I agree that is one of the main problems. I don’t mind career politicians, if they have a record of conservatism to stand on.
I think I’m one of the more realistic conservatives out there, because I know backroom deals have to be made to get stuff done and nobody is going to have a perfect record. But if their record is clear that they didn’t turn their back, generally speaking, on their conservative principles, I would probably support them.
Michele Bachmann is a say anything to win pol. She is, and has been, very dishonest all through this campaign. The irksome thing is she didn’t have to be and did it anyway beginning with lying about her personal finances, trashing Sarah Palin first hehind the scenes and then with rollins out front, misleading the public about her 23 foster children who she said she ‘raised’ when in truth, none of them, all teenage girls, were with the Bachmanns for longer than three months or less and only two at a time. The Bachmanns were compensated by the state for each of these kids and it was like an assembly line.
She lied about the family reunion she never showed up for. And these are besides the gaffes she made about John Wayne and Elvis Presley et al.
Her dishonesty is what shot her down with me. If you are dishonest about little things, how can I trust you on the big things?
The problem more ‘realistic’ conservatives tend to to turn a ‘blind’ eye to the backroom deals their guy made (who ever he is) to get things done when the damn well shouldn’t had made them.
No candidate is a saint but for ‘realistic’ conservatives your candidate always seem to be a bit more of one than the other guys.
There’s a line from the movie ‘Open Range’ that goes
“Somethings gnaw on a man worse than dieing.”
Well to me there are often things about voting for ‘realistic’ candidates that gnaw on me worse than losing.