[Badray]

Did you ever stop to consider that:

1] Without this "Big Tent Theory" that the GOP would actually stand for something? Pretending that RINOs and liberal pubbies are our friends just so that we can claim big numbers is insane. They are there to dilute our message and effectiveness.

2] That if we (Yes, I am a registered Republican that worked for W's election) really stood for solid principle that we could offer a real alternative to the Dems instead of being the Demolite Party?

3] That if there was a real bright line difference in what we do in office (not just the campaign rhetoric) that we would be able to build a real party by stopping the drift to third parties and apathy? Ignore the third parties for a moment. Look at all of those that dropped out altogether because of disgust by not seeing a real difference. (Yes, I know that there are differences, but not enough difference in enough issues and the bottom line is that we keep spending more and growing government larger and more intrusive even with and maybe especially with GOP majorities.)

4] That if we build that real party, that we might not me sinking into socialism at the rate that we are under the current 'two versions of one party' system?

Flame away!

[My2Cents]

OK, what do you suggest we do? In Maine, for instance, should we insist that Olympia Snowe run as a Democrat, or refuse to vote for her? While Olympia Snowe isn't my ideological cup of tea, considering the political make-up of Maine, she's probably the best we can expect the Republican Party to produce. And her and Susan Collins being in the Senate means the difference between having Bill Frist as Majority Leader, or Tom Daschle. To me, that's a big reason to support the likes of Snowe and Collins. (I found it interesting that in looking at the American Conservative Union's rating of members of Congress for last year, Snowe rated a 65, while Barbara Boxer rated a 5.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Republicans jettison conservative principles to increase the numbers. What I'm suggesting is that I'd prefer to have someone in office I agreed with 55% of the time than someone I disagreed with 95% of the time. If a pure conservative has a viable candidacy, then by all means fight to the death for that person. But in a state where a pure conservative would mean sure defeat, it's prudent to settle for less, considering the alternative. (And I'll readily admit that considering the nature of the recall election in California, there is the likelihood that a conservative could win -- Arnold isn't the only one who can win this for Republicans.)

And to those who would never consider voting for a Republican who isn't 100% conservative, I urge them to read Ann Coulter's book, TREASON, and discover who the real enemy is.