Replies

> responsibility to work in the best interests of the party,
> which may at time conflict with your own personal views, in
> order to build a working majority.

Is it in the best interest of the party to provide support for the likes of Scuzzyface, a pro-abortion, anti-gun, “progressive” that will vote against you in Congress regardless of which side of the aisle it occupies? Or even defect to the other party when doing so would give the opposition the power to grant the aforementioned pro-abortion, anti-gun “progressive” Republican a committee chair?

Sorry.

Principle MUST trump pragmatism.

If not, then all you have is a bunch of unprincipled, opportunist politicos, like much of the current Co0ngress and Senate.

Gingrich is a pragmatist. His principles take second place to his schema.

I do not trust him and will not vote for him in the primary.

I will be forced once again to vote for the lesser of two evils on the presidential ballot if it’s Gingrich against he Maoist Moslem Alien.

"Is it in the best interest of the party to provide support for the likes of Scuzzyface, a pro-abortion, anti-gun, “progressive” that will vote against you in Congress regardless of which side of the aisle it occupies? Or even defect to the other party when doing so would give the opposition the power to grant the aforementioned pro-abortion, anti-gun “progressive” Republican a committee chair?"

Thank you, sir. You said what I was trying to say better than I did.

No matter what Gingrich's personal views are, what kind of decisions will he make? Let's say Gingrich opposes Partial Birth Abortion, but brings in 20 GOP members of Congress, who will not vote against it? This is the realistic view of politics. Really? Really?

Here's my argument: 1. The country is being transformed into a socialist state. 2. Who will turn this around?

Will Gingrich, with his "realistic" view of politics, where a Scozzafava is to be supported and Partial Birth Abortion is not beyond the pale? How does this turn the country around?