I will take a conservative over a “moderate Republican” if I can get it. I will accept a “moderate Republican” over a RINO if I have to. I will live with a RINO over a Demoncrat if I must.
The place to defeat RINOs is in the Primary.
However, in any election you very rarely if ever get to vote for your ideal candidate. You instead must choose among the choices that are available.
We do need to convince more people that voting for a bad incumbent is better than voting for a better challenger in the primary because they feel the incumbent has a better chance simply because they are the incumbent is a bad idea.
However, we also need to have some better challengers. More often or not we are left with picking the least horrible of the candidates.
I'm not at all happy with this situation, so if you have a rational solution to this dilemma, please share it.
We have posted back and forth before, Beelzebubba, and we are not going to agree. You think I am wrong and I think you are wrong.
I just remember back to the 1992 election when the "principled conservatives" went for the nutcase, Perot. The 80% to 85% of his votes who would have kept Clinton OUT of office (ie: would have voted for Bush in a 2-man race) instead gave us 8 years of destroying the military and building up the terrorists that want to harm us. No, I don't think we were better off by splitting our vote and giving the office to Clinton.