Here’s an excerpt at the end of the article worth memorizing:
“The perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he says, arguing that Giuliani is still significantly closer to social conservatives on key issues than leading Democrats. After all, Land adds, social conservatives “understand they are voting for commander in chief, not Baptist in chief.”
No, sorry. I would agree, normally, that the perfect is the enemy of the good. But Rudy would not be good.
Less harm would be done allowing Hildabeast to be elected than electing a pro-abortionist on the Republican ticket, giving us two pro-abortion, pro-fetal experimentation, pro-gun-grabbing, pro-assisted-suicide, pro-gay/lesbian parties. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.
It would destroy the party and the conservative coalition.
Now, I don’t wan’t hillary in the White House, which means that I don’t want Rudy nominated. Cut him off before that happens, or it will end in total disaster.
Not sure where you're going with that, but my response is: No sense in defending the republic if you're going to let it wither from within. What's the point?
And I'm not a Baptist.
the point this author fails to make is that Commander in Chief (President of the USA) sometimes has the option that he can support or reject legislation (not to mention federal funding/ judges) tha deal with these real social positions (that many Baptists are conservative on)! Rudy is a no deal. He’s like Diesel in a gasoline engine..
“The perfect is not the enemy of the good,” he says, arguing that Giuliani is still significantly closer to social conservatives on key issues than leading Democrats. After all, Land adds, social conservatives “understand they are voting for commander in chief, not Baptist in chief.”
I am voting for commander in chief, not Satan’s foot soldier!