> The formula you’ve espoused is:
>
> 1. Won’t vote for less than perfect GOP candidate.
Not true. I am more concerned about the moral issues than the financial ones. By my reckoning, if you’ve got your morals right, your finances will follow suit. It does not work the other way around.
> 2. That candidate loses.
If the candidate supports abortion, the gay mafia, and gun-control, I don’t see that as a loss.
> 3. A candidate that votes 0% to your standards wins.
Candidates like Scott Brown vote 0% on my standards already.
My issues are
1. Pro-Life
2. Anti LGBTQI whatever agenda
3. Pro-gun
There is no compromising with issue 1.
If a candidate has the other two things at least MOSTLY right, then I could probably vote for him or her.
Any candidate with the good sense to be on the correct side of #1 100% of the time, and issues #2 and #3 most of the time, is likely to have all the other things lined up pretty well, too.
NO . MORE . RINOS
If we have to KILL the Republican Party to stop the endless parade of useless, sellout, backstabbing RINOs, then so be it.
We agree on the issues, just not on the tactics. There are certain states where in a statewide race only the RINO will beat the Dem. That’s not ideal, but America isn’t a conservative country across the board.
What does a RINO do that a Democrat cannot: give you control of committees and the agenda. It’s in committees that you can create legislation to roll back, protect or support those things most important to you - life, guns and godly marriage.
Brown isn’t my favorite or my ideal candidate, but I am looking at the alternatives and despite himself, he’s better than a Dem.
Take a look at this comparison:
We are, quite literally, ten times better off with a Brown than with a Democrat. Keep in mind that he didn’t side with the Dems on Democratcare or repealing citizen’s united:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3097726/posts