Redstate

Porter is very conservative considering his district is one of the most closely divided in the nation.

He's a good guy, and he'll be Senator-elect in '10 should he survive this.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

There's not a senator I would like to see defeated more than Harry Reid I don't think.

You're right, too. If Porter survives and runs in 2010, I bet he can the mortician down.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

That's fairly well known. He may even run if he loses.

Dingy Harry might not even run again. His approval ratings are pathetic, lower then Bush's, who he once mocked for his low approval ratings.

Not to mention, Reid has never been popular. He won relatively close elections in '86 & '92, he BARELY won by 428 votes in '98 (against now Sen. Ensign, who won the other seat), and won only 60% of the vote in '04 when for all practical purposes he didn't have an opponent.

One way or another, Harry is eight going to retire in '10 or have to run the single toughest race of his life. And that's toughest for a guy who's had a 428 vote victory.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

I agree that Porter is probably the most conservative of the RINO's I listed, and maybe not even a RINO but a 68.5 conservative rating gets pretty close. Thats Don Young area scores.

I don't think he will be beat after surviving 06. And being a Congressman for 6 years with 3 wins should make him safe.

My take on that is when the RINO votes with the Democrats as they always do it gives the appearance of bi-partisanship when really they are just a Democrat calling themselves a Republican...Chafee is the biggest one that comes to mind...my preference is to just call them what they are and stop the game playing with the R and D.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

In order to govern well, you must first govern. You have to get that fifty percent plus one and without it, nothing else matters. All this purity is fine for dilletents and bloggers, but if you actually have your name on the door and actually have to do something, purity comes at a very high price. You can either sit here and rail impotently seeking purity or you can find somebody who'll vote with you most of the time and actually run a government.

In Vino Veritas

Because a RINO can still advance the conservative agenda. The term RINO is misused. It takes guts to be a Republican in Blue areas. Some so called RINOS help advance the coneservative dialogue and push the agenda Right. They also support key conservative initiatives that are not "front page" items that get the voters attention. I have tremendous respect for guys like John Sunnunu. A real RINO is someone who votes more moderate or liberal than their district. People like Sunnunu, Romney and Carcieri did yeomans work, while other Republicans with hire ACU ratings did little to advance the conservative cause even though they did not have constituencies to appease or liberal legislatures to compromise.

and again when they vote with Pelosi and company it gives the MSM ammunition to call the vote bi-partisan...those RINOI's vote every bit as much with the D's as they do with R's and do the BlueDogs or Reagan D's if you like....I am no purist I am just pointing out the facts.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Both parties are made of coalitions. If Republicans are content being an super minority for the next fifty years then so bit. You are not going to get hardcore conservatives on all the issues in place like PA, NH, ME, MI, MN, and WI and so and so forth. And Bluedogs and Reagan Democrats tend to be more conservative on social issues and more liberal on economic issues. In the Northeast, theses swing voters tend be be more conservative on fiscal issues and more liberal on soical issues. It a delicate balance, but to build a strong party we must build and respect tenuous coalitoins. The devil is in the deatails. Look at their records as compared to their constituents. Fopr example, of course Republicans in Iowa are going to be liberal with respect to farming and ethanol largesse. You can't just look at an ACU rating. That is bogus. We are lucky to have John Sunnunu. He's more of a stalwart given his state than many Southern and Western Senators inlcuding one that is running for a certain higher office.

We built a so called strong and tenous coalition in the 90's and kept it up until 2006. And what was the result of having to appease liberal Republicans in our coalition. Losing votes on ANWAR which would have brought gas prices down by now, pork barrel spending to keep these moderates electable in their districts, no message because the party is so diluted, and election loses by people like Lincoln Chafee, if we took the money that the NRCC spent on him and spread it out in Missouri and Montana we would have 2 more conservative Senators, still one less liberal one, and a majority.

you can't effect the change. A slightly conservative representative in a flamingly liberal district is a God send. Here in Maine's 1st District we are guaranteed to lose Tom Allen (D-ME) only because he's running against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Sen. Collins re-election isn't a slam dunk!! She won re-election by only 17% against a relatively unknown opponent. Rep. Allen has been in the public eye for a few years and has his record (ACU lifetime rating of 3.39). The 1st District is a very liberal area, it's going to be a tough fight!

The candidates for Tom Allen's seat are 6 Democrats who range from extreme left wing to flaming extreme liberal left wing and two Republicans. The choice of Republicans come down to a "moderate" Republican, who was an aide Sen. Olympia Snowe, or a "Reagan Repubican". Either of the Republicans would be a giant step up from Tom Allen but Chellie Pingree probably has the edge in this heavily Democratic area.

All prayers will be greatly appreciated!

Would you rather have someone who votes on your side 50% of the side as opposed to someone who votes on your side 0% of the time?

ditch the guy that votes with us 50 percent of the time for a 0 percent representative and then go take the money, effort, and organization and make up that 50 percent by ousting a guy in Kansas who votes with us 23 percent of the time in a district that voted for President Bush by 10 points

Giving up on every moderate district would leave you with 75% Democrat control. It doesn't matter if that 25% is the most conservative group of guys you can find, they won't be able to get anything done.

to give up on every moderate. But giving up on moderates in moderate to lean Kerry districts who are more liberal than moderate might be a good start. Further these mod-libs in mod-lib districts are usually close suburbs of big cities. And since incumbent protection is at the heart of every election strategy you are going to spend big bucks in big media markets every two years for a liberal. If you pivoted and targeted cheaper more friendly districts your money would go farther and you'd get more conservatives. Plus we don't even own that many moderate districts and if we had a congressman in every district Bush won we could abandon the moderate districts and still have a majority.

My take on that is when the RINO votes with the Democrats as they always do it gives the appearance of bi-partisanship when really they are just a Democrat calling themselves a Republican.

Do you actually believe it is this simple?

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

If the President can come within 6 poinst of Kerry in this district in 2004 I think a conservative leaning local can win congressional elections there. Kirk is not conservative at all. Neighboring Democrat Melissa Bean in a similar district had a better club for growth score then him and almost identical ACU scores. Kirk voted for higher gas mileage mandates, not drilling in Anwar, not limiting interstate abortion, not banning same sex marriage, and yes on Embryonic stem cells. We just end up spending tons of money every 2 years to keep this guy's seat and we will continue to with little return on our investment. How about taking the money we spend on him and invest it in deep red district in the South that we don't have. If we win we won't have to spend millions to keep it and we might actually get a congressman that is on the same side as us.

There is no chance a conservative wins that district right now. There hasn't been a conservative representative there in history. With the district leaning left (Kerry won by 6 points as you mentioned) and Illinois completely shifting blue, I just think a moderate is as good as you're going to get.

You may not like Kirk's stance on his issues (I don't like many of them), but those issues are actually important to the district. The people there care about environmental issues due to the proximity to Lake Michigan, rivers, and important harbors. His stance on stem cells is linked to the fact he has Northwestern University in his district as well as two of the larger pharmaceutical/heath care companies in the country.

If you can find a candidate that can get elected in that district while voting against environmental issues and the two biggest employers in the district, good luck.

As for spending money elsewhere, it might be a good idea. I don't really know how much has been put forth toward Kirk. I know he does a pretty good job on his own raising money.

Dave Reichert is a VERY good man who I really admire, and Darcy Burner would be a joke if she were running for City Council, let alone Congress. To be honest, I'd have trouble voting for her if Reichert were a clone of Jim McDermott she was a conservative, her resume such a joke.

(For those that don't know, this is Burner's resume: I graduated with my BA at 27, worked at Microsoft for 5 years, quit Microsoft and went to law school for a year, dropped out of law school and ran for Congress and lost. I waited around for a year and started to run for Congress again. That's it. That's her entire resume. Hasn't been elected to so much as school board, hasn't been appointed to anything, has 0 high-level business experience, she hadn't even managed a day camp for YMCA kids. Nothing. She's the perfect Netroots candidate, and of course they love her.)

Reichert's only problem is he's just not good at modern campaigns. He can connect one-on-one, but not nearly as well on a large scale. He also doesn't like to raise money much, so it's a double wammy.

What saves him is that his resume is untouchable and he's got a reputation for decency and honesty. He also has taken to voting a bit too strategically for my taste, something that wouldn't be necessary if he were a better campaigner, but it is what it is. He's a good man and he must survive if for no other reason then to keep an idiot like Burner out of Congress.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain