communist states should be “red.”
Everytime we say “red” state, Peter Jennings smiles in Hell. And Couric and the rest smile up here.
It’s not right.
He lost me at “goat f***ing child molester.”
Just when I was looking for some reading material while on the road, you post this.
I’ll give it a shot.
Let’s face it, the RNC is little more than a wing of the DNC.
It’s the RNC drones that tell us over and over (especially on this blog) that a progressive, left leaning RINO (McCain, Graham, etc) is better than a Democrat, yet when faced with a candidate running as a true conservative (O’Donnell), they’re willing to withdraw all support, in favor of an admitted Marxist (Coons).
That says a lot about where the Republican establishment really stands. It has been infiltrated with traitors, Marxists and progressives who are intent on continuing the destruction of what was once the greatest nation in the world. May they all burn in heck.
DougT – Something that might be more up your alley…
Control Freaks by Terry Jeffrey
The opening chapter on federal mileage tax plans/enviro schemes to coerce people out of their cars has a great discourse on our Founding Fathers’ defense of freedom of movement…
Touched a nerve, did he?
Red State Skeptic said:
Please stop dragging us into your private hell.
Thanks for the additional recommendation, Michelle. I just followed up on RSS’s little post to see what it was all about. (How out of touch am I that I don’t know the details and bios and histories of all the pundits and players out there? I feel like a newbie.) Maybe I’ll save Mr. Erickson’s work for a library checkout instead of a purchase.
I don’t think he can….his shrink said he needed an intervetion so he came here. Perhaps we should start charging him a fee for therapy.
I keep hearing how a third party can not win elections. Then they say the GOP is the right wing of the DNC, and both are doing a poor job. The Tea Party movement is our best chance for some time to introduce a third party and TP candidates have proven their ability to win primaries. IMHO, it is all about timing and the time is right now. Things are so bad, Joe the plumber probably has a good chance of beating Obama next election.(no offense intended to Joe)
If we want to make lasting changes, the Red States should indeed rise up by telling Washington, “We don’t need you.”
Stop sending money to Washington, except for those 18 enumerated items, and use what your state raises to pay for what your state needs. Refuse to allow federal regulators to interfere, send them packing. Watch what your state can do without the federal millstone around your neck.
Truesoldier said:
I know one thing, that pre-frontal lobotomy RSS he/she/it received from the Government did not do anything to cure this 21th Century Schizoid Poge.
The GOP was once a third party, just as the Whigs had gone wishy-washy on slavery and other issues. In less than 10 years, the Republicans had their first president in the White House.
***
Prior to Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 elections the nascent Republican (read anti-slavery) party was looked on as a joke by the two established parties. The slavery supporting Democrats and the “reach across the aisle and compromise” Whigs?
***
We don’t hear a lot about Whigs anymore. And in a little while “reach across the aisle” RINOs will be another extinct species–like Dodos.
***
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER–no DimocRATS or RINOS need apply–or need to be reelected.
***
John Bibb
***
I dont’ recall anybody saying anything of the kind, but I don’t read everything posted. I DO recall some people on the board advocating the opposite – withdraw all support for any candidate they didn’t support in the primary under the premise that they aren’t conservative enough, even if it results in the election of a Democrat. None of you seem to have addressed prior to the O’Donnell victory what would happen if the RINOs decided to apply the same philosophy. Now you’ve seen it and you’re squealing like stuck pigs.
Electing more Democrats to fix the government is sort of the same philosophy as trying to spend your way out of debt. I don’t think the country can stand much more of Democrat rule.
It took us a hundred years of ever more intrusive government to get to the point where the tea party movement arose. We aren’t going to solve even a small fraction of the problems in one election, and if we’re going to make any progress at all, there’s going to have to be some cooperation between the tea party candidates and the rest of the Republican Party. If the tea party movement is recalcitrant and comes to be seen by the majority of the public as being the cause of more problems rather than the solution, the movement is dead and the country with it.
That excerpt seemed pretty superficial. Long on carping, short on practicality.
Authors who invest heavily in trying to sound witty while at the same time expecting to be taken seriously — e.g., “We’re not choosing the lesser of two evils. We are choosing between the assorted evils of two lessers — and who simply regurgitate bromides and cliches while skimping on substantial analysis (most of what the excerpt contains I’ve read from commenters on this blog who, far from pretending to be pundits are typing on a stream-of-consciousness level) always raise a red flag.
Take, for example, the lazy, seamless slide from properly pointing out the bad apples — e.g., McCain, Graham, the Maine Twins — to tarring the Republican Party as a whole; the recognition that one party is clearly worse than the other, but then slinking away from the immediate necessity to confront the greater evil in favor of bleeding the lesser one; and finally, the throwing up of the hands in the air and equating the two.
I’d be much more interested in reading a book by an author who tackles the thorny questions, like:
- If we are going to insist on purifying the Republicans as a whole, how to do that and still remain a viable party in regions of the country where rock-ribbed conservatives are thin on the ground, like the northeast and the northwest?
- How are we going to change the political leanings of states like Massachusetts, Connecticut and Oregon to make them conservative-friendly when the majorities of their populations are hostile to conservative values?
- Are we prepared to accept “right half of the time” candidates in these places at the sacrifice of our overall purity, or are we prepared to write off whole states because the majorities of their electorates are not receptive enough to our principles?
- If we are going to somehow reject the notion of realpolitik in favor of a no-compromise model, what to do when we discover, inevitably, that we don’t have enough politicians of such inflexible qualities to form a majority?
The trouble with combating liberals is that they prefer to live in a cartoon-world of child-like emotions, caricatures and stereotypes, denial and wishful thinking; although we’ll never convert our enemies, reading excerpts like the one above — which seem to advocate adopting much of their approach — strikes me as unpersuasive at best, or cynical at worst.
I don’t really think that they’re all that hostile to conservatism – they haven’t had much chance to vote for it. It seems that people like Rove et al get to select the candidates, and given their philosophy, they don’t pick conservatives in the first place. At the risk of contradicting myself, it’s possible that we’ll just have to write off those areas of the country. Most of the rest of the country is open to conservative ideas, and if we can win there the Northeast and Northwest won’t matter so much.
Conservatism gets more attractive when people see how liberalism destroys the quality of life and inflicts pain.
“Let’s face it, the RNC is little more than a wing of the DNC.”
Sorry but this is not the case.
As evidence we can just look at Mr. Erikson’s own position. He is not for a third party. He is for getting the Republican Party back to a conservative foundation.
“conservatives must unite to clean up the Republican Party.”
Same mindset one sees from Mrs. Malkin.
Clearly a do not throw the baby out with the bath water mindset by her.
There is work to be done. House needs to be done. There is education and focusing that needs to be done.
The job will be harder if we approach this with hyperbole and broad brushes whose strokes are inaccurate.
And this task is a long haul project once accomplished will continue through our life time and hopefully our children and grandchildren will pick up that task as they have learned to value conservatism from us.
“None of you seem to have addressed prior to”
Excuse me tx… but I’ve been quite vocal about it. Not well received of course. But I’ve brought it up for some time and long before O’Donnell’s primary.
It is THE issue this fall. And it is a tough and most troubling dilemma no doubt.
I’ve even point blank asked a few of the critical and one or two actually hateful posters to clarify their positions on this very issue.
Of course no answer from those folks.
“- Are we prepared to accept “right half of the time” candidates in these places at the sacrifice of our overall purity, or are we prepared to write off whole states because the majorities of their electorates are not receptive enough to our principles?”
Good questions Reg…
I would say however the answers depend on the context of the actual election.
The answer in this primary was different than the answer will be in this general. And IF we can win majorities in Congress, the answer in 2012 will be different than the answer will be in 2010.
It seems similar to drawing up war plans. And as brutal as it sounds part of war plans are based on “can we lose a certain number of soldiers there, make up for it in that location, etc.”
Those war plans take into account the timing of where one is at in the bigger battle/war. At the first skirmish you may not be able to take some losses and keep moving forward. But if you have won over and over again and have the momentum of victory the same losses at that juncture may have little to no impact on overall victory.
Not sure if that makes any sense or not.
The answer to your very good questions THIS time is that this time this is the first real skirmish. Losing will be bad. I love how some folks wanting to appear all pure like are ALREADY making up scenarios for why its ok if we leave the left in power in 2010. Just amazing to me.
Your questions are most excellent.
This new batch of candidates better know the difference between a middle america cut in the budget, and the Washington DC budget cut. Cutting the budget means the amount that department has to spend this year is LESS than they had last year, not less than the amount of increase they planned on getting this year. A cut in budget means the amount the gubmint spends is lower year over year. We haven’t seen that since 1946.
If you will look at the context, you’d realize I was talking about Phil and phriends, not you.
“realize I was talking about Phil and phriends, not you.”
Yep. And if you’ll read my comment in context I was just adding to your post not challenging it.
cheap…
One of the things I hope we can accomplish once we get back to a conservative governing majority is in this whole area of truth in accounting. The way the government keeps its books and the way the rest of us do are nowhere near the same.
It is at least encouraging that the dialog now includes spending issues. Up until the last few days it was all about tax cuts, no tax cuts, etc. Almost nothing about spending.
Wouldn’t it be great if we can get accounting practices changed so taxes are called taxes, spending is called spending, increase spending and spending cuts actually mean what they mean to you and I?
I’m voting for the conservative, who are you voting for? I’m done with enabling!
I’m voting for Republicans. I will not knowingly vote to allow a Democrat to stay in office this time.
Sad Rogue that you think so little of the country and so much of yourself that you will risk two more years of leftist rule.
As stinky as moderate Republicans are the potential of two more years of leftist majorities puts the country that we know at great danger.
Sad you can not be counted on to help stem our countries demise.
But at least you are willing to make your position clear. Unlike some others who want to pontificate but lack transparency.
Voting this fall in AZ will actually be easy. Straight Republican and then hit the propositions Will be a quick vote this year.
The Primary is exactly where you cut the RINO off at the knees and get a Conservative into the general election.
I reject your premise and if you were standing in front of me, your left cheek would receive my hand for your continued insult about my love of Country or lack thereof. For years I’ve followed your sychophantic GOP strategery to no avail, I shall not continue this cynical cycle. Of course it’s risk, this Country was founded upon risk. Apparantly your aversion to risk has coopted your principles.
“The Primary”
That is correct Aloha. Will be an ongoing process for every primary from here on. At least feels that way.
But the general isn’t the primary. Many folks, such as us here in AZ, are faced with real world voting decisions. In general the choice in the the Fall is vote for a Republican or don’t vote at all which is a vote for a Democrat.
Not so easy.
It will take many primaries to move back to a conservative base.
Its not a winner take all or I’ll stay home and hold my breath until I turn blue matter.
Thanks for McCain. We’re all grateful for the opportunity to fight the illegal alien issue another six years.
“your continued insult about my love of Country or lack thereof”
If you act in a way that at the end of the day your vote leaves the left in power than you sir do not love this country and you sir care more for your own view of yourself than what is good for the most of us.
Which cheek would you like to hit first so I can prepare myself to offer you the other after you are finished?
“the opportunity to fight the illegal alien issue”
Possible. Four years ago would have said sure thing. Not so sure this time. At best it could go either way this time for McCain and immigration. Skeptical. But he has changed his words.
But this thread is not about McCain.
“aversion to risk”
There is no risk Rog… We know exactly what the left will do if left in power for two more years. No risk to it what-so-ever.
Your cynicism shines bright. I act in the way the Founders intended. Your moral relativism has squandered many an opportunity to hold both parties to an accounting. If you would only remove the GOP’s sperm encrusted scales from your eyes to see.
“Your cynicism shines bright”
What cynicism? This is reality. Something you apparently don’t like.
Cynicism would lead me to not participating this fall.
Yes?
I’m not cynical at all. Actually quite hopeful.
My framing this is the first skirmish well worth winning as we march to and towards a long fight to restore this country to a conservative base.
How is this is cynical?
“remove the GOP’s sperm encrusted scales from your eyes to see.”
And I guess there we have it Rogue.
Again thanks for making it clear you love your own self importance more than your country. I look forward to reading your complaining posts after the election how the left, the very folks YOU allowed to stay in power, are destroying the country.
I’ll remember to make sure you remember they are in office due to your action.
Or inaction as the case may be Rogue.
I didn’t realize my little vote had so much power. You should’ve been more respectful then.
Sigh. I will say it again, for those who may have missed it. Not for you. I know you don’t and won’t get it, because that’s just not the way your brain ‘rolls.’
The voters put the left in power. The left will continue to be ‘in power’ no matter what happens in this election.
Obama controls the entire bloated Executive Branch, and he has the veto pen to wield against Congress, no matter how conservative it becomes in this election.
The only thing Congress will be able to do is for the House of Representatives to cut off funding.
They do not need the Senate to do that.
The only reason the Senate being in the hands of the Republicans after this election would be useful is if the nre, RINO controlled Senate would block Obama judicial nominations and refuse to ratify Obama treaties.
We know from the RINO votes in the past on these two things that there is no question at allthat they will confirm Obama’s judicial nominations and ratify his treaties.
So, for the next two years the only thing we will get from the RINO Senate will be propaganda for the media to beat conservatives over the head.
This is all true, but jsm isn’t interested in the truth. He is a true McCain/Rove style Republican deceiver trying his level best to con conservatives into supporting liberals.
“my little vote had so much power.”
Did you give up on what this country is founded on suddenly Rogue?
So now you won’t vote in a way to hopefully unseat the left because your vote is insignificant?
Boy you sure change your tune quickly.
See you Rogue.
The context of and the primary goal of this election is clear. As difficult and as dirty as the reality of it may make us feel.
We either act in a way to do our very best to stop Obama OR we act in a way to enable him.
Sucks. I know.
But it isn’t my fault.
In the bigger picture primaries are where we will begin to clean up the Republican Party. Leaving lefist in majorities is not the answer.
Like it or not.
So now your solution is to accuse me of this:
“He is a true McCain/Rove style Republican deceiver trying his level best to con conservatives into supporting liberals.”
You are quite mistaken sir.
But it is a well worn out m.o. of yourself and a few others.
You’ve made it clear you will act in a way to leave the left in majorities.
I have made it clear I will not.
The rest is your attempting to distract.
My position on McCain has been clear and consistent and quite prevalent on this forum. My opinion of Rove as well.
I’ll be holding my nose voting. I wised for a Miller or a Rubio to have taking McCain out.
So at least if you are going to attempt to attack my character get it right Rogue.
Just wondering Rogue when your wife is winning an argument does she decide that you’ve actually won when losing if you call her a RINO?
How do you plan on getting control of the House – wishful thinking? There aren’t enough bona fide tea party candidates to win even a significant minority of seats. If tea party members/other conservatives don’t vote for the Republican candidates, whoever they are, you won’t get control of the House. Period.
And note that I specified bona fide tea party candidates. It’s already established that the DNC is running stalking horse candidates under the “tea party” label in order to split the Republican vote and save Democrat seats. Fall for that trick and you play right into their hands.
I’m sure you will keep reminding myself and others ad nauseum that our belief in the truth and accountability is wrong for the Country, and will continue until such time when your reminders are no longer relevent. The numbers are growing. The truth will out, and you and your ilk will end up on the ash heap of history. If you don’t stand on principle and accountability now, then when?
The good news is that the past two years, the most disciplined resistance has come from the House Repubs. They were pitifully few and could not stop a simple majority, butthey held stronger than the Graham, McCain, Collins, Snowe, Brown Senate.
I don’t believe it was I who attacked your character, but nevertheless, wouldn’t one have to have such in order to be attacked thusly?
Compromise to take the House, if necessary? Uh, sure. That springs naturally from my post.
Although that has its hazards, too. It will be very difficult to get RINO’s to block funding while the lsm is screaming, “HATER!!!” at them.
True, and that’s because they’re closer to the voters, having to seek re-election every two years. But many seem to have the baby/bathwater attitude here, and if it carries into the close House races, we could still get shut out in November. And after the election, as I’ve said before, the tea party winners are still going to have to work within the Republican Party to get anything done. If they are seen by the electorate as just obstructionists without a legitimate agenda, they’re going to be gone in two years and the movement is dead. We can make a huge difference, but once again, we didn’t get here in a couple of years, and it’s going to take a long time to weed out the bulk of the “moderates” and still maintain a majority. Getting impatient with the process isn’t going to help anything. We’ve made significant gains this year. The task now is to keep a fire lit under both houses of Congress, and field even more high quality candidates in two years, not only for the House but for those Senate seats that come up. We can take control, but we can’t do it in one election.
They listen to their constituents more than the MSM. Especially after this election. If we keep a tight rein on them, they’ll perform. If they don’t, then once again, the solution is to field quality candidates against them in two years. There is NO future in taking your ball and going home, and letting the Democrats retain control – of either house. It’s true that a slim majority in the Senate will not allow conservatives to move their agenda. It IS true, however, that allowing Democrats to retain control is sending them the message that people aren’t that upset with them, and will make them even more recalcitrant than they already are. Better to evict as many as possible. We might even surprise ourselves and manage to take 12-14 Senate seats. Still not a filibuster proof majority, but significant enought to get the so-called Democrat “moderates” to start seeing the light. One thing about RINOs. They don’t usually act on principle. They act on fear and greed. If they fear losing their seats in two or four years, you’ll be surprised how conservative they can get.
Which left? The Democrat left or the McCain left? They bothe seem the same to me.
They will be seen as “just obstructionists” if they do the only thing they will be actually able to do: block funding.
You appear to suffer from the “we must reach across the aisle to get things done” disease.
The whole point of the tea party movement is to get government to stop “doing things.”
I am highly sympathetic to that argument. I will never vote for a democrat.
Democrat politicians are evil.
Agreed. A GOP House needs to send solid, well-though out, effective legislation to the Senate. If the Dems stop it there, let them pay. If it passes the Senate then let Obama veto the legislation.
I dont suffer from any such thing. I said NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT REACHING ACROSS ANY AISLES!!!!!!
They don’t have a prayer of doing that without working with the rest of the Republican Party. And if they join with the already stated goals of the Republican House leadership to defund as much as possible of the Obama agenda, they won’t be “obstructionists”, they’ll be with the majority view. I know it just kills some of you to think of working with Republicans, but it’s either that, work with Democrats, or be completely irrelevant.
Maybe to you. To me, the purpose is to GET THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP DOING THINGS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Isn’t this exactly what the RNC is doing by not supporting the “R” candidate (O’Donnell) in Conneticut? Why is it that conservatives get beaten down for not supporting RINO’s, but when the RNC refuses to support a conservative, it’s okay?
Better get out your asbestos gloves. Most RINO’s (Graham, etc.) are quite immune to the “keep their feet to the fire” thing.
Semantical comment. At the point in time that they are elected the Tea Party Candidates will be Republicans. There is no us and them from a terminology statdpoint.
There are non-Tea Party, like minded GOP reps like Paul Ryan. I’m conservative to the right of Atilla the Hun, but not a Tea Pary member. There are lots of us. If conservative members are the majority view in the GOP caucus then their agenda is the agenda that goes forward.
We’ve been off course since at least 1989. We are not going to have Nirvana any time soon. It’s going to take decades.
Exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. These “tea partiers” are running as Republicans, not independents. Their role and function is to pull the Republicans to the right, not take their ball and go home if they don’t get their way all the time.
In the first place, she’s in Delaware. In the second place, as I’ve said in earlier posts on this and/or other threads, the Republican Party better get behind her or they’ll be losing their jobs, too. My position is clear and consistent: You support the candidate of your choice in primaries, and you support the winner in the general. Period.
But that only works if the ‘moderates’ play that way, too.
If the ‘moderates’ will always try to destroy the tea party candidate who has won the nomination, as the ‘moderates’ are clearly all doing, then there is absolutely no reason at all to think those ‘moderates’ will not play exactly the same way in office, siding with the Democrats to defeat tea party Republicans.
The field of battle has changed, txvet2. We need to recognize the change and respond correctly to the traitorous defection of our left flank. Fast.
If we have to compomise with some of the traitors to take the House, then we must do what we must do, but the Senate is not critical in this election. We should use it to send a clear message to the ‘moderates’:
“If you won’t hold the left flank, if you turn on us, we will destroy you.”
We have to send the message to the group, since there is nothing more we can do to the individuals like Castle and Murkowski whom we have already defeated.
The group is all doing this. They all talk with eachother. The price must be paid.
Or we will be back to business as usual in the GOP as quick as you can say, “Karl Rove.”