[Sabertooth]

If y'all aren't willing to vote for the GOP--and the record TO DATE says that you aren't--then the GOP isn't willing to waste its resources on your issues.

Since hchutch has written in Ollie North instead of John Warner the last two times, my voting percentage for GOP nominees is higher than his.

You were saying?

[hchutch]

And I outlined why. He indirectly re-elected Charles Robb to the United States Senate in 1994 and has shown no regret or remorse over it.

I wonder why it is you feel that I should hold self-professed conservatives to a lesser standard than I hold that RINO to, particularly when their actions indirectly elect a liberal Democrat. How is that any different in terms of the judges nominated or laws signed than if they voted for the Democrat? Do they not harm the principles they claim to espouse by such actions, despite their professed intentions?

In the case of my non-support of John Warner, it was the childish actions of a RINO. But I will be equally harsh on conservatives who act just as childishly, and who threaten to do greater damage to the conservative cause than merely denying a conservative a Senate seat.

Arguing that indirectly electing a liberal to office advances the conservative cause is delusional at best. Those who continue to advocate a course of action that do so, despite pointed comments that explain the likely RESULT of that course of action, are not doing the conservative cause any favors. If anything, they advocate a course of action that not only has ill effects over the short-term (losing an election) but long-term ill effects as well (it engenders a sense of distrust that makes a politician LESS likely to stick his neck out for us).