I hear what you're saying. If you have a candidate who is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% Conservative, Republican vote for him/her because they are a better alternative than the 199% Socialist candidate. You can make a case for that, as you have.
Everyone has their limits. You make it sound as though I'm the only person on FR who has ever lamented the fact that a candidate subrogated their core conservative beliefs in order to stay in office. On the contrary, if you had a dollar for every time the term RINO was used on this forum, you would have more money than Arnold or Michael Bloomberg to run a campaign espousing your views.
EVEN YOU HAVE YOUR LIMITS. At what point does a candidate become too liberal for you to vote for? Yours seems to be about 40%. Mine is at 50%+.
I'll give you the reductio ad absurdum argument just to find out where you stand. If you go down the Republican Party platform and take a litmus test, where do you draw the line?
If a candidate is:
pro-choice
pro gun control
favors socialized national healthcare
is weak on war on terror
supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and is open borders
favors federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
supports gay marriage
is a chronic proponent of tax increases
never met a social welfare program he didn't like
BUT...BUT...he calls himself a Republican. Would you vote for him because you are a team player?
If Michael Bloomberg, a lifelong MA liberal dem was the only option as a Republican candidate, would you support him. If John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Ted Kennedy had an R next to their name, would you support them?
Where do you draw the line? That's what I'm asking. Answer the question directly without resorting to name calling.
Leave that to me: you're a poopy face. So there. :-)