Between Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle refusing to endorse O’Donnell — a forgivable sentiment the day after a bitter defeat, less so as time goes by — and the rumor that Murkowski is running, the RINO-hunters have a point that the moderates never seem to be willing to compromise or put the party’s interest first.
The NRSC will help elect a lot of winning GOP candidates this year, but between Specter, Crist, and Murkowski, they have had an embarrassing cycle . . .
I do not begrudge the NRSC for supporting Murkowski. The NRSC consists of incumbent Republican Senators. Their mission is to elect Republicans, but really they are there to re-elect their own. So where a Republican Senator faces a challenge one should expect the NRSC to support the incumbent.
That said, I am now with the NRO editors - Murkowski should be stripped of her leadership roles, her committee chair and her seat on any and all "A-list" committees. She has declared war on the Republican Party and she should not be further rewarded for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI found it laughable the other day when I read that, of all people, Scott Brown had expressed concern that the GOP was pushing moderates out. Hello? Scott Brown is the poster child for moderates benefitting from conservative grassroots and Tea Party support. Specter, Crist and Murkowski make it pretty clear that this kind of support is a one way street.
I agree about the "day after" rule for Castle, although party loyalty and plain good manners would seem to dictate he should just keep his mouth shut during the cooling-off period, rather than lashing out at O'Donnell, Rush and Hannity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I object to is the double standard that I have to get behind the Republican candidate when it's someone like Angle or Miller (or O'Donnell), but at the same time listen to people complaining that Kirk is too moderate, or that they couldn't have supported Castle if he had won.
If the principle is that you support the Republican nominee, it's a two-way street. You can't pick and choose when you apply the principle. Otherwise you're just a different type of RINO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLoyalty is a one-way street with these folks. When the establishment squish defeats the conservative,it's Kumbayah time and we must all support the nominee of the party. When the conservative beats the squish, it's back-biting and Independent/Write-in campaigns. The sense of entitlement these folks have is astonishing.. They really seem to believe that it is an abberation and violation of democracy for them to be beat by a principled challenger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewtrach..double standard?
The conservatives support the RINO in the generals after defeat. They don't "turn" independent - THAT is a one-way street that runs left.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought Specter was a Democrat now, or at least no longer a REpublican? What is surprising about him not endorsing O'Donnel? We couldn't even get a lot of conservative pundits to support her over Obama's boy Castle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCastle was worse than your typical RINO. I'm not sure how the Buckley rule could have logically been applied to the DE primary as it only featured one conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Brown (and others) should keep in mind that the voters will decide who gets pushed out, not the GOP leaders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy point was that I'm a moderate being asked to support candidates to my right. That's fine, I can do that. I preferred other candidates to the ones who won the primaries, but I'm a team player and can get on board.
But that means you guys have to get on board with Kirk, and the other moderates who won their primaries. Like I said, it's a two-way street.
You think RINO means "too far left." But RINO should also mean "won't support the party's candidate because you put ideology before the party's success."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeraghty proffers a list of recent Republican moderates and suggests they reinforce a hack image. My initial response is to say compared to whom? Certainly Toomey and Rubio are competent improvements over the self absorbed Spector and Crist, but both conservatives are products of the GOP farm system. Does the same qualitiative improvement apply to tea-party outsiders Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnell?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm still waiting for the platform from the GOP leadership that was promised this month.
There is no cohesion; either among the candidates, or the message, and that is speaking volumes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid Mark Kirk's primary opponent refuse to endorse him or run a write-in campaign?
No? Then spare me the moral relativism.
Bottom line: You can't trust a RINO to be team player. Period. That has been the rule rather than the exception ever since the RINOs pushed John Anderson's candidacy against Reagan in 1980.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpare you the moral relativism? I'm not even sure what that means. I was saying we should unite around GOP candidates, whether to our right or to our left.
Good for Hughes for endorsing Kirk. But I was talking about people on these threads that refuse to support him. There's a challenger from the Constitution Party who's gotten a lot of support on the right-wing blogosphere.
And look, Hughes's supporters weren't too happy when he endorsed Kirk:
External Link
If you're surprised at all of this, feel free to look into the matter more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewtrach writes:
"My point was that I'm a moderate being asked to support candidates to my right. That's fine, I can do that. I preferred other candidates to the ones who won the primaries, but I'm a team player and can get on board."
********************
And while you're being a team player, you get to be reminded every day by Rush that moderates have no principles. Bully for you for carrying the water while taking the abuse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse