It’s not a matter of agreeing. The reality is that most calling themselves ‘conservative’ only want to talk the talk.
We had a bunch of candidates that had histories filled with VERY unconservative actions. From Perry and his HPV mandates and opposition to Border Fencing to Bachmann’s GOP/RINO hiring spree. And there were more.
Facts on the ground are that most ‘conservatives’, candidate and voter alike are at best, moderates.
We are filled with people openly telling us that principle is to be benched in favor of ‘winning’ and pragmatism.
What F’ing moron in their right mind can call themselves conservative while saying openly that principle does not matter? I want to hear it. And to date, over hundreds of threads I posted the question on, not a single so called ‘conservative’ has been able or willing to do squat but duck the question.
Not one will define why principle one not matter.
But many will tell us why voting for everything we oppose is the smart choice as ‘conservatives.
Idiots one and all.
I agree with much of that. But that’s the problem. conservatives are like cats and won’t unite. Although the field wasn’t very strong perry, newt, santorum would have been far preferable to romney. Yes they had weaknesses and none of them were pure. But we are a long way from pure. We are down into deep RINO turd.
Our only hope of defeating RINOs like boehner and romney is to unite around conservative alternative candidates. Nine house members voted for six different alternative candidates to boehner. Pathetic.
Perry was and is not against border fencing. His position, which is correct IMO, is that it is impractical to try to fence the entire border between Texas and Mexico. The fence we have now does not stop the flow or even significantly slow down illegals crossing the border. Additionally, there are substantial issues with closing off Texas ranchers’ access to their water supply (the Rio) and effectively ceding the physical territory between the fence and the middle of the river to Mexico.