"The notion that only the most “conservative” candidate should represent the party regardless of his or her chances of winning is under attack by GOP Whales who ultimately foot the bill for these forays into self-defeating, myopic fantasy land."

With the supporting argument being the examples of a Governor of Massachusetts who instituted Socailized Medicine, and the Liberal´s favorite "Maverick," who was unwilling to call Obama out on, well, being Barrack Obama?

Demented.

The logic here

It´s very simple. Why should I invest my money to support a candidate who ultimately is going to vote against my interests (something my RINO Congresscreep keeps doing). Cap and trade, increase the federal debt, increasing taxes, not cutting government spending all things my Republican Congressman votes FOR. Now, they are making noise about rewarding people who have broken our laws.

Yet if I´m law abiding, I have fewer and fewer rights.

This isn´t about getting along in a big tent. The problem the Repubs have is that a big, empty tent is no better than a smaller tent.

If you aren´t going to vote for my interests while representing me, then why am I going to continue to support you and whatever it is that you stand for?

So how are they going to win without the tea partiers. Well you see, they are going to nominate such attractive candidates that the rank and file Democrats are going to cross over in huge numbers. Certainly, Democrat Lite will beat Democrat Real.

To the earlier posters: that is the fallacy in some conservatives´ thinking. They have the idea that all tea party supporters have exactly the same goals. We don´t. I´m as proud a member of the original tea party movement as you are. But, obviously we have different objectives. #2 laments that he won´t vote for a candidate who won´t support his own interests. What if your choice won´t support my interest? Sometimes we have to vote for the ones who weren´t our first choice, but are still preferable to anyone with a D behind the name.

FTA " Is there anything wrong with marginalizing Tea Party people who believe that Obama is a Muslim or that he’s out to “destroy America”?"

I don´t know about the Muslim part, but it´s ok to marginalize me because I think Obama is out to destroy America? He IS destroying America. But if the beltway establishment types don´t want my vote, alrighty then.

Just. What are your interests when they conflict with those of conservatives #4?

Last post: #6, if you believe every single conservative has exactly the same priority, you are in for a lot of disappointment.

Evidence is to the contrary.
Ronald Reagan was the most conservative President in recent history.
Newt Gingrich was the most conservative Speaker in recent history.
We are better off as a country as a result of the work of these two people and we´re still looking for the next most conservative candidate.

Is there anything wrong with marginalizing Tea Party people who believe that Obama is a Muslim or that he’s out to “destroy America”?

Mr. Moran has lost my respect. This is not the TEA Party. Never was.

Let´s all act like Saul Alynski, shall we.

I vote for politicians who say they will go to Washington to fix things. If I see that they do not fulfill that obligation (yes, a promise to voters is an obligation, for those with honor) I will vote for someone else next time. Differing interests does not mean paralysis.

Country club republicans---- always willing to idolize the Bushes and big government as long as get to sit in the front seat. Talk of the big tent is always interesting from those who deny the existence or effectiveness or common themes of the 2010 movement. As long as they control the guest list, life is good.

The denigrate Sarah Palin or any other non beltway Republican who shows independent thought, yet they cannot explain her popularity or the fact that she has delivered more senate seats then Rove ever has. In fact, one more if you count her effort to extract Rove supported liberal republican Murkowski from the Senate.

Willing to go to all lengths to smear those who had a clear understanding of the past GOP failures and willingness to seek out Tpartiers - Bachman, Gringrich, Cain, these severe conservatives, in this salon and elsewhere saw a liberal republican as the agent of change. Realists? They are the flat earthers of the GOP.

Power vs principle.
ABB2016

You really have to find candidates and campaigns that can win. If no one is ready to take on the State Senator, Congressman or State Representative yet, elect below them and "build a bench". Right now we have a lineup behind the State Senator and Congressman. We have three reliable State Representatives well placed geographically for the next level. We are trying to expand our area of influence to become more effective but picking our targets wisely. We don´t believe in symbolic votes that destroy credibility. We are playing a ten year game. We have started year three. There is a Constitutional challenge to re-districting which has slowed us down in our direction of expansion.

Semper Fi

Moran is advocating a squish strategy of the kind that kept the Republicans in the congressional minority for 40 years. The GOP will never succeed by being the tax collectors for the welfare state.

The GOP succeeds whenever it offers a clear alternative nationally, which has been rare enough in recent decades.

It´s fine to say that some of the Tea Party-endorsed candidates in 2010 like Angle and O´Donnell were less than optimal. I agree. So, establishment, why don´t you work with us to help identify and groom motivated conservatives to be better candidates?

Trying to go back to the days of Bob Michel and the "me too" Republicans is a sure recipe for failure. We´ve already got one liberal party--we don´t need another one.

Does anyone happen to know -

Who is responsible for getting more conservatives elected to office - Senate, Congress or state legislatures?

Would it be Karl Rove, or Sarah Palin?

I am a conservative. I USED to be a republican. I HATE RINOs. Understand?