[SolidWood]

Refusing to support Sanford because of an insistence on ideological purity

Global warming and Defense policy are not about "ideological" purity, but real bread and butter issues. A candidate wrong on these two is DOA. Beside that he is politcally clumsy, insults those who want Obama to fail as "idiots", which either means he feels the need to be PC, or he can't guard his mouth.

[Palmetto]

Global warming and Defense policy are not about "ideological" purity, but real bread and butter issues. A candidate wrong on these two is DOA.

I can comprehend the day where Sanford's candidacy is ruined because he's made too many enemies, he's viewed as an extremist, or that his communication skills are not that strong. I cannot comprehend the day where Sanford's candidacy is ruined because he is viewed as too liberal.

This guy is a fire-breathing conservative. You guys aren't paying attention if you think otherwise.

[Texas Federalist]

Global warming and Defense policy are not about "ideological" purity, but real bread and butter issues. A candidate wrong on these two is DOA. He is right on every other issue, and he never actually supported any policy regarding the environment that I am convinced is wrong. He only set up a group to "study" the issue, which is a common tactic of placating the opposition and diffusing an issue without doing anything.

[Texas Federalist]

Global warming and Defense policy are not about "ideological" purity, but real bread and butter issues. A candidate wrong on these two is DOA.

(Sorry, bad formatting on last post) He is right on every other issue, and he never actually supported any policy regarding the environment that I am convinced is wrong. He only set up a group to "study" the issue, which is a common tactic of placating the opposition and diffusing an issue without doing anything.

So you must hate Reagan, who was wrong on immigration. That's a "bread and butter" issue, too, is it not?