[campaignPete R-CT]

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.

[Ron H.]

Personally I believe that if one doesn't stand for principle as a core belief then that person will fall for most anything that comes along. The best example I can cite at the moment is this last election where some sold out their core principles early on and ended up with the pig in a poke, Mittens Romney. And many of those seem to having a case of regrets and remorse.