My question is always...which would be worse? A liberal "Republican" or a liberal "Democrat"?
I'm curious to know about Toomey's votes when he is not "reaching across the aisle"...has he ever come through with a crucial conservative vote when it was most needed?
I also think that activism is great, and the "high-profile" people accomplish a lot, but you have to get elected to have an actual vote on any legislation.
From my viewpoint, Mitt Romney was rather far from my idea of the perfect candidate, but I certainly voted for him rather than "sit out" the election. Alas, many other conservatives did not vote for Romney, and so we have the consequences of a 2nd 0bama term, with all the ramifications that will follow from living with another 4 years of his policies, cabinet choices, executive orders, etc....
Personally, given only two choices I would always prefer even a squishy conservative who occasionally votes in line with my views to a dyed-in-the-wool screaming liberal, that would never vote my views, and would be likely to "one-up" on every issue! But of course, that's JMHO.
Last thought: one of the replies on the original article posted an excellent question..."where are the Democrats that reach across the aisle"?? LOL! Good point! Maybe Joe Manchin (sic) of W. Virginia, on an issue or two, every now and then, but they are few and far between.
Joe Manchin votes for budgets that will never get to Obama’s desk. Votes to allow Obama stack the courts.
Then he betrays Byrd and votes for Amnesty without consulting WV.
Byrd was good on amnesty. On the whole spectrum. The cheap labor and the hispandering.
I’m in agreement with you. We need to keep voting for the “lesser of two evils” in general elections. The alternative is worse; sitting out only leads to lefty victories. Idealogical purity is what primaries are for. If we keep primarying these RINOS, maybe they’ll eventually get the message.