“Stay home? Not me. I’m going to fight him tooth and nail!”
Please don’t take this wrong, but that wasn’t the question. I agree 100% with fighting to keep Rudy from being the nominee. The question, though, was what if (God forbid) August ‘08 has come around and Rudy’s won the nomination, and the Dims have of course nominated some nightmare also. In this hypothetical, what’s your recommendation?
That’s your problem not mine. If you (the collective you) succeed in getting a far left radical feminist/abortionist nominated from the GOP over the objections and warnings of the conservative right (you know, the people who make GOP victories possible) then you’d damn well better have a plan B prepared to get him elected. And it looks to me like your plan B involves trying to pickup support from the left. If so, you’ll reap what you sow.
Please don’t take this wrong, but that wasn’t the question. I agree 100% with fighting to keep Rudy from being the nominee. The question, though, was what if (God forbid) August ‘08 has come around and Rudy’s won the nomination, and the Dims have of course nominated some nightmare also. In this hypothetical, what’s your recommendation?
This scenario appears repeatedly in these threads, understandably so. However, I believe it is a false dilemma, and ultimately lands one in a trap.
It is essential to realise that, as far as the RNC and Republican Party leadership is concerned, once you have uttered the words "but I'll support the party's nominee no matter what", then nothing else you have to say from that point on matters to them. You will have blinked first and they will have won the game of "electoral chicken".
The proper response is to let them know who is absolutely unacceptable, under any circumstances, as the leader of this forum has done. This puts the monkey on their back to find and field an acceptable candidate.
It's a dangerous strategy, but it's the only way to avoid being marginalized into irrelevance. Anything else is simply capitulation.