Norm, I respect your posts and enjoy reading them.
I was addressing more the tearing apart of candidates that may have various viewpoints that are minor in comparison to major Constitutional conflicts, IOW, they are politicians trying to win (get elected).
None was more evident than this last primary season.
I'll say one thing for the dipcrats, they stay together, we don't.
We stand for principle, they stand for an agenda and will accomplish it by any means necessary, we on the other hand have to learn how to fight the war.
IMO, we're losing.
Hi Ron, Thanks ;)
To me it’s much of a muchness. (Scuze me while I whip this out...
Example:
“WE” elect people. WE spent decades compromising and sending candidates to DC who are less than principled.
So by what right do we the electorate claim to be midffed when they do what decades of history PROVE we sent them there to do? Compromise everything.
On this very thread there are people advocating the GOP comp on social issues to ‘win’. Sometimes the disconnect is stunning. What do they win? They ‘win’ more compromise.
That is a historically documented fact. So where am I going with this? Simple.
If we want people to do X, then it stands to reason we have to want X. And when you have people straying as far off the raZ as they are and claiming the position to be conservative, I do not see how coexistence is possible.
We have to be unified. I totally agree. But the concept of what is and is not conservative isn’t some nebulous thing. It’s very simple. But people are determined to redefine it and bend it to their wants.
I do not see how we can compromise with people wanting the polar opposite of ‘conservative’ and still with a straight face call ourselves such. As Ronaldus Magnus said, a party can’t be all things to all people. Neither can a political philosophy.