A very inapt comparison. To have a mate is a choice. There are always multiple options, even if they're not actual at the moment. There's no such situation politics and government. The choice is between a mildly statist party and a very statist party. Ludicrously, the Libertarians seemingly would rather let the very statist party (at heart, a socialist party) win rather than soil themselves with a vote for the much less statist party. Spare me your cheap shots at the Republicans. The Libertarians are fools.
The lesser of two evils is still evil my friend.
Spare me your cheap shots at the Republicans.
One can hardly call a greater rate of government spending growth than any President since LBJ a 'cheap shot'.
The Libertarians are fools.
I suppose actually acting on conservative principles is too much to ask.
Bridge to nowhere?-No Problem.
Ballooning the Medicaid budget beyond LBJs wildest dreams?-No problem.
Passing a Highway Bill so bloated with pork it embarrassed Robert Byrd?-No problem.
No Child (s Parents Money) Left Behind?-No problem.
Federalizing Airport Security workers?-No problem.
Supporting amnesty for 12 million lawbreakers?-No problem.
So tell me again CP. Where exactly are these 'conservative principles' you all keep yammering about? I'd love to know because they sure as hell weren't in your Legislative agenda.
L
Actually it is a very apt comparision.
To bring the point home, the GOP can't reliably win elections by just being the "least unappealing", they actually have to have something that is appealing.