Dear NCLaw441,
"Thank you for your detailed and courteous reply."
Thanks. I try to follow Chesterton's admonishment to try to disagree without being disagreeable.
"Seldom have I voted for a candidate that meets all of MY qualifications."
Me, neither. The problem with Mr. Giuliani is that he meets ALMOST NONE of my qualifications. Is he a little better than Mrs. Clinton? Maybe. But not enough to actually get my vote. If the party nominates Mr. Giuliani, then the party has abandoned me. I'll just go elsewhere.
"I do not typically vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, but will do so when I don't have enough information about the candidate, or when the two candidates seem otherwise indistinguishable from each other."
Actually, I pretty much vote a straight-line Republican ticket.
I understand the vital importance of party-building for the conservative cause. I've held my nose and voted for a lot of iffy characters because I understood that even an iffy Republican is better than most any Democrat.
I have only voted against a Republican one time in my life. In the old 5th Congressional District of Maryland, a very liberal congressional district with few Republicans, some years ago, a member of the Nation of Islam ran as the Republican nominee. In that his informal campaign motto was "Kill whitey," I didn't vote for him.
Other than that, I've voted for every Republican on every ballot since 1978. I voted for Mr. Reagan twice, Mr. Bush, pére, twice, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Bush, fils, twice. I've donated money to Mr. Dole, Mr. Bush, fils, and local candidates here in Maryland, including Mr. Steele, currently running for US Senate. My wife has worked the polls.
We've voted for some complete morons for US Representative and US Senator. We've voted for local judges based on nothing more than they have an "R" after their name.
But Mr. Giuliani, running for president, would be just too far for us to go.
"I tend to prioritize my issues, and vote for the candidate who best appears (I have been fooled more than once by false promises) to embrace my highest priorities better than the other candidate(s)."
Me, too. For me, the issue of highest priority is stopping the killing of over a million unborn persons per year. The only viable way to accomplish this is through changing the membership of the Supreme Court. Without a president who understands that Roe is execrable constitutional law, that there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a right to procure the death of one's unborn child, that is impossible to accomplish. Other cultural issues rate highly for me, as well.
Social conservatives are a large part of the Republican coalition. To nominate Mr. Giuliani is to abandon us, our issues, our causes, entirely. If the rest of the party chooses Mr. Giuliani, folks must understand that they've left social conservatives out in the cold.
Actions have consequences.
sitetest
I cannot argue with any of the grounds for your argument, only the conclusion. I can't grasp the concept of someone being even marginally better than another candidate (and I think Giuliani is marginally better than Hillary), and not voting for him. For me the test is, given what is known, if forced to vote, for whom would I vote? If I thought it might teach the GOP a lesson to vote for Hillary, I would do it, rather than not vote.
I respect your thoughtfulness and your conclusion, however, even if disagree.
Regards.