[Badray]

I understand that power is necessary to advance principle, but I also understand that abused and squandered power does more harm than good.

As a conservative or more appropriately, a constitutionalist, I know that my rights don't come from government and even the absolute destruction of the Constitution does not effect my rights. It only means that I have to fight a little harder to exercise them.

In the short term, RINOs do more damage to our rights because the attack on them is more insidious and because they are 'our guys', they don't get the strict scrutiny that the 'other' team would for the same proposals. (please note my tagline.)

If I had my druthers, I'll take a divided government with a Dem president and a conservative Congress to blunt him or a true constitutionalist to blunt a 'moderate' or liberal Congress, but a divided and antagonistic government which produces a lot of gridlock in any form will do.

A weak congress and a RINO or Dem president spells disaster for the Republic.

[tanknetter]

If I had my druthers, I'll take a divided government with a Dem president and a conservative Congress to blunt him or a true constitutionalist to blunt a 'moderate' or liberal Congress, but a divided and antagonistic government which produces a lot of gridlock in any form will do.

Which kinda brings us back to my main point: I assume that you'd think a Conservative/Constitutionalist Judiciary (and more specifically, a Supreme Court) is crucial (and, indeed the history of the SCOTUS from Earl Warren forward seems to bear this out). How can this be achieved under either of the scenarios you propose?