Like Dr. Dobson, I find it very unlikely I'd pick one of two pro-abortion candidates, for example, blood virtually dripping from their canine teeth, just because one has a certain party label. When an official is against the right to life, he is hardly for the constitutional rights which depend upon it. And in Illinois, there are many Democrat voters and a good number of candidates/officials who are more conservative in basic "social policies" than many on the GOP side.
As a rule of thumb, I think it's best to vote for individual candidates one can feel morally comfortable voting for.
I'm all for consolidating power at general election time (as opposed to competing against conservatives!) but only if we can say that the power is at least propotionately our power and not that of the RINO husband of the battered wife, so to speak. Let's remember, "all politics is local politics."
(Haven't read JR's piece thoroughly yet, though I generally like what I've scanned.)
My lil' ol' views.
While in principle you are certainly correct...let's remember something else my friend: politics is about winning, AND politics is about accepting the fact that you can't get EVERYTHING you want all at once.
With George Ryan, Judy Barr Topinka and others in our eh-hem "Republican" party here in IL, it's kinda hard to align with who THEY deem the "best" candidate. You must research the issues and back the candidate you want. After all (and DO NOT laugh at me) I was backing Phil Graham in the election that saw Dole against Clinton.
Certainly you should back who you feel best represents your beliefs in the primary. In the general election, I find it hard to not vote along party lines if the primaries have put up a candidate that we disagree with just as a "I'll teach them" type of attitude. We MUST hold onto the majority and grow it if we want to succeed.
I was just having lunch with a client and we were discussing California vs. Illinois, (I grew up in Cali)...I told her Southern California has the same diversity as Chicagoland, however I saw it as being a CONSTANT struggle for power of the races/groups..she thought that was weird since Cali was always so "liberal"...I said, yes, but that's because when the elections come, they put aside personal differences and all get behind the "liberal" candidate and then go back to internal bickering after the election.
We as conservatives need to learn to do that as well. However, I agree with you....at some point, if the "RINOS" continue to dominate the party, there may be a major split and it could have, unfortunately, devistating effects for ALL conservatives, and the RINOS need to remember that, without our vote, they have no power. So therefore, they need to strive as hard not to alienate us, true Republicans, as we do to embrace the "right" Republican candidate in a general election.
I agree with some of this, but we are at a stage where most mainstream republicans (not even RINO's, who are farther left) are to the left of the JFK democrats of the late 50's & early 60's (pre LBJ)
I might bring myself to vote for one of these "mainstream" republicans, but there is no way I can vote for the very liberal RINO's
As I have said before, i will vote for the most constitutional, conservative candidate, even if he is in a "minor" party - my conscience will not allow me to do otherwise.
Just think what could have happened if all the conservatives in Illinois had supported Poshard (a conservative democrat) for Governor in 98 - the republicans would have been forced to run a more conservative candidate in 2002, and we probably wouldn't have the disaster we currently have both in the party & in the state government