Replies

And I outlined why. He indirectly re-elected Charles Robb to the United States Senate in 1994 and has shown no regret or remorse over it.

I wonder why it is you feel that I should hold self-professed conservatives to a lesser standard than I hold that RINO to,

I'm wondering why you're holding youself to a lower standard than that to which you hold others.
I wouldn't vote for North, myself, but you like him and don't like Warner. Fair enough, I don't begrudge a vote of consicence.
Why do you?
If their non-vote for this or that GOP candidate is an indirect vote for a liberal Democrat, why can't the same be said of your non-vote for Warner?

In the case of my non-support of John Warner, it was the childish actions of a RINO. But I will be equally harsh on conservatives who act just as childishly, and who threaten to do greater damage to the conservative cause than merely denying a conservative a Senate seat.

Not quite following what you're saying here.
Is Warner the "rino" whose actions were childish?

Yes. His candidate (Jim Miller) lost the Republican nomination (which went to Oliver North) in 1994. I find it interesting that the same candidate ran against Warner for the nomination in 1996, and one of his big issues was Warner's conduct after the 1994 nomination was decided.

Disloyalty must have a price, Sabertooth. Writing in Oliver North was all I could do in 1996 and 2002 to make John Warner pay a price, although in 2002, I was hoping for a primary opponent. If you consider disloyalty in the form of indirectly electing a Democrat to be acceptable, or even understandable, then you really have no cause to complain when you find out that George W. Bush won't stick his political neck out for the issues you find important.

Or should I just pretend that John Warner's disloyalty was acceptable conduct?