Right on mccain and graham, VERY wrong on the rest. In fact, mccain and graham are prime examples of what you get when the second half of his article comes to pass.
We need to get over judging who is 100% “true conservative” and who is just a “RINO”. Ever since the wordsmiths at democratic troll central introduced these concepts, we have been at war with ourselves.
So, from a conservative perspective, where do we draw the line for withholding support from a potential Presidential candidate?
Which issue, combination of issues, or number of issues are you really willing to sacrifice for a win?
1. Abortion?
2. Gay Marriage?
3. Amnesty?
4. Limited, constitutional Government?
__________________________________________________________________
If we strictly adhere to number four, all the rest will take care of themselves.
Which of those issues you listed do you think will be improved when you lose?
Are you saying that unless you can have it all, you don't want any of it?
I personally would settle for limiting the government to it's constitutionally mandated authority. That is the root of all the other excesses.
The marxist have been slowly deconstructing the constitution since the 1930's. One small piece at a time, one government agency at a time, one educational institution at a time, one newspaper at a time, until the control most of the levers of power. Their symbol is the turtle.
I agree with all of the items you listed and many more. I don't think we can achieve them all at the same time.
So, from a conservative perspective, where do we draw the line for withholding support from a potential Presidential candidate? Which issue, combination of issues, or number of issues are you really willing to sacrifice for a win?
1. Abortion?
2. Gay Marriage?
3. Amnesty?
4. Limited, constitutional Government?
There are some thoughtful posts here. Really, we need to bring the infighting to a screeching halt.
Unite or die. That should be one of the two fundamental principles of the Republican Party for the next four years.
The other is that we must become the Latino Party. Not the Amnesty Party. There's a difference. The Latino vote, and the Latino community, are not monolithic. We must be the party of LEGAL Latinos.
With a few exceptions (the ones who have family members who are here illegally and want to become citizens), legal Latinos aren't very happy about the idea of amnesty. When a Latino immigrant comes here and is willing to work for a lower wage, someone who's working for a higher wage usually gets displaced. And that person is usually a legal Latino. The legal Latinos see illegal immigration and amnesty as threats to their livelihood.
The problem here is that a handful of Republicans choose to discuss this issue in an extremely insensitive, almost racist way. Latinos have a very finely tuned radar for that and it turns them against us. In my opinion, when Romney said the word "self-deportation," he lost the election. The Democratic Party has thousands of operatives who speak Spanish fluently, and are telling Latinos that Republicans are racists. Remarks like "self-deportation" hand enormous amounts of free ammunition to those operatives.
Similarly insensitive and bona fide stupid remarks about rape and pregnancy by Akins and Mourdock cost us two Senate races that we should have won. Always remember that when a Republican candidate says something stupid and insensitive about women or minorities, that remark is going to be put on the air on MSNBC more often than Rachel Maddow's smirk, from that moment until the election.
I think we can afford to give one inch on abortion and amnesty. On abortion, allow exceptions for rape and incest. On amnesty, allow people to apply for citizenship if they have been here for at least 10 years, if they've never been convicted of a crime, and if they're working. Compromises like these aren't really compromises, because they'd still get rid of about 95% of all abortions and 80% of illegal immigrants. But they'd gain us enough votes to win instead of losing.
I would rather win than lose.
1. Abortion?
2. Gay Marriage?
3. Amnesty?
4. Limited, constitutional Government?
You left out a couple of items where some compromise is being discussed. On the issues of (5) gun control and (6) bringing back sanity to the budget/deficit/national debt debate, I say NO COMPROMISE.