Based on your answer I don't think you understand what
I mean by "party over principle".
To
me "party over principle" means that a person is asked to abandon their core principles merely to ensure that a Party candidate is elected to office. Usually a person has
several core principles that they feel strongly about. I'm sure that you have more than one yourself.
So, to me, the question becomes which of your core principles are you going to abandon solely for the sake of Party advancement? And then a person has to ask themselves if they're ready,
and willing, to abandon
some of their core principles for the sake of the Party, will they abandon
all of their core principles for the sake of the Party. Because as soon as you give in and abandon those principles there is a push at the
next election for you to abandon even more of your principles because you did so the last time and the Party
knows this.
And eventually you have to look at yourself in the mirror and realize that you have no core principles any longer as you've abandoned them over time for nothing more than a short term political victory.
I simply can't sell my birthright (eventually all of my core principles) for a mess of pottage (short term political victory) else I damn my own soul.
Thanks for your thoughts, and this is my take: you, and people like you, are not the subject of the author’s point. Your point is much more cogent than the authors. And you don’t seem like a blinder on straight ahead single issue voter. Lot of folks on the right internet are. I think this author is, and he was using tortured logic and a straw man argument to try and defend it and I think he failed.
My comments were directed at that mindset.