Conservative activist plan to challenge MORE moderate Republicans in 2010. Why?

Who does represent traditional Republicanism these days, or has it died out?

Sounds like the Naderites in 2000

Just like the Republicans did, run their hands together in glee

That’s a really good question. But let me hold up two “O” senators: Orrin Hatch of Utah and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and ask what they share besides the (R) after their name that distinguishes them from, on the one hand, Democrats, and on the other from Rovian/Cheneyite people. Or perhaps folks like Bricker and Mr Moto may have a definition that makes sense.

My grandfather was a staunch Republican, member of the county committee and for two terms a county supervisor under New York law, and I can swear on whatever you like that if he were still alive and not senile, he would be scandalized at what the Republican Party has by and large become.

I believe you misunderstood me. I suggested the high-fives as a Dem response not to Cornyn’s statement, but the OP’s question: “Conservative activist[s] apparently see the Hoffman loss in NY 23 district as a mandate to bring more pain to the GOP…How should the Democrats handle this?”

I did. My apologies.

I seems to me and seems to be to idea is the saner republica-leaning site that tyhe GOP feels they cannot win big by trying to go left, because they’d lose to the truly left guys.
If you wanna go progressive, why choose a GOP guy? (I’m sure there ar special cases)

I agree with you that Snowe is now more similar to the Democrats than the Republicans. But Snowe dates from a time when the Republican party had somewhat different values than it does now, and she represents those values better. I’m well pleased that she can remain the face of moderate Republicans in the Senate, because it shows that the party doesn’t have to be a monolithic arm of the religious right.

Mark Kirk, moderate Republican House rep from Illinois and Senate candidate, was apparently asking Sarah Palin for an endorsement:

This strikes me as bizarre because (A) Kirk is pro-choice, voted against Constitutional amendments regarding marriage, voted for the Cap-and-Trade bill and otherwise showed the same traits that Palin railed against Scozzafava for and (B) Kirk ain’t going to win in Illinois unless it’s as a moderate so why make himself look like a member of the Palin brach of the GOP?

I suppose he’s spooked some by NY-23 and noise of a 3rd party candidate arising in IL with a “conservative” platform although, as the linked article notes, he has no real credible primary challengers and getting yourself onto the IL ballot as an independent is extremely tough. Even stranger when (in my experience) a fair number of Democrats aren’t thrilled with Alexi Giannoulias (potential, maybe probable, Democratic candidate) and could be convinced that Kirk ain’t all that bad if he’s just fiscally conservative but isn’t going to make a platform out of abortion and gay marriage.

It seems to me that if that’s the plan, you should front exclusively neo-nazis. Literal ones, that is.

Not that I want the GOP to do well, but if I were running them, I’d be desperately be trying to 1) paint the progressive as a liberal nutjob, and 2) claim the middle ground. This steals votes from your opponent, and you can hope and pray that they are enough to make up for the diehards who stay home and don’t vote at all.

No prob. :slight_smile:

Why? Because a just and loving Goddess has decreed that it shall be so. Rejoice!

Much of the US is predominantly centrist. A few areas are heavily leftist; others heavily rightist. But putting up a moderate candidate in, for example, northern Ohio or Iowa or large parts of the Upper South is the road to electoral success. For either party.

That closes in on being enough for me. What folks out of state miss about Illinois politics is three things:

  1. We don’t elect right-wing crazies.

  2. The left-wing crazies are usually screwed, too.

  3. We LIKE a Cold-War, Balance-of-Power battle between Chicago and Springfield/DC.

Kirk isn’t Palin, which is in his plus column. (ETA) I won’t vote for him, but I might not vote against him.

This will help Kirk in the primary and get him destroyed in the general. Say, what does 2nd place in a general election get you, by the way?

Miss Congeniality.

A friend of mine has had some success recently writing op/ed columns to various news/political publications, and he touches on this very subject. So I’m going to plug him, because what are friends for? (I also agree with his analysis.)

Thus explaining why Kucinich is so moderate.

Yeah, yeah, I know that you meant the parts of northern Ohio outside of Cleveland, but I couldn’t pass that one up.

Yes, but do the conservatives have a similar positive trend (lost massively… lost decisively… just barely lost…) to which to point?

The big thing is money. An endorsement/speech from Sarah Palin would flood his campaign coffers. Then in the general election he can emphasize that he has many differences with Palin to gain the moderate support.

Each side has to get the party’s base. Moderates are a large bloc and vote in large numbers, but that is all they do. The core of each party (liberals and conservatives) are the ones who give money and bang on doors and any successful candidate must appeal to them.

That would have had better chances of working if Palin’s endorsement had been unsolicited. But since he went out of his way to request her endorsement, he’s effectively put his imprimatur on her, which makes it harder for him to disown her later.