>> You’re supposed to give your unreserved support to the guys who are driving the country over the cliff at a sedate 55 mph - rather than those wild and crazy fools who are flooring it over the same cliff at 85.
That’s the theory. Now let’s look at the reality.
goldstategop votes in Colorado.
Are you honestly saying that casting a vote for Beauprez over gun grabbing Hickenlooper would be a mistake? Send the wrong message and all that?
How about a vote for Cory Gardner (R) over “Mr. Abortion” Mark Udall? That would be a mistake? Send the wrong message?
Its simple. How far under the traditional 80%, which means accepting 1 in 5 liberal actions, is one willing to go before he becomes the thing he claims he hates?
2 in 5? 3? How far? Because actions have consequences when you liberalize your party.
Not at all.
For myself, I take the time to study each candidate's record and positions before casting judgement on them. If a candidate agrees with me more than 60% of the time, and he's the Republican nominee, he's probably going to get my vote.
If his record and positions show him to be no better than his Democrat opponent, then I really don't have a choice to vote FOR.
I won't give my vote to a liberal with an R velcroed to his sleeve, just to defeat his liberal buddy with a D tattooed to his forehead.
In the cases you mentioned, there's no doubt I'd vote R.
The point I'm making is that our party is observably sliding to the left. I know that all of us support true conservatives in every primary, where we can, but when those conservatives fail to capture the nomination, all too often the liberal Repuke is given a free pass on this forum.
What I'm saying is that we have got to figure out some way to stop rewarding the GOP-e for running these miscreants. Voting for them only ensures that we get more of them to vote for in the future.
Ya gotta stop it somewhere.