Redstate

I want Democrats to get the blame for bad policies, and I want the public to not be confused and to have a clear choice between a conservative party and a liberal party.
And I am unmoved by that bogyman of "We just can't let the dems have control again!". You will not be able to stop it, eventually they will gain control of at least one house of congress or the presidency. All politics in America is cyclical.
Whenever you have a conservative Republican party who doesn't have to genefluct to liberals in the party you will have a much much stronger party with a real chance to win big majorities.
It is precisely because of the similarities of the two parties now that Republicans are in trouble.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You put too much emphasis on the technical cycle. There is no cycle. There are changing events, and one party or another takes advantage of that, while the other side becomes complacent or disinterested -- like you are now.

It isn't that the Dhimmicrats can never be allowed control again, it is that they should not be allowed control now.

And as you say:

Whenever you have a conservative Republican party who doesn't have to genefluct to liberals in the party you will have a much much stronger party with a real chance to win big majorities.

Vote Laffey to achieve this.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

What is the future of the GOP in New England? If you believe the future of the GOP is a country-club, trust-fund-welfare maroon who is in the US Senate only because his father (a good man, a very good man, by the way) passed-away and opened the door for him, then good for you. You'd best start scouring the country clubs of New England for young lightweights who bleed blue.

On the other hand, if you think the future of the GOP in midnight-blue New England is a take-charge, executive-type reformer who has demonstrated he can win, and win with margin, in overwhelmingly Democrat territory - and then actually govern effectively once in office - then we need to support them when we have the opportunity. Steve Laffey is just such a candidate.

And has it occured to you that perhaps part of the reason Steve Laffey cannot win in November might have to do with the Republican $$ being poured into the state by the NRSC to tear him down? Eh?

Long and short, a Laffey win in the primary is a step forward in the rebuilding of the GOP in New England - regardless of what happens in November - just like 1964 was a necessary step on the road to 1980.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

If Republicans would march right instead of to the left we would win in the long run. But when we try to pander to the left we will always loose in the long run
We count Laffy out before he even gets a chance to fight. Lets let this guy have a chance to fight. There is a reason they count the ballots and not just assume who has won. There is a reason they play the game.
"Peace had a chance"

when I have the choice between a real democrat and fake one, I choose the real one.

I hope Laffey mops the floor with Chaffee.

I don't see where our caucus is stronger for including a man who would not vote for his own party's presidential nominee. In the words of the prophet, screw him.

That you could not have put it any better!

"Peace had a chance"

That answer was unbelievably stupid. And I love the preface of "emotional issue": it indicates his attitude toward the voters as a mass of children to be deeply wary of and avoid provoking.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Even when we're dealing with people like David Duke or James L. Hart?

Note that I am stating outright that neither Chaffee nor Laffey are anywhere near that level (for the record, I'm reluctantly endorsing the former, mostly because right now the Senate is reaaallly dicey): but the NRSC and the NRCC have as much right as we do to influence the primaries.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I realise you said 'people like' but it is worth remembering that David Duke never contested a Republican primary.

In Louisiana party descriptions are just what you call yourself. There is no sense of Republicans choosing Republican candidates. The top two go through to the final ballot. Duke's gubernatorial election involved three people who had all previously been elected to office as Democrats. The serving governor (Buddy Roemer) had defected during his term of office; Duke had previously contested elections using all sorts of label, including Republican, Democrat and independent. He only ever won when running as a Democrat. Edwin Edwards was the only Democrat running as a Democrat.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Which is why I went and found Hart as a second example; besides, the point remains correct, methinks.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Point entirely valid. Just like to make it clear, when Duke's name is mentioned, that he was an elected official under the Democrat banner, but never as a Republican.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

It's pretty hard to run in a Republican primary when you're running in a state (Louisiana) that doesn't do partisan primaries.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Any idiot can run for the Republican nomination in some states, and any idiot can run as a Republican in the first round of the Louisiana elections.

So what's the difference?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

can close a party primary if they want; the USSC so held in a CA case a few years back. We had that fight here in AK in the Ninetie when our SC opened the primary and enabled Tony Knowles otherwise unlikely re-election by allowing the NPs and Ds to dominate the R primary. I can't remember the cite, but once it came down, the primary here was semi-closed again. I say semi-closed since the Party bowed to political pressure and continues to allow NPs, but at least the Ds can't run an organized crossover.

In Vino Veritas

1) The national party is lousy at selecting preferred local candidates (see Toomey vs Specter). The belief that because the national party has experts who are better at determining who can win an election is one of those fallacies of the intelligensia. Even if the national party is right about the general election, they look bad to the locals when they stick their fingers in where they don't belong (see Katherine Harris, who will be the Republican nominee despite RS and NRSC efforts).

2) Governments and parties aren't supposed to elect peoples, people are supposed to elect their representatives. Therefore having the national party select a local candidate interferes with their ability to read the will of people. Even if it leads to a David Duke, that is the will of the people at that level. If that will is wrong, it will take more serious retooling of the local organization than simply replacing the top of the ticket.

Yes, Moe, we know right now you are worried about the Democrats impeding the WoT by taking control of the House and/or the Senate. I understand your short term concern. Here's my long term concern: The Reps manage to hold on to both but muck up the rest so bad that in 08 the Dems win all three and outright surrender to the Islamofascists. We know they will, because they've told us they intend to. Yeah, they dress it up with pretty phrases like "redeploying over the horizon" and "strengthening our home defenses" (right, just what we need, a Maginot line around the country), but in the end, they fully intend to surrender, just like they forced Nixon to do in Vietnam, just like they forced Reagan to in Lebanon, and just like they did in Sudaan and Darfur. Am I willing to go through a tough, uncomfortable, but ultimately continuing 2 years in the WoT to get a better Republican government in 08? You betcha! And as soon as the clueless in the NRSC, NRC, NRRC, and all the other NRxx acronymns get that message, the sooner we can get on with winning the WoT.

Not on the overall goal, of course - the continued thriving of this country - but in our assessment on the worst threats to that goal, and the tactics with thich to combat them. One place of difference seems to be on how much right a local group has to use the name and draw of the national one, even when the candidate from the former is odious to the latter. The people may express their will all they like, but their right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins - and I may object to their ill-use of our shared good name.

And - forgive me for saying this - I'd be a lot more impressed with your desire to exclude all those acronym groups from the primary process if you had included the CFG or RSC in the list. Either they all stay out or they all get to play.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Exactly. Sometimes the best way to say something is with a bit of punctuated silence.

Oh wait a second, we didn't elect him. Regardless, he shouldn't give UBL a pardon. Oh wait a second, he didn't say that either.

We have SF forces all over the Pak/Afg border. Do you think it is concievable that Musharaff might want the US responsible for a major strike in this area instead of Pak forces?

I will start worrying about this non-story when Bush gives UBL a pardon or when ABC rubs credible non-biased story.

______________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Blue Crabs are nice, but everyone knows they are best when they are bright RED!

What are you saying? That we should invade Pakistan?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

will say he is referencing Michael Moore.

Remember, that's how his movie started.

This is nice just the way it is.

Sometimes simple is better.