[SoConPubbie]

But in the most important election in my lifetime, when getting rid of Obama is the main issue, it's very reasonable to ask you and the others for whom this is issue #1 to demonstrate to the rest of us that taking your position on immigration is not a guaranteed loser for a candidate.

Same crappy logic used by every elite GOP member to cover over the failures in issue positions for Mitt, John McCain, Gerald Ford, etc.

As Tea-Party members, are goal HAS TO BE to get the most conservative POTUS we can to replace Obama.

Given your logic, we would have ended up with George H. Bush instead of Reagan in 1980.

I am not interested in the same old "Lessor of two evils", "Electable" false choices that are always presented by the GOP and it's flacks.

[Jim Noble]

Same crappy logic

You miss the point of my argument.

I say, IF you insist that a candidate signs on to your position, that THEN you need to answer a reasonable question, "why doesn't this position you insist on win elections? In fact, why does it always lose?"

That's a fair and reasonable question.

If your point is, if you can't have what you want on this issue then you don't care if Obama gets re-elected, that's fine. I have issues like that, just not this one.

But you are calling people out for not insisting that our candidate go your way on this one, without showing, or even claiming, that your position is popular.

It isn't popular, which is why you keep losing, and some of us don't want to lose with you.