Compromise is what politics is about.
You can dislike that statement, and say,
"it ought not be that way"
but none the less, the statement remains true.
It is necessary to compromise on WHO YOU want and
who has the best chance of bringing in 51% of the electoral vote.
OR ...
just be prepared to live under a democrat presidency while you sit smugly
and self-satisfied that YOU would not sacrifice YOUR principles.
Face it, NOBODY who thinks and feels and believes EXACTLY like you do is going to win.
So what do you do?
Do you stay home and not vote?
Do you cast your vote as a "protest" or on "principal" for some candidate
who can not possible win but they most closely reflect your interest?
OR
Do you vote for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the greater evil?
Lke it or not, that is the way the game of politics is played.
Maybe it ought not be that way,
but the truth is,
that's the way it is.
For me, I realize that neither Barry Golwater nor Ronald Reagan are going to get resurrected to run in 2008.
My preference would be to see Newt in there, but he is such a lightning rod, I question his electability.
I think Rudy is "not TOO bad" and I think he he is VERY electable.
So, for right now, he is 'da man.
"Compromise is what politics is about."
I thought this little gem on the interpretation of the meaning of compromise by different cultures from Wikipedia was very interesting.
"In the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something). In the former Soviet Union, the word was rather unknown."
I think we are heading toward the Soviet version with HIllary and Rudy. I don't think this compromise is in favor of the Constitution.