OK Newt, let's say I agree that we can't expect 100% agreement between the candidates and the voters. What's the line then; 80%, 70%, 50%? Under the Newt-plan, at what point can I look at the GOP candidate and say "Nope, they don't reflect my values?" Or is it sufficient that they have an 'R' after their name?
And that's the question, isn't it?
I'm a big tent guy, and I don't apologize for it. If in some deep blue district we need to have some left-of-center person on the GOP ticket because his opponent is a Bernie Sanders type and we need to take what we can get, that's fine. Parties are messy.
But this woman...yeesh. She's to the left of the Dem on a raft of issues, including gay marriage, which he opposes. Plus, sitting on the board of Planned Parenthood, winning the Margaret Sanger award or getting endorsed by the Daily Kos should each be things that repel the RNC from your candidacy like garlic repels vampires...but Scozzafava's got all three going for her, and Steele and Gingrich double down.
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." To say, "the local party is always right" or "electing a Republican is always better than electing a Dem and helping Nancy Pelosi" is a foolish consistency, and we're seeing just how foolish with this race and Newt's rise to hysteria.