And some of us are tired of self-righteous political puritans who turn on their leaders at the drop of a hat when they fail to agree with their personal position on EVERY single issue under the sun.
Such unbending and self absorbed people don't know definition of loyalty.
Others believe what politicans do is unimportant just as long as the carry the right label.
Another unfair characterization of those you disagree with as "kool aid drinkers" and mindless followers with absolutely no personal moral convictions on anything.
I don't know a single person on FR who falls into this category.
I guess it's all in how you look at politics...and loyalty.
Who owes who loyalty?
With rare exceptions the people don't clamor for a certain leader. We don't go hat in hand and beg some person to become our leader.
They come to us. They make the promises. They appeal to what parochial interests we have as a group and as individuals. A party is formed when the group's interest mesh more or less although we still retain particular interests that are more controlling.
So to some Republicans, they better get the right promises on Abortion. To other taxes. To some Israel. Usually it a combination of several factors.
And if we trust the person, they get our vote and are rewarded with power, the big house, the big plane, lots and lots of good stuff.
We don't get the good stuff. We get, we assume, what was promised.
Who owes who loyalty?
The only loyalty that I see ever owing a political figure is that if he/she is fighting for what he promised, then you don't abandon him/her during the fight- if he is keeping to the fight promised.
Mu mother didn't trust George W Bush where Israel was concerned. I convinced her that he was different, that he could be trusted on Israel. I fooled myself, I ignored cues of the first term. She voted for him in 2004. I regret what I did. My mother is smarter then me.
For Israel issues and other reasons, George W Bush, the politician, no longer has my support. He has been disloyal to my vote and trust.