There is a reason we want a “big tent” and its called winning. There is a party that holds to its idealogical purity and its called the libertarian party. Reagan brought in independants and even “Reagan Democrats” to his effort because he was a great communicator. We need to be reaching out to independants and wayward democrats, not to give up our principles, but to explain to them why our princples are also their principles.

As to “Beck attempts to appeal to the public as a likable ordinary guy. This style will lead to a doomsday for Republicans and will squander an opportunity because it fights against the President’s primary strength, likability.” WOW So if Beck is seen as likable, and Gallup sees the President as likable, that’s it for the Republicans. What would you suggest Beck do, to come off every day as a crank so he doesn’t threaten or compete with Obama’s greatest strength? And, that’s a strength you have claimed for Obama, Rassmussen doesn’t agree, and, even many Democrats do not agree with. He has accelerated his reputation into being a whining, petulant, detached, unqualified child. Those are not “likable” traits in anyone’s eyes, even with some of his most ardent supporters. Your entire statement is nonsense, and missing any rationality.

I’ve had some distaste for some of what Beck has said or done in the past, but, his positive contributions far outweigh any negatives. The information he brings forward, particularly with his TV show (5 PM is not prime time, many are traveling home from work at that hour), has woken many up from their slumber. Who else has had the guts to talk about, with proof provided, the many people, and the actions that the Obama administration has been up to? Not any other person has talked in such detail about Van Jones, Mao, Che, Soros, Anita Dunn, Podesta, Andy Stern, Center for American Progress, the Tides Foundation, Media Matters, the Color of Change, ACORN and many others? He has been more informative than anyone else I know. Rush and Levin are in a different category, and, have much different programming formats.

As I said, I don’t know anything about Scarborough, but, I will take the above commentors word for it that he is a moderate RINO. If that is the political road you have choosen to follow, I think you will find yourself in the small minority where Scarborough seems to be.

He’s moderate in his tone and he debates with liberals a lot. But is there any vote or policy position you have not been side/by/side with him on? He is against “stimulus”, HC, KSM on trial in NYC and believes PC crap was partially responsible for Ft Hood. He is for military tribunals, primary elections in NY23, GITMO, gun rights, lower taxes, smaller governemnt, and Obama making a decision on Afghan. That sounds conservative to me.

I’m not sure what is squishy about that. Is he a big supporter of any issue that redstate-ers would disagree with. My personal opinion is that Scarborough’s tone is more like McDonnell, Christie, and Hoffman’s. But, his on 25 hours a week so slip-ups are bound to happen. I’ll be the first to say, I’m not sure what was up with the Howard Dean line but I view it like Rush does. If you’re on the air for many hours every week, you say some things sometimes and it is best to take things iin their entirety.

I’m not conservative bashing at all. I’m stating that there is a difference between prominent voices like Beck/Rush and pundits like Joe. They are both conservative but that doesn’t mean they have to agree 100% of the time. They are probably closer to 80-90%

“The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor.” – Ronald Reagan

If you look at our success in 2009, McDonnell, Christie, and Hoffman all stuck to the issues and ran positive campaigns. To quote Rush, “conservatism sells itself, it’s obvious.” McDonnell stuck to the issues, stayed positive and embarassed Deeds. Christie laughed off the fat jokes, told Corzine to “man up and call me fat” and he won by a safe margin. These guys stuck to the issues and won. They didn’t get into talking about the other person’s motives and all of that. (I assume Hoffman would’ve won easily if there had been a primary instead of Scuzzy.)

If our movement is going to succeed, we shouldn’t mix up the roles of prominent personalities and pundit/politicians. Both sides should avoid tearing each other down. Both have done it and it doesn’t help conservatism. We need 41 seats in the House and 11 in the Senate. That means we really can’t afford to lose any votes. If that means a moderate Republican is the 41st or 11th vote, so be it. That’s a 100x better than not having the ability to control the agenda.

Joe was my Representative in FL1 back in the mid-90′s, and I didn’t have a problem with him. Unfortunately, he trends towards the squishy moderate line too often anymore, and I find myself less and less surprised at his comments–like that stupid Howard Dean line today.

We aren’t trying to put a Mississippi Conservative in Maine, nor a Maine conservative in Mississippi. That is apples and oranges.

Try not to waste too much energy worrying about whether we can overcome Obama’s “personal” popularity. 10 months into his administration is showing he is taking care of that all by himself. At the end of the day, meaning elections 2010, his policies will far outweigh any residual likability he has.