[Jim Robinson]

The absolute must have positions would be pro-life, pro-family, pro-individual rights, pro-gun, ie, pro-constitution, and for a strong national defense, small government, low spending and low taxes.

The list can go on and on to various degrees but for sure a qualified conservative (social and fiscal) candidate would be for all of the above.

I think I'd have trouble with at least a couple of the current "electable" wannabes.

[sitetest]

Dear Jim Robinson,

"The absolute must have positions would be pro-life, pro-family, pro-individual rights, pro-gun, ie, pro-constitution, and for a strong national defense, small government, low spending and low taxes."

I can easily vote for a candidate like this.

The difficulty is that, as you say, at least one or two of the current "electables" don't meet these minimum criteria in some glaring ways.

What that means is that we all have to pull hard to make sure that only an acceptable candidate becomes the nominee.

The question is, what happens if that doesn't happen? What happens if the nominee ISN'T pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-First Amendment?

"And I have full faith and confidence that whomever gets the Republican nod ALL Republicans and conservatives will close ranks behind him to defeat the wicked witch from hell, Hillary Clinton."

Are you suggesting that we get behind a nominee who doesn't meet the reasonable minimum standards that you've articulated?

Thanks,


sitetest