[Kent C]

No circles for me. I’m interested in beating ‘Rats, in particular Strickland and Obombah. If that means we get 90% of what we want, that sounds like a better tactical position than 0% with Strickland/Obombah. Only a fool would forego a 90% advantage in favor of 0%.

Well, what is it then? You said:

"As long as it doesn't include abortion."

IOW, you could have a candidate that was 90% except for abortion and you wouldn't vote for them. That makes you a 'fool' by your own stated standard above.

[chimera]

I will not compromise that principle. If the candidate were 90% on everything else but pro-abortion, it would be difficult for me to support them. I don't really care what label you want to use on me, that's of little importance.

Aside from that, if you can get a candidate who is 90% ideologically "pure" then I think it is a losing strategy to throw them under the bus and brand them a RINO because they may not line up on the other 10%. John Kasich is pro-life (last I heard) and has a solid enough conservative rating that he makes a better choice than any 'Rat. My goal is to get Ted Strickland and Barack Obama out of office, who have been disasterous for the state and the country. That means supporting the most conservative viable candidate, the one who lines up best on the issues and has the best chance of winning. I see no value in terms of advancing a conservative agenda if we cut our own throats every election and hand power to the 'Rats, who have no inclination at all to entertain opposing opinions.