“We’ll have to agree to disagree about that. The avalanche of Leftists who are killing our country are in office because they DO care about electability, and they are darned good at it.”
You contradict yourself, from things you have written elsewhere on the forum (I checked).
I refuse to agree to disagree on matters of principle. IF you will sell out principle to win an election, then you are no better than those “leftists.”
A mistake I made on election day, that I am ashamed of, was that I caved and voted for Romney in an act of desparation because I dreaded Obama so. I caved on “principle” and am now guilty of hypocrisy...I am ashamed.
In regards to “throwing away a Senate seat.” Well, the plurality of Missouri voters picked Akin in the primary. I am a Missouri resident. The voters had their say, and Akin won. He should have been supported by the RNC. Save some of your vitriol for the other two primary candidates. One could equally agrue that IF either of them had of dropped out of the primary, then there wouldn’t have been a three way vote with Akin receiving the most votes. However, each of them had “too much pride” to drop out. So, Akin received the most votes....yell at them for a change.
I actually didn’t take that much interest in the primary and voted for one of the three other than Akin (all three looked OK) because Palin had endorsed the candidate. However, once he won, and especially after I saw the hatchet job done on him by both the MSM and then the GOPe....it infuriated me and I vigourously and financially supported him from then on.
It makes me VERY angry when persons not living here, presume to tell us whom we should vote for or support. OR for a party to dump on our pick. I am VERY angry with Palin that she did not come back and support Akin the way Newt did...she has lost my future support because of her actions in regards to Akin. Her return to Missouri and helping Akin could have made a big difference. She was AWOL on that and has lost credibility.
If you think electoral politics is degrading and tends to contaminate all involved, I agree.
What I do not agree with is that there was NO DIFFERENCE between replacing Akin and sending Claire McCaskill back for six more years.
You believe that, with the right kind of support, Akin could have been elected (after August). I don't.
That belief of mine isn't selling out anything. I said he could not be elected, and he wasn't.
Perhaps you are mistaken on this point.
where I disagree with some on here is along the following: the primary purpose (primary, not sole) of campaigns is to elect somebody who is capable of serving in the office.
Therefore, backing candidates on principal who have zero chance of getting elected reeks of folly. Elections are a civic matter, not a religious one.
Prudence is a virtue and its benefits include circumspection and sound judgment. Those who use the Christian faith to argue for actions which lead to us “going down to glorious defeat” ... I argue they are attempting to make a virtue of folly. You now have an explanation of why many of us do not follow you. The goal of virtuous men should be to elect the BEST PEOPLE POSSIBLE, not to lose based on principal.
Of course, we knew all of this 40 years ago. But the past 2 election cycles demonstrate some want to continue to experiment with another way. The examples abound.