And you ignore the fact that there are more conservatives in the Republican party than some care to admit that have become dissatisfied with who the national party endorses for office. I used to vote straight Republican ticket every election. Now I do not, at least at the local level. In some of our local elections the Democrats are more conservative than the Republicans. Strange but true.
So my decision this year is to vote for the Republican candidate for Senate or not vote at all. I will not vote for the Democratic candidate. But I'm not sure I can honestly vote my conscience by voting for someone who on most issues I strongly disagree
Democrats led by Senator Byrd had adopted many of the arguements of the so called conservative constitutionalist. They do so in order to split the republican party.
I find many of the constitutionalist views to be not conservative at all, but to be liberal in every way.(although not socialist in nature)
To be liberal is to be for provacative changes in the way we govern ourselves. That is the definition. A true conservative will protect the status quo and resist change. This you are not, and therefore are not truly conservative.
Frankly, I am not sure what label fits. Conservatism circa 1800 perhaps, but not now. I view your views as anti-everything except personal freedoms that were lost many years ago. (ie: drugs for the most part) I donot see how reverting to anarchy is at all a conservative value.
In Massachusetts, we'd be better off if the Republican Party disbanded, and the Democrats aligned into two groups...fiscally somewhat conservative vs. totally nutty about spending.
Mitt Romney is no better; he ignored the convention in his preference for Lieutenant Governor. I most probably won't vote for him, unless he finds a way to get Kerry Healey off the ticket and Jim Rappaport on.