Shouldn't this read, "Thank you CONSERVATIVES for completely screwing our chances in 2010?"
Putting up conservative challenges to Murkowski and Ayotte were fair game moves. O'Donnell was just mental retardation in electoral form.
I blame Republicans as a whole. Moderates didn't turn out, and more conservatives/Republicans in general need to realize that you can't ALWAYS vote on principle. Sometimes you need to vote on winability.
Actually if you are voting on principle and want to do whats best to advance your principles then the best candidate for a conservative voter would have been Mike Castle.
The reason O'Donnell won is because voters aren't politcally smart. They don't check the polls of the generall election or the partisanship of the state. Had they seen how unpopular O'Donnell is and how crazy she is, Castle would have won.
Any conservative who makes the arguement that a liberal Democrat is better then a Liberal Republican in blue state needs to explain to me how, beyond delusions about the general election results, voting for the most conservative and unelectable candidate, advances your principles? A vote for O'Donnell is simply a vote for Chris Coons. By choosing Chris Coons you have done a disservice to the men of principle who you have seen to victory in Alaska, Utah, and Kentucky. They will get to DC and be one of 45 or 48 Republicans. Harry Reid or Chucky Schumer will control the adjenda, the debate, and the direction of the Senate. Those people, Miller, Paul etc are reduced in capability and effectiveness. Choosing a liberal Republican over a Conservative Republican based on electability in a 25% Obama state, is not a surrender of your values. Choosing a guarrenteed loser and essentially voting for the liberal Democrat in doing so, surrenders your principles.
