When we start fudging these issues based on party platforms, we are doing a disservice to our principles, our party and our nation. If either party is serious about its platform, it is the Demonrat Party. The GOP platform contains a laundry list of our litmus tests to sucker us into voting GOP-E just this ONE more time and they yet again promise to reform their behavior if we elect them. Then they use that platform as toilet paper until the next election and treat conservatives as though they were the eccentric "funny" uncle in the attic who must be kept away from polite company.
Enough!!! If Obozo "wins," the GOP in Congress will make a united stand against him and Romney and the GOP-E take the blame for blowing a slam dunk election through their rank cowardice and spinelessness. If Romney "wins," inevitably how much he and supine GOP majorities in both houses of Congress will trample the platform in their mad and useless rush to seek respect and approval from the likes of Rachel Maddow, Chrissie Matthews, Miss Piggy McCain, and little Ronnie Tutu.
If the GOP, and the RNC and the other bought and paid for fashionable stooges want to avoid substantial defections into the ranks of independents refusing to vote for their candidates, then they can get the Elitist thumbs off the scale, get the hell out of the way, nominate decent candidates likely to carry out those high-minded platforms and seek votes as Reagan did---the old-fashioned way by inspiring the base and bringing in socially conservative Democrat voters who have had enough of Obozo. But nooooo, election after election after election they pull the same elitist crap, ignore the base, chuckle up their sleeves over how much they can take us whom they think of as neanderthals for granted and the GOP winds up losing yet again.
In MA, there are perhaps 100 people capable of running for Senate and having a chance to get elected. Scott Brown is the most conservative (or least liberal) of all of them. Thus, he is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet some describe the best of all possible outcomes as the “lesser of two evils”. Comical. And “Lesser of two evils” is not a phrase from Catholic theology. The US Army invented that phrase 80 years ago.
In CT, Linda McMahon is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet, some “pro-lifers” refuse to cast a vote in that election.
In the hippie radical territory of MA Berkshires, we had a wonderful candidate in ‘10, but the right could not resist with the “RINO, RINO” chant. Richard Neal got another term.
yet they use the Catholic faith to defend their poor judgment as if the faith require that they continue to be FOOLS? Prudence. It must be the optional virtue.
One more example: the ‘09 special election in NY-20 (Tedisco vs. MurphY), Murphy was elected with 50.1% of the vote allowing him to cast one of the deciding votes for Obamacare. Now, the local leader of the New York Right to Life Party went on a 5-minute 50 decibal tirade when Tedisco’s name was mentioned, something about Tedisco being divorced and re-married, attending a Bible Church, Tedisco needing a haircut and talking too fast and driving the wrong kind of car, basically concluding Tedisco was a worthless toad.
The same Jimmy Tedisco who spent the past 25 years fighting the left in Albany every day, 99% pro-life voting record (NYRTL) and personally dedicated to the issue due to his younger brother having Down’s Syndrome.
Something tells that these cases are a result of ENVY, that “we haven’t spent 40 years fighting Roe v Wade to have some toad like Tedisco to come along and reap the reward.”
I guess it takes all kinds. And if ya take a vulgar scumbag and stick him into a church pew and make him pro-life, what do you have? A pro-life religious vulgar scumbag!