[Jim Noble]

Well shoot, I guess we should just give up then, right?

No, not at all.

Look, I'm very sympathetic. Up here, the only time we see an illegal alien is if some Quebecker who has overstayed gets drunk and we trip over him passed out.

But in the most important election in my lifetime, when getting rid of Obama is the main issue, it's very reasonable to ask you and the others for whom this is issue #1 to demonstrate to the rest of us that taking your position on immigration is not a guaranteed loser for a candidate.

I say it is. I say no one has won, and many have lost, elections by taking the hard restrictionist position that you favor.

I say that if a candidate who could otherwise beat Obama takes your position, he will lose.

If you can prove me wrong, great. Try your best.

I don't think you can do it. You sure can't do it by calling me names.

[SoConPubbie]

But in the most important election in my lifetime, when getting rid of Obama is the main issue, it's very reasonable to ask you and the others for whom this is issue #1 to demonstrate to the rest of us that taking your position on immigration is not a guaranteed loser for a candidate.

Same crappy logic used by every elite GOP member to cover over the failures in issue positions for Mitt, John McCain, Gerald Ford, etc.

As Tea-Party members, are goal HAS TO BE to get the most conservative POTUS we can to replace Obama.

Given your logic, we would have ended up with George H. Bush instead of Reagan in 1980.

I am not interested in the same old "Lessor of two evils", "Electable" false choices that are always presented by the GOP and it's flacks.