Moreover, electability is not a static quality. Just as a candidate can do things to make himself more or less electable, supporters can also influence that as well. My original contention was, and remains, that by not running for office ourselves, we are by default, accepting someone who will not represent us perfectly, but, 'good enough,' but in order to do so, we have to hitch our wagon to somebody who we reasonably expect to win. Sometimes that expectation is founded in reality and sometimes in false hopes.
The question for me is what constitutes “good enough.”
Personally, I don’t think most people have much of a plumb line these days, one that isn’t negotiable or malleable in the heat of an election season.
I’m talking about the basic things that have to do with whether or not these “representatives” will keep their oath.
I’m more than willing to compromise on many things. If the question is, “what shall we have for dinner?” while I may have my own preferences, I’m wide open to going with what others may want.
But if the question is, “Will this candidate protect the most important God-given, unalienable equal rights of the people, including the supreme right of those who are not yet born?” or “will they protect our right to keep and bear arms?” or “will they defend the sovereignty, security and borders of the country?” or, “will they stay within the enumerated powers of the Constitution?” I’m not willing any longer to budge a single inch.
And I remain firm in my belief that if everyone who calls themselves a Christian, or a conservative, would simply do this, and stop compromising what should never be compromised, for the sake of political expedience, we could save the republic quite quickly and easily.
The other side of that coin is that I also have come to believe that there is absolutely no way to save the republic if they won’t do that.