Well, least I finally learn what the meaning of the term is. I admit I?ve been too lazy to goggle it when someone froths at the mouth and the abbreviation is used.
If they wanted to defend the homeland, they?d not want us to be pre-occupied with foreign wars while illegals invade this nation by the millions, and Muslims run free to convert further followers to the bloodshed and imposition of Sharia.
I strayed off topic, the question is regarding staff members. That sort of depends on how many politically active/savvy Republicans have become members. Depends on how likely it merely happened as opposed to if they were selected for that reason, and for what position they hold in the campaign. If it?s some regional twat that the candidate has never and will never meet, I couldn?t care less.
Although the concept of such an ideology being prevalent among Republicans is nonetheless disturbing We need a campaign for further foreign wars like we need another hole in the head.
*edit
I get the impression now you?re referring to actual positions in the administration. I kept thinking campaign staff.
For this I?ll stand by my earlier analysis that the ideology is disturbing, as if to distract us while bad things occur at home. I?m less concerned about relations to a particular group though than I am about a person?s actual ideology.
If for example, a President and their staff were more interested in Iran than securing our border and pursuing the radicals already here, I?d have to oppose them.