George Will's column from a few days ago about how Republicans should be looking at the upcoming elections is, in my eye, very, very good.

 

Republicans can stop Obama, one way or another - The Washington Post

Makes some interesting points that I hadn't really considered.

Is the simplistic take "four more years of extreme partisanship?"

That's a given and would be true no matter who's in the white house or who's in congress.

That's a given and would be true no matter who's in the white house or who's in congress.

 

So besides the "Don't elect a R just to elect an R President" is there any other good advice? If we agree that extreme partisanship is going to exist no matter what then that's all I got out of it albeit sound logic.

So besides the "Don't elect a R just to elect an R President" is there any other good advice? If we agree that extreme partisanship is going to exist no matter what then that's all I got out of it albeit sound logic.

 

Conservative goal number one: advance conservative agenda. Don't say the goal should be "what's best for America," because conservatism is what we believe is best for America.

 

Conservative goal number two if goal number one is not possible: don't allow advancement of the liberal agenda. If you want to call this extreme partisanship, so be it. I agree it's a fine line to walk.

 

Will is saying that we, as conservatives, must do what's best in the long run for the conservative movement. In this case, it may be to focus on a more winnable Senate majority than to spend all resources on a loosing race for the White House. Win either one, and we're able to stop the progressive march. Loose the White House & not gain majority in the Senate, we're still in trouble.

Conservative goal number one: advance conservative agenda. Don't say the goal should be "what's best for America," because conservatism is what we believe is best for America.

 

Conservative goal number two if goal number one is not possible: don't allow advancement of the liberal agenda. If you want to call this extreme partisanship, so be it. I agree it's a fine line to walk.

 

Will is saying that we, as conservatives, must do what's best in the long run for the conservative movement. In this case, it may be to focus on a more winnable Senate majority than to spend all resources on a loosing race for the White House. Win either one, and we're able to stop the progressive march. Loose the White House & not gain majority in the Senate, we're still in trouble.

 

I don't care what you call it. It's nothing new. However, the goal of winning control is to what? Stop the other side. This is new? Creative?

So besides the "Don't elect a R just to elect an R President" is there any other good advice? If we agree that extreme partisanship is going to exist no matter what then that's all I got out of it albeit sound logic.

 

Not sure what you're saying. He shows how to stop or neutralize someone he thinks will harm the country if his policies continue to be followed. Nothing new here. It's what both party leaders strive for every day of the year. The only fight is about where the Demarcation line gets drawn.

Not sure what you're saying. He shows how to stop or neutralize someone he thinks will harm the country if his policies continue to be followed. Nothing new here. It's what both party leaders strive for every day of the year. The only fight is about where the Demarcation line gets drawn.

 

OK. So I did follow along.

 

So what points caught your attention?

OK. So I did follow along.

 

So what points caught your attention?

 

So obviously this piece didn't capture your attention as a liberal, but it holds a strong message for conservatives, namely one of not letting your disgust with Obama take your eye pff the big picture. I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction to Obama has often been to get the most conservative republican possible into the White House to counteract all the garbage he's done, but that may not be what's best long term for the conservative cause.

So obviously this piece didn't capture your attention as a liberal, but it holds a strong message for conservatives, namely one of not letting your disgust with Obama take your eye pff the big picture. I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction to Obama has often been to get the most conservative republican possible into the White House to counteract all the garbage he's done, but that may not be what's best long term for the conservative cause.

 

I stopped reading after you started throwing out labels.

 

I look forward to 75's response.

OK. So I did follow along.

 

So what points caught your attention?

 

Since Bronc took this post as some sort of partisan attack I guess I should clarify.

 

75 and I seem to agree that the part about slowing down/stopping "the other side" isn't news as it's an age-old plan. He mentioned in a previous post that there were some interesting points. I'm asking what points he found interesting. That can lead to intelligent discussion sans labels. I think Mr Will's point about not electing just anyone with an R is appropriate in any election so , again, no attacks from my side.

OK. So I did follow along.

 

So what points caught your attention?

 

I just had not thought about controlling congress as I've been following the presidential primaries. I think most people who are not political operatives probably have the same focus. If people continue to focus only on beating Obama they may miss the chance to gain the Senate. They will hold the House so gaining the senate and thus controlling the committees would put them in a much stronger position to shape policy. Obama is not going to be beat if the economy improves so they need to make sure they don't lose other opportunities to be relevant.

I don't care what you call it. It's nothing new. However, the goal of winning control is to what? Stop the other side. This is new? Creative?

If you believe the other side is wrong, they should be stopped. Still waiting for the that book to be written about the "Great Moderates of American History".

If you believe the other side is wrong, they should be stopped. Still waiting for the that book to be written about the "Great Moderates of American History".

 

I agree that the thinking is just that. I think we all do.