I don't understand a word of your second sentence. Now my head hurts. Apologize.

I messed up a link and some words got eaten in the process. And now Kos isn't getting a link because of it.

Yeah, moderate Republicans do not do well in Ohio...Voinovich, Dewine, Taft (a disgrace to that noble family)......

Sorry Karol. Not buying. Besides the massive corruption which seems to be drowning the Ohio GOP, this war and this administration are getting muy muy unpopular in the heartland. I think W. needs to come out swinging big time.

Well, apparently she had linked herself to Taft in her ads and speeches. Taft is not popular. You do the math.

Oh and according to NR (I don't live in Ohio so I can't confirm), Hackett ran ads that that had Bush in a favorable light.

I'll have to take a look at NR (shudder) cause I thought Hackett was a Kos head. I'll take a look.

Hackett was a Kos pick. Hackett's ads did juxtapose him with Bush in a seemingly favorable light, but he later went on record calling Bush a son of a bitch or something.

Karol, you seem to be in a RINO-beating mood for some reason. I can't imagine why. At any rate, I don't know anything about the Ohio election, but it's conceivable that Schmidt raised taxes (or wanted to) at some point as part of a fiscally RESPONSIBLE tactic. The Republicans seem to have forgotten that responsibility part, what with them spending like drunken sailors and all. Cutting taxes is fine. It's great. But if you're spending keeps going up, you're going to find yourself in a position where you might have to reinstate some taxes to pay the damn bills. Might be unpopular but, as you well know, leading calls for unpopular choices.

Well, not RINO beating but certainly RINO informing. I'll be the first to say that RINOs are an important part of the Republican coalition but they can't win on a national level and struggle in places outside the northeast.

I'm with you on the spending. Out of control. I comfort myself with the 'Democrats are always worse' (which, they are) but if that's ever not the case, I can see myself voting third party or even, as a distant possibility, Democrat.

Assuming the so-called RINOs are nominated by the Republican party (which I agree is the biggest impediment for them in a national election), I'm not sure I see the argument why they can't win on the national level (unless you're really just saying they can't win because they can't get nominated).

In an open election, don't the RINOs appeal more to the moderate folk who make up a large portion of the population? In this particular Ohio case, Schmidt may have "barely" won; but Schmidt nonetheless still won. (And isn't a good sign for the Republican party that its candidates can win even without support from the party's base?)

The Republican base certainly helped drive turnout for Bush in the last election (and who knows if even that turnout would have been sufficient had the Democrats nominated a more viable candidate); but can we assume that, if a RINO were nominated, that the base wouldn't come out to vote for the RINO candidate if it meant that Clinton v. 2.0 would almost certainly end up winning a national election? (Assuming, of course, that the liberal base would vote for Clinton v. 2.0.)

Personal anecdote time (because, really, what would a blog comment on a theoretical issue be without a personal anecdote to get in the way of the discussion): my father is conservative, he's very religious, he hates taxes, he hates Clinton (v. 1.0 at least); but he does not understand why the Republican party continues to look to its base for the nomination of national candidates when doing so leaves the country vulnerable to 2 terms of the likes of Clinton. There's a similar argument that could be made for certain members of the liberal base turning on Gore and costing him a national election when they voted for Nader - really folks (not reading this site), you're saying that Gore was worse than Kerry?

Choosing a candidate has to (should?) be about more than simply winning an election, but why shouldn't the bases of each party have to compromise in the way that the moderate masses now have to compromise when making a choice between two candidates representative of each party's supposed bases?

"part of a fiscally RESPONSIBLE tactic"

There's nothing fiscally responsible about what's going on in Ohio. They've raised taxes to cover high spending. Basically, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans here in Ohio is that Republicans can actually win elections, at least for the time-being. They act no different once in office.

And a RINO who supports high taxes is a bit different than a RINO who is pro-choice, or supports gay marriage. Simply put, low taxes are one of the primary reasons people vote for Republicans. Having a Republican raise taxes, in most cases, is like taking a girl on a date and then finding out she's a man after you've already paid.