Thank you for putting matters into the clearest possible terms.
In 1964 the nation chose Lyndon Baines Johnson and a constrained "war" in Vietnam designed to waste blood and treasure and to ultimately lose, politically; as well as LBJ's "War On Poverty" which would scatter six trillion to the idle and fail to bring anyone higher.
And when LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in a Vesuvian lava flow I complained to my U.S. History teacher whereupon Mr. Holmes advised me that politics is the art of the possible and history never goes back.
As Marcus Aurelius might advise when the barbarians were chatting over cocktails with Hillary and Obama, "concern yourself with that which is within your power."
We do not need anyone on a white charger and certainly no one whose moral aura is as blinding as that of Kim Jong Il on his birthday day before yesterday.
As we worked feverishly on a campaign to beat one of the liberal pantheon a few years back, in came John Dendahl the man who just unsuccessfully challenged Bill Richardson (and had his communications director beaten savagely with a tire iron for his effort) who raised his fist cheerfully exhorting us, "Win!"
There is nothing without victory; the first duty of the politician is to win.
Victory is our candidate.
At the blackest hour of the London Blitz or the Battle of the Bulge the main concern was not philosophical purity but victory.
Somehow a bunch of fools stayed home because Mark Foley sent graphic text messages to a precocious teen--a bunch of fools who forgot that now Carl Levin gets to make sure there's no missile defense installation in Poland and Japan when Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decide to act out knowing their puppetmaster/protectors in Moscow and Beijing have got their backs.
The fools who forgot that now the taxes go up and the economy goes down, the military is starved and the tyranny of the courts grows like jungle canopy.
No, not purity, VICTORY.
The last part is the part some around here seem to be having trouble with.
The country has moved on and they don't seem to be able to adjust.
You had a smart history teacher.
"There is nothing without victory; the first duty of the politician is to win.
Victory is our candidate.
At the blackest hour of the London Blitz or the Battle of the Bulge the main concern was not philosophical purity but victory.
Somehow a bunch of fools stayed home because Mark Foley sent graphic text messages to a precocious teen--a bunch of fools who forgot that now Carl Levin gets to make sure there's no missile defense installation in Poland and Japan when Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decide to act out knowing their puppetmaster/protectors in Moscow and Beijing have got their backs.
The fools who forgot that now the taxes go up and the economy goes down, the military is starved and the tyranny of the courts grows like jungle canopy.
No, not purity, VICTORY."
Amen. My tagline sums up these purity morons!
Is it considered a "Victory" to type a letter to the GOP, saying, "We will vote for you, regardless, so continuing your move to the left is fine!" ...?!?!?
I consider that to be Defeat...a selling out of our future, long-term.
At the blackest hour of the London Blitz or the Battle of the Bulge the main concern was not philosophical purity but victory.
I think we won without resorting to philosophically distasteful means, such as chemical warfare or other atrocities. We didn't use nukes in Korea, even as we clung to the tip of the peninsula. Seems those battlefield arguments support doing the right thing, rather than selling out.
In fact, it seems that they demonstrate that "the possible" is even broader than you want us to believe! We won the Battles of Britain and the Bulge; it WAS possible! And the LBJ/Vietnam example demonstrates the bankruptcy (both in terms of morality and efficacy) of trying the short-term-thinking approach rather than fighting for a real win.
I don't want Hillary or the others in there any more than anyone else here, but I also don't want to throw away our hope of ever seeing conservative wins, just to get lefties rather than far-lefties in the short term.
Heck, if we want to do that, why not just become Democrats so we can make sure there are no far-lefties on the general ballots? Seems just as effective and defeatist.
Bump!