When I spoke of "ideological purity" I was not using it in the sense that the GOP establishment an talking heads use it. I was speaking strictly in terms of litmus tests that effect the logjam of otherwise presentable candidates from the conservative wing of the party. If you were paying attention the last two times around, it was exhausting.
What ended up happening was we had three or four acceptable challengers to Romney on the right. Every time one of them put and daylight between himself and the rest, the other two or three and his (or her) supporters ganged up on the frontrunner. That's how we ended up with Romney, and its how Reagan would probably lose the nomination in today's climate. Any time he built a lead, the debate would focus on his amnesty and abortion history, and he'd be done.
When Reagan ran in 1980, he was the conservative alternative to George Bush, John Anderson, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. That's not what we have today. The pack is on the right. The outlier is in the middle.
Just stop. Heed Jim Rob's advice and disentangle yourself from this.
You're continuing to insult my intelligence with your three card Monty pretzel logic, but it's not working. You used a loaded term at the outset of this conversation that has only ONE meaning in the context of this community.
It was a sideswipe at we patriotic conservatives who clearly saw Romney for what he is, and refused to knuckle under to the pressure to support him in the primary AND the general election.
You've made some smart points, but it's all been done over your initial transgression, which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Now you're actually trying to make me believe I didn't see what I saw.
Forget it.
I still think you're trying to sow seeds of capitulation ahead of the 2016 primary.
I see you read The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy… you are aware that that was a parody, yes?