As always is the case in our online debates Charles, you duck the questions I asked and answer questions I did not. Try again.
But I will say this. When ‘Republican’ candidates and elected officials campaign ...
AGAINST
...the party platform, they are not Republicans at all and so cannot logically represent the ‘mainstream’ of the party.
The Republican platform exists as the guide for what the party represents. That is not debatable. If the party does not follow it, they can call themselves anything they wish, but it isn’t ‘Republican’ by definition and it is not a mainstream for the ‘Republican’ platform.
The excuses being made to support Romney are every bit the magical thinking employed by Democrats.
Now will you address my questions or will this turn, yet again into a multi page exercise in avoidance?
OK, so I read your entire comment, and here was the SINGLE question you asked:
Now will you address my questions or will this turn, yet again into a multi page exercise in avoidance?
Yes.
See, I answered the question.
Before I go back to re-answer your PREVIOUS questions, I will point out that you have drawn a restrictive and false hypothesis to try to make your argument sound better than it was. The "party platform" is drawn up by a small committee of elected delegates at a presidential convention once every 4 years -- the same elected delegates who then choose the nominee to represent the party. To argue that the "platform" defines what "republican" is, and the chosen nominee could be a "not republican" is illogical.
Here was your previous question, lacking a question mark but still a question:
As a matter of logic and principle Charles, please explain in detail how voting for a ‘Republican’ candidate who opposes the Republican party platform does not make both of you RINOS by the accepted definition of the term.
I answered that in detail. I can't help your inability to understand or discuss or refute that answer.
My answer was detailed and covered your question thoroughly.
I refuted the premise of your question, the structure of your question, and then answered your question showing how both by definition, logic, and application your assertion by question was faulty.
I will again point out that your PREMISE would make Newt Gingrich a RINO, since endorsing a candidate is a stronger act than simply voting for the candidate, and by any measure Dede was opposed to the national Republican party platform, and he endorsed her. But by the "accepted definition" here at FR, Newt is not a RINO.