The problem is that the local GOP leadership is also corrupt. Here in NY 11 we have a crooked RINO named Michael Grimm who is under Federal indictment still running. A third of REPUBLICANS detest him.

I go to Dan Sullivan's website (he's the Chamber of Commerce's candidate running for Senate in Alaska). I see not word one about the most serious issues of today: Obama's lawlessness, his abuse of power via the IRS and EPA, and the border chaos. Why would I vote for this man? Because he's better than the Democrat? Unless I see a change on these issues, and am convinced he means it, I will do what the Alaska Republican Party urged me to do in 2010, when they knee-capped the conservative. I'm writing in Lisa Morcowski. Did I spell it right?

On the other hand, if all those Republicans who stayed home in 2012 had voted for Romney he'd be president today. Not a dime's worth of difference? Hardly! Nobody's Simon Pure. And ANY Republican would be better than ANY Democrat. Okay, it's time to write off the GOP's Senate chances in Oregon, Virginia, and North Carolina. But Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire are DOABLE. And the Republican candidates are way ahead in Louisiana and Colorado, not to mention Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In Louisiana the GOP candidate is now talking about nothing BUT amnesty. It's not all over yet, not by a long shot.

You don't get it. I don't give a hoot about handing the gavel over to Mitch McConnell, the guy who says he wants to "crush" me. I don't care if Begich wins by one vote. Sullivan isn't getting mine if he won't even mention, let alone do anything about the lawlessness engulfing our nation. (BTW, I traveled 8,000 miles and spent 2 weeks handing out copies of the 2016 movie in Philly to convince people to vote for Romney).

If the GOP Loses the Senate—Blame the Establishment

Way ahead of you, Laura! I've been under the assumption that they're going to lose for a long time now. They're giving us NO reasons to vote for them, and some HUGE reasons to vote against them (a.k.a. amnesty). They've openly declared war against their own voters, and the presumptive Senate Leader has said he'd like to punch me in the face.

Obama is, of course, an absolute disaster. But the GOP isn't showing any signs that they will oppose him. How can they possibly win?

Once again, the Republican establishment is proving itself to be the "party of stupid." It was 20 years ago when the party last pitched an easy to understand, positive agenda for the country, all thanks to Newt Gingrich. Two of three Americans can't name the three branches of our federal government. Reality: we are dealing with an increasingly ignorant voter with little or no knowledge of the issues. Answer: a simple, pro-growth agenda pounded daily by every Republican candidate for office. Guess who won't pay the slightest attention? The Republican establishment.

Sing it, Sister! We are on the verge of squandering an historic opportunity here -- and, unless there's a thorough housecleaning of the GOP establishment, including the House and Senate leadership, we will see yet another debacle in 2016.

If the Republicans fail to win the Senate then Obama will pack the courts with left wing extremists with lifetime appointments.

You might want to contemplate that outcome before you get on your high horse and refuse to vote GOP.

You're missing the point. Most of us blog posters and activists who bemoan the GOP becoming "the party about nothing" (except political expediency) will in fact turn out, hold our noses and vote against the Democrats again. The problem is, most voters don't follow politics that closely, and as disillusioned with Obama as they may be, will see no particular reason to vote Republican.

Democrats get more donations from their supporters because they can be trusted to follow through on their left wing ideology. Republican politicians cannot be trusted to support the party's core beliefs so the right leaning public is wary of donating to the GOP.

What ever happened to having someone, who presumably wants to "represent" me in the government, to running on platforms that bear some semblance of correlating with what I believe? I, along with a very large number of other Conservatives, want the border closed and the illegals expelled.Want my vote? Assure me that's what you'll do and you've got my vote. Be a mealy-mouthed worm about "path to citizenship" and the only way you get my vote is if your opponent is a radical Leftist, and maybe not even then.

The GOP, it seems, wants to be Democrat-Lite. I, for one, am not interested.

Many Republicans voted their desire to win rather than their core principles in the primaries this year. They have been sold the idea that only establishment candidates can defeat a Democrat by the media and the Republican consultant class. They also have the examples of Christie O"Donnell and Todd Akin to make them wary of voting for novices or simpletons in primaries.

The reaction of GOP voters was understandable because they know that Obama and his band of looters and pillagers is destroying this great nation.

The GOP establishment and its Princes of the consultant class had better damn well come through or suffer the consequences.

Nassau County, NY executive Ed Mangano (R) kisses up to Andrew Cuomo (D) while dissing Republican candidate Rob Astorino.

Chris Christie (R) sucks up to Andrew Cuomo (D) while refusing any support for Republican Rob Astorino.

Remember this the next time these quisling stand for office.

Who is Rob Astorino? Never heard of him. I also never heard of the sacrificial lamb the Pubbies threw at us for Suffolk County Executive last time.
I have always suspected that they intentionally swap certain key offices back and forth between them, with not a hair to separate them.
This is New York. Everything is fixed.

Rob Astorino is running against Andrew Cuomo for the governorship of New York State. Rob is getting no support from national Republicans nor is he getting support from Chris Christie who is Chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

If the GOP does not cash in on voter discontent with Obama and win control of the Senate then there will be a real need for a replacement for the Republican party.

Last chance, Republican Establishment. You either get it right or you will go the way of the Whig party.

I might add, once having won the Senate, they had better not rubber-stamp any Obama court appointees who won't uphold the Constitution in its entirety.

Don't worry. After they take the Senate, the first thing they will do is reinstate the two thirds rule on nominations.
Think not?
When do they ever fail to disappoint?

Give me more RINO's like Dole, McCain, Romney - and let that loser Rove advise them, and soon we will live in the United Soviet Socialist States of America.
Why soviet you ask? Obama's community organizations which he intends to arm are no different from Lenin's soviets.

Blame also the romantic Libertarians not bothering to check out who is representing them in a 3-way race: http://dailycaller.com/2014...

If Republicans are truly unsalvageable, then a Party of constitutional originalism must emerge, bankrolled by the right people, to field the right candidates in every state and every county. It is a massive project, but it will have the ideological foundation required to explain itself to the American people.

Because it would endorse what most Americans are thinking, it would be the revolt of the political center. It would be a pro-capitalist, pro-national defense Party, and it would return social issues to state and local standards.

Great idea. I would vote for that party. But to get there, we need to shed the Senate majority leader who says he wants to "crush" such people.

It becomes a cost-benefit problem. We want Democratic Socialists out, and the GOP has the party structure to do that. The GOP is a party without a foundation, and it remains to be seen if they will be revitalized by the Tea Party or insist on wasting our time.

How does such an effort not devolve into another 1912 Bull Moose third party that ends in electing, by a land slide, another racist megalomaniac like Wilson?

Only if both major parties are a single party under Progressive control. I don't believe it's that bad, but it's close. Preferable to defeat Democrats then cleanse the GOP.

Damn straight, Laura. The RINO-class peas on our legs and tells us its raining and "give us more money." I have no reason to give them a vote to screw Patriotic Americans. Let them squander the Tea Party gift-horse they've refused to "take" for two election cycles and running! Screw Rove - DEATH to RINOs!

as a Tea Party Patriot, my only rooting interest is in the Traitorous RINO class getting whipped by evil Democrats. Make RINOs an endangered species, and put-down Republocrats like Senator Pat Roberts. The establishment was given a gift in 2010 and blows their advantage for tow cycles to Obamunism for refusing to stand for anything more than squat - the earned their failures.

Whine, whine, cry, cry...
"...but we're only one half of one third..."
Funny. I don't recall any mention of that when they were running, do you?
"Please elect us so we can slay the dragon!!!!"
Followed by,"Hey. That dragon is too big!!!"
Tip O'Neill is having a huge laugh in He !! right now!!!

They nominate the likes of Christie or Rubio and I'm openly campaigning for the Democrat. I'll even hang signs for the first time since 1994.

So, Laura Ingraham, if the GOP wins the senate, will you credit the establishment?

For that matter, will the commenters here?

I'm not holding my breath

If the GOP does succeed in gaining control of the Senate, it will be in spite of the Republican establishment not because of it.

I will happily offer due credit to the Beltway GOP, if credit is due for winning a Senate majority away from the present radicals, though I will also not forget to credit those who intend to vote for the party nominee regardless of important points of ideology or an apparent dependence on the Consultant Classes.

In short, I will credit those who see the importance of blocking this administration's agenda (e.g. the Courts) might exceed the long-term but dire need to reform the GOP, who hold their noses and vote against Harry Reid's caucus. They will deserve the credit. So perhaps you will not need to hold your breath, after all.

All the 'establishment' GOP needs to do is speak to their needs and ask for their vote. What could be easier?

Lots of blame to Carl Rove...aka the architect...ha, ha, ha, architect of losing.

Carl Rove?? How is the architect of the GWB campaign got to do with today? Obsessed are we?

Your OFA is showing.

If you think that Karl Rove is irrelevant to what is happening today, you are not only simple-minded but ignorant, as well.

We have entered a new era in American politics where corporate interests are just as threatening to conservative values and a conservative future as Dems are. In fact, we see with the Obama administration the frequent alignment of corporate interests (with their RINO cavalry) and the Dems.

True Dems hurt us slightly more than RINOs in the short term. But conservatives in red and purple states always have the possibility of defeating the Dem in the next cycle. It is almost impossible for conservatives in these states ever to rid themselves of RINOs like McCain and Graham.

In my opinion, it is more important to defeat a RINO in a moderate or conservative state before he can build his empire than to defeat an actual Dem. We can go after the Dem next time.

(As much as I despise Scott Brown, it is a different situation when a RINO is running in an area of the country where we have no prospect of ever electing an authentic conservative.)

I have no problem with the Scott Brown scenario until he turns into Lincoln Chaffee and makes demands lest he switch caucuses. There is nothing more disgusting than a Brown/[Insert Democrat Icon Here] sponsored debacle of a bill other than it being labeled "bi-partisan".

I agree with you, except for your use of the word "until." I'd have used "unless."

Dude has appetites.

Why is that comment awaiting moderation?

I don't know what was up with that.

Hey, you got to keep that Cochran puppet propped up in the seat. Enjoy!

We don't want the RINOs' dirt in our hole or in our yard. They will be wrong until they just cease being.

If the Republicans blow the election in 2014 there is no one to blame but the Republican Party

Republicans who backed Scott Walker in the past have "buyer's remorse".

"Seeing red, PAC is down on Scott Brown"

"The National Republican Trust spent nearly $100,000 last year to help Scott Brown win the U.S. Senate seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, but now the conservative political group wishes it had that money back to help kick Mr. Brown out of office."

"Saying the Republican senator is no different from a Democrat, the head of the group is calling for Mr. Brown to donate to charity or disgorge campaign money equal to how much the trust spent supporting him during the 2010 campaign."

"The trust’s executive director, Scott Wheeler, said supporters knew Mr. Brown wasn’t going to be a die-hard conservative when they supported him early and often in his run against Martha Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general and once heavy favorite to succeed Mr. Kennedy."

"But Mr. Wheeler said he and his group’s conservative backers are now disillusioned, citing Mr. Brown’s vote to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, which the group sharply opposed."

“New START is something he should have been able to vote against,” Mr. Wheeler said."

http://www.washingtontimes....

Scott Brown is a trail blazer among Republicans being the first GOP senator to endorse a renewed "assault weapons" ban. If you hate the Second Amendment, you'll love Scott Brown!

"Scott Brown backs assault gun ban"

"12/20/12"

"Outgoing Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown has become the first GOP senator to endorse a renewed assault weapons ban."

"Previously, Brown had long opposed new federal restrictions on guns, arguing the issue should be left to the states. But Brown earned the endorsement of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in November’s election in part by opposing legislation that would’ve allowed concealed weapon permit holders to carry guns across state lines."

http://www.politico.com/sto...

Scott Brown isn't "moderate" even on social issues like abortion. When the opportunity arose to defund the abortion mill Planned Parenthood, Scott Brown opposed that.

"Scott Brown: Funding ban for Planned Parenthood "goes too far""

"Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown on Tuesday became the third Senate Republican to publicly oppose a proposal that would defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate a program providing aid for family planning and reproductive health."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news...

Let's compare the voting record of Scott Brown with that of his Democrat opponent, Shaheen.
Shaheen voted for Obama's START treaty. Scott Brown voted for Obama's START treaty.
Shaheen voted for Dodd-Frank. Scott Brown voted for Dodd-Frank.
Shaheen voted against interstate reciprocity for concealed carry. Scott Brown voted against interstate reciprocity for concealed carry.
There is no difference on important national security, financial and Second Amendment issues between Shaheen and Scott Brown. If Shaheen is elected, Democrats win. If Scott Brown is elected, conservatives lose. It's a stacked deck.

No. if Shaheen is elected, she caucuses with Democrats, giving them the power to enact legislation far worse than Dodd-Frank, START, and "interstate reciprocity for concealed carry". (And incidentally, when Congress starts enacting "interstate reciprocity", there goes the last of the teunous barriers to nationalization of homosexual "marriage" and those state restrictions on the abortion license that have been upheld by the courts.)

If Brown is elected, he caucuses with Republicans, many of whom are genuine conservatives, and almost all of whom are far better than the Democratic consensus in matters of national security, SCOTUS appointments, etc.

"Scott Brown: Funding ban for Planned Parenthood "goes too far""

"Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown on Tuesday became the third Senate Republican to publicly oppose a proposal that would defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate a program providing aid for family planning and reproductive health."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news...