'Ideological Purity'... A republican buzz word (phrase).
As a Conservative, you should know how stupid the concept is. It is not bout 'ideological purity' at all, with the tangential exception that the closer we get to Conservatism, the more likely it is to get all the Conservative factions to turn out.
You may not care enough about Pro-Life issues for it to stop you from your ABO course - But I will guarantee that millions (and I mean millions) of average Christians will. And they will care about the sanctity of marriage. It is your hope that all those millions of Christians will set aside their immovable 'first things', and you are doing your part to make it happen, But I will guarantee you, they will *not*... Not just 'no', but 'oh hell, no!'
And without those Christians, Romney will not succeed. Period. So all of this hen-house bickering will amount to naught. His campaign is doomed.
One can tick your way down the list of immovable 'first things' if you'd like. You will find that to vote for Romney, Every_single_Conservative_principle must be set aside. That means the entire base has to set aside everything they believe in to vote for this POS.
That simply is not going to happen.
Hard to believe for you, I am sure, what with your Republican Beer Goggles on and all, but that is the truth of it. Watch and see.
Where the 'purity' argument DOES apply is in this: If the Rock-Ribbed Conservatives here can be convinced, that bodes well for the candidate, as true Conservatives represent the ideology of all of the factions together - If They like him, it is likely that all the factions will like him too.
As for me, to say I remain unconvinced is putting it in as mild a terminology as is possible.
re: ‘idealogical purity’
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________