Ah, yes, but there are some people that are already looking forward to blaming the malcontent pro-lifers for ot selling out with a Rudy loss. Even though we’ve arned them it will happen. What they are really unhappy isn’t a Republican losing, but their liberal agenda losing.
Yep, other than the fact that most of them hate the Clintons, they would be much happier as 'Rats.
The really sad part is, there is a substantial percentage of RINOs that would gladly accept a 'Beast presidency if it meant breaking the stranglehold the social conservatives have over the party and its nomination.
All they have to do is nominate someone who holds the Republican coalition together (coughFRedcoughThompsoncough), and the GOP is a winner against a candidate that 47% of the country will not vote for under any circumstances. Yet, they are completely hellbent on splitting the party in two, then blaming socons - when they knew what would happen all along.
What say you, shrinkermd? Let's say by some miracle, Duncan Hunter gets the GOP nomination and faces the 'Beast in the general - who do you vote for?
If you say the Beast or third party, you have proven my point.
If you say Hunter, then why not work for the most electable conservative in the primary instead of trying to stuff a party-wrecking RINO liberal down our throats?