Huh??? Is the above direct quote from you mischaracterized too, or is it just 1984 doublespeak? It makes my point exactly. If you are voting for the one "who isn't as bad" you are voting for the "lesser evil". This attitude is absolutely wounding the GOP to death by a thousand cuts. We didn't learn last time we had the Presidency until it was too late and in 1992 it cost us 8 shameful years of Clinton's appeasement and corruption. Is the GOP going to make the same mistake again as we go into the 2006 and 2008 elections? It sure looks to me that it is headed that way, and if it does, we'll have no one to blame but those in the party who thought they could retain power by compromise and appeasement.
Understand, I think we're on the same side of the fence albeit definitely with different approaches on how to combat socialist-democrats, I just think it's time to kick butt and take names and stand for the basic tenants of what conservatism is all about, many of which JimRob listed in this thread.
Regarding your recurring comments and position concerning "realism". I thank GOD our forefathers did not embrace this position when they weighed the consequences of whether to remain under the dominion and rule of the British government or whether to fight for freedom and sovereignty. Had they taken the "realistic" approach they would have clearly seen that they were out-manned, out-trained, and out-supplied by British forces. Had they chosen the route of compromise and appeasement, as many in our GOP party today are advocating, this nation would never have become the greatest nation (ever).
Unfortunately, even though you may not want or like to hear it, nevertheless, I'll repeat it again, history records that there are no great moderates or compromisers. If it does, provide a list of such historically significant leaders and I'll gladly retract the statement. Resolve to further and strengthen conservative ideals. Don't just settle for the scraps being thrown at us to shut us up.
Oh and BTW, thank you for your military service to this country.- OB1
Of course -- I never said anything to the contrary. It's that its not a "win", which is why I put that word in quotations. It's kind of like football. You'd prefer to be on offense, because that's when you score points. But there are times you play defense, and on those occasions, you want to give up as little yardage as possible. If the GOP nominee isn't good, but is better than the Dem, I'd rather have the lesser of two evils. Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course I'd rather get a real "win" by having my preferred guy win both the primary and the general election. That's when you can really advance the ball. Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way, so you vote for the guy who is going to screw you the least because that's the only choice you've got.
I agree there are occasions when a particularly bad "lesser of two evils" isn't worth supporting. Better to let the other numbskull win, screw things up, and get the guy you really want next time. I understand that, and that's how we got Reagan. A bad Dem permits us to run a more conservative Republican. But if you run a conservative Republican against a centrist Dem (definitely a dying breed), you're gonna lose most of the time. And if you pick the wrong time to fight that battle, the results can be devastating.
Had they taken the "realistic" approach they would have clearly seen that they were out-manned, out-trained, and out-supplied by British forces.
Okay, I'm going to flip your analogy around. General Washington was smart -- he knew that his army wasn't good enough to face the Brits most of the time in open battle. So he didn't fight battles he knew he couldn't win. Instead, he fought delaying and harassing actions, and bided his time until he saw opportunities to strike. And the only reason he had the ability to strike was because he preserved his force in being by not fighting unwinnable battles. Then when terrain or timing favored him, as in Princeton, Trenton, and Yorktown, he struck.
I'll repeat it again, history records that there are no great moderates or compromisers. If it does, provide a list of such historically significant leaders and I'll gladly retract the statement.
Ever heard of "The Great Compromise", without which this country would not exist? But oOkay, you wanted names. Well, here's one for you:
Rising above the interests of class and section, Washington made a strong, viable union his goal. In a very real sense, he personified the emerging spirit of nationhood in the newly independent colonies. His support for a strong central government undoubtedly reflected his military experience, both as an officer in the Virginia militia and as the commanding general of the Continental Army. Indeed, the thirteen years that Washington spent on active service-more than a quarter of his adult life-were a singular devotion to public duty by a prosperous, eighteenth-century landowner. The practical experiences provided by this lengthy military career furnished Washington with a sure grasp of the political, economic, and military advantages to be gained from an effective central government. His unwavering support of this concept, and his understanding of the importance of political compromise, were essential to the success of the Constitutional Convention.
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=George+Washington+compromise&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt&u=www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/RevWar/ss/washington.htm&w=george+washington+compromise&d=D8EIlRbfMkMO&icp=1&.intl=us
And then there's Reagan, who knew when to cut the best deal he could, and when to stand firm.
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=Reagan+Compromise&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt&u=www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040606-095250-7758r.htm&w=reagan+compromise&d=fjH4hBbfMXaB&icp=1&.intl=us
I'm not saying that compromise is always a good thing. Many times, its bad, and you need to hold your ground. But there are other times when compromise makes perfect sense. Just because some people can't draw that distinction properly is no cause to reject compromise under all circumstances. As I said before, the "no compromise" route would have result in no tax cut at all in 2001.