I agree.  One of the things that made Reagan's Presidency so effective was the Blue Dog Democrats (now almost extinct).  They were conservative democrats, and had the same goals as Reagan.

As soon as I heard Castle's stands, I threw him under the bus.  While I cannot vote in Delaware, I saw no reason for the Republicans to get a majority if he was part of it (and besides, he may have done a Jeffords/Specter number).

I especially found your comment about the "American on the street" impression to be inciteful.  While Obama is trying to say the Republicans are the reason for all the ills, most Americans are not that stupid.  They can count and see that democrats have all the power and do not need them (and indeed have treated them with contempt).

O'Donnel may not win, but she is the first candidate I have donated to.  I just wish we had some like her, Miller, Angle and Rubio in my state.

I know, but its easier to argue "congress controls the purse strings, and things were horrible under obama + dem congress, and got better under obama + rep congress". Much easier sell then "when it was obama with a republican congress that was actually liberal controlled congress because the republicans suck so bad they can't even properly represent themselves and select RINOs, which are really democrats with a republican label".

Also, for anyone who honestly believes in liberalism, it is better for the republicans to win than to elect blue dogs (heh, RINOs and DINOs)... But I honestly prefer they don't (since hardcore liberals ruin countries). I can see some need for blue dogs since blue dogs are basically libertarians, they are fiscally conservative (low taxes, etc) but socially liberal (eg: abortion, gay marriage, etc) if I understand correctly (someone correct me if I am wrong on that)

@Dr Guy, did you mean insightful (full of insight, can be found in the dictionary) or inciteful (meant to incite... aka, trolling. not in the dictionary)

I want to clarify that "man in the street" is not meant as an insult or a put down... I myself was exactly this sort of man on the street until I began investing a whole lot of time into the issue, and I still find it really damn hard to know at a glance who is a RINO and who isn't. What I really know is who is the party in power (or how the two parties share power), and that takes going out and counting Dems and Reps in the senate and house (just president isn't enough).

I don't see why Republican ideological purity (as defined by whom?) has anything to do with whether someone should get elected or not.

Of course the GOP can plan for defeat and refuse to run "RINO". But what is a RINO? Was Lincoln a RINO? Or was he the definition of a Republican? Which Republican today is most like Lincoln? And is he a RINO or a true Republican?

Look at the Tea Party, look at some of their people. Are Ron and Rand Paul really ideal Republicans? (Do Republicans accept funding from neonazis? Since when?)

To undo Obama's and the Democrats' mistakes, America needs a government somewhat more right-wing than Obama and the Democrats. But America does not need a choice between extremist conservatives and socialism.

If America really has to choose between Democrats more left-wing than Obama and true Republicans who believe in Creationism, I cannot envision a bright future for the country either way.

But if you define Republican values as they are today, the term RINO means nothing, because those valued can change again.

Lincoln was a founder of the Republican party. His philosophy should matter.

And Ron Paul does.

I was referring to the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The most vocal Tea Party candidated seem to be Creationists.

No, but if he supports nonsense to gain votes, I cannot respect the politician.

The Tea Party is whatever calls itself Tea Party and isn't rejected by the rest of the Tea Party. I have seen many complete nutters run under the Tea Party name. What started as a movement against Obama has evolved into a movement that allows everyone on the fringe to have a say. And that will cost the GOP dearly.

My point is that ALL parties and ALL people will benefit if parties stuck to their platform. You could correlate policy and result. Whether someone should be elected is not the question, the question is whether a party platform should mean anything. The liberals COULD prove us wrong if their policy is really sound, or we COULD prove them wrong with our policy is sound. By properly counting liberals and conservatives we could properly associate spending rates, tax rates, etc with different parties.

If I see an R or a D next to someone, he or she better be a conservative / liberal (respectively). As a fiscal conservative I am worried that democrats will take credit for the benefits of policy they oppose, and republicans get blamed for policies they oppose (because I believe that the conservative policy is the correct one). Anyone who believes liberal policy to be correct would be worried about the opposite (aka, democrats receiving blame for the actions of republicans, and republicans receiving credit for the actions of democrats). No matter what policy you think will work, you should be in favor of correctly and honestly assigning credit/blame.

Who says true republicans believe in creationism, show me where it is in the party platform? Be aware that creationism is not "belief in a god, a creator" (just as "progressive" is anything but and "Scientology" is not a science but a church). Creationism is a group that believes that "theory of evolution" (a name they incorrectly assign ALL science) causes atheism, that atheism is the root of all evil, and that by spreading LIES about science they could discredit evolution and preserve the faith of people. The fact that they use LIES is why their staunchest opponents are devout Christians... people who believe that such lies are wrong.

besides, a true republican believes in the constitution. The constitution specifies a separation of church and state...

What is the Tea Party? the tea party can be best defined through their platform, called "contract from america"

http://www.thecontract.org/

It is a clear and concise list... and notice that nowhere does it mention creationism. There will be all kinds of people supporting the Tea Party. I have seen some talk radio hosts say that "this is about god". I disagree, it is about freedom. The Tea Party is full of people of every color, gender, age, and religion. Actually, amusingly I attended some rallies with a group of friends and none of us was a Caucasian or Christian (most of us are atheists)... and I didn't see any rich white men amongst the speakers either.

To say that "true republicans are creationists" is like saying "true democrats are in favor of segregation, jim crowly laws, and the KKK"

Anyways, in the VERY short term (next 2 years) it will be better to have a republican victory at all cost... but a republican victory with RINOs is a pyrric victory. it will be disasterous in the long term. We could end up with 2 years of further economic failure due to a socialist majority in congress, and having it blamed on the republican party because it was the party in control. Both democrats and republicans need to clean house. Anyone who doesn't conform to the party platform is more then welcome to run as an independent.

Call it what you will but I couldn't vote for a Creationist just because Creationism is not part of the GOP platform and not necessarily supported by all Tea party candidates.

As long as the Tea Party doesn't distance itself from the Creationists and the Paulians, I cannot support them.

That may be. Yet my opinion of the Democratic party is certainly influenced by their traditional support for segregation just like my opinion of the Republican party is influenced by their current fascination with stupid Creationist candidates.

If the Tea Party find the time to distance themselves from people who primarily advocate policies that are not on that list, I won't have a problem with them any more.

Really? Even though you commented on so many of my blog postings where I wrote about the racists in the Democratic party and why therefor I wouldn't have voted for Obama?

Yes, but they have had them for a longer time. I am not just now losing them.

You remind me of the people in the old OS/2 newsgroups who attacked me because I was constantly complaining about OS/2 and never about Windows. It didn't occur to them that I complained about the shortcomings of the product I use, not the product I had already decided against earlier.

I'll happily vote for a Creationist if (s)he is against racism (in a real sense, not a politically correct sense).

But that doesn't mean that I have to abandon one of my positions.

Are the Paulians a plank of the party yet?

I have a litmus test for people I might vote for.

I am thinking that George W. Bush's views on evolution (he understands it) certainly influenced his understanding of religious fundamentalism and helped him differentiate between normal Muslims and the fundamentalists, a distinction that both those on his right and his left are often incapable of making. (The right often believes that all Muslims are terrorists and that this is a war between Christianity and Islam while the left often believes that all Muslims are by definition innocent and that everything is Israel's or the Jews' fault; also George W. Bush's for liberating Iraq.)

While many left-wingers thought (for some insane reason) that GWB was a Christian fundamentalist, I realised after one year of his being in office that he was not.

I happen to think that this is of major consequences.

I totally agree.

However, that won't convince the large number of moderates for whom Israel is not as important as a public education system that doesn't teach magic and alchemy.

Reagan got a majority of Jewish votes. But Bush was sold to the Jews as a Christian fundamentalist by the left. For some reason that worked. Many American Jews want to be "intellectuals" and try to agree with other intellectuals. If that surprises you remember that the majority intellectuals will be the ones who decide whom to kill when things go bad. It's safer to agree with them.

And I am not seeing the stable support for Israel and Iraq in the Tea Party. I do see it among "RINOs" though.

Obama should have remembered that peace is made by living together, not by seperating people.

CNN - 30 mosques in 30 days - Read it.  You will find that the above statement is just a myth created by the MSM for the very purpose you repeated it - to scare people who do not know any better.

Now that is the old Leauki - the one who looks beyond the hype to the truth.  yes, Reagan got it, and the left learned.  They learned that the only way they could win is to lie about the opposition.  And they learned well.  They do it well.  Knowing that, why are you buying ANYTHING the left says with respect to the population of the US or the right?  The truth is in your analysis above (and then taken to its logical conclusion).  The left only knows hate and lies.  And that is why your last statement is rhetorical.  Obama only knows how to separate.  he is American left.