You first stated:
"I will vote for whatever Republican runs no matter who it is."
Arlen Specter was a Democrat until he ran as a Republican.
Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat until he ran as a Republican.
Both times the party accepted them as candidates and ignored what they had stood for because they wanted someone who could win. We can only hope that the Stupid Party would wise up. You put nothing into 'context'. It was wide open to interpretation. That's why I asked for an explanation.
#2No I don't have an R fetish. I believe in the Republican Party because they are so much better then the alternative. And I'm not talking about a third party. Its useless to throw away your vote on a third party."
Better? In many ways, yes. Good enough? In way too many ways, NO they aren't. And in some ways, following the GOP gets us to the same socialist destination that the Dems want us to go, just at a slightly slower pace and less costly rate.
"#3 Yes principles matter to me. Thats why I vote Republican. And at the risk of copying Condi. Please don't impugn my integrity."
Cute. I questioned your meaning. I am questioning your blind allegience to the party because I don't find that much in the way of consistent policy or principle, mostly it's political expediency in order to craft a victory. But I have not impugned your integrity.
"#4 No I would not support Arlon Spector or Lincoln Chaffee over Zell Miller. Thats where I expected the reader to use some common sense. I'm sure its safe to say Spector or Chaffee would never make it through the primarys so the idea of having to vote for one of them is just silly."
It's good to see that you are not as dogmatic as you first stated because you did say ANY Republican. You never know who the party will accept as a nominee. If even a well known Dem stood up tomorrow and announced a 'conversion', the GOP would be happy to run them the next day as a candidate who could win. See my two examples at the top of the post.
"#5. I know we need true conservatives to enact our agenda and in a perfect world, we could elect someone like that but the world of politics isn't perfect. We haven't had a perfect candidate since Ronald Reagan, God rest his soul. I am realistic enough to know we most likely will never have a perfect candidate."
Perfect? No. Principled and with the courage to stand steadfastly for those principles. You don't get those candidates when the party doesn't have clear, consistent, solid principles that candidates must meet to get endorsed. Voter ideology can be varied, but the party must stand firm for small government, low taxes, (not just smaller and lower than what the Democrats want) and individual liberty.
Is that too much to ask? Is that too extreme? Is it that hard to get candidates that believe in those things? Or is it that the party only wants to win and will endorse anyone that they believe can win and will play ball (do as told)?
"#6 You are right. If you lose an election, you lose everything you believe in. These people who plan on sitting home or voting 3rd party will ensure us a loss. How is that going to help our cause?"
You need to reread what I wrote (or maybe I should check that I didn't misspeak). When you vote for principle, you don't lose even if you do lose the election. If you vote to win and are willing to overlook or compromise principle to do so, you do lose everything that is important to you when you lose an election.
"#7 Im not power hungry. I am patriotic. I love my country and I'll be damned if I will sit home and pout or waste my vote on a third party just because I am not in perfect lockstep with our candidate."
I guess that this is the difference between us. I am a conservative first and a Republican second and only quite reluctantly. You are a Republican first and maybe, kinda, sorta like some conservative ideals. I look at candidates with one thing in mind -- Do they trust me to be free? The more a candidate or party wants to control my ife, the less likely he will get my vote. Bush's CFR and Incumbent Protection Act, the Greedy Geezer Drug Benefit Plan, and the despicably named USA PATRIOT Act are just 3 examples of laws that are worthy of the Democrats. And if the Dems had proposed these bills, we would have raised holy hell and fought them. Bush sends them up and the Republicans are happy as pigs in slop. The Republican Party may present a nicer face to you, but they are taking us the same place as the Dems. Either they are incredibly stupid, power hungry, or dastardly evil when you get past that nicer face and look at what they advance. The Republicans just are not all that concerned with your liberty. Sorry if reality doesn't provide you a truth to your liking.
"I'll be damned if I will contribute to the anti American party getting their foot in the door and ruining my country just because I wanted to make a statement."
You may think that you are stopping the leftward drift by voting for 'any Republican', but all you are doing is ensuring that it will continue to that drift. Taking a hardline approach can be risky. But in 1994, we took that risk and won. We pushed for the GOP to go right and the American people followed and voted the for GOP to impliment the plans that we had to offer. Yet, when we finally get the GOP the majorities that they ask for, they lose their backbone and jettison those winning plans and start to act like the Democrats by pandering and buying votes with your tax dollars.
"I hope I have answered your questions."
I think that is more important if I answered yours.
Again about Bloomberg and Spector, they are liberals and I don't believe they would have gotten as far as to actually win a primary for President. You have to look where they are from.
I still stick to my original position. I will revise my original statement. I will vote for a Republican unless the other party can provide me a good alternative like Zell Miller or John Brau. (Cant spell)
I am definitely not a wimpy conservative. I am a Rush Limbaugh type conservative. A raging, get involved, hate liberalism type of conservative. I think I am probably one of a few people who actually sees the real danger of getting a liberal in power. Not in social issues or domestic issues but on terrorism. I really believe Rudy or even McCain would be better on terrorism than a liberal democrat.
We can take our stand but do it after our guy gets in office cause if a liberal democrat gets in, we won't have another chance.
I understand what you are saying about people saying each election, this is the most important one but those were before 9/11. This time and in the future, it is for real.