Kevmo:
I think you and I got this straightened out earlier, but I'll go ahead and answer here, too.
I never said anyone must support the team if for any reason they don't feel they should. It's not relevant to my point to keep pointing out that people who are bailing on the team think they have a good reason to do so.
My point, which I think you agree with to some extent, is that, regardless of what justifies quitting, it's still a gamble for the individual and the country. That's because, just like in football, if some players quit, the team still has to play the game. So it may try to get the players back, it may look for new players, but whatever it does it tries to find a way to win with what it's got.
Interestingly, this thread (link below) about something Rush said illustrates my point perfectly.
Rush made my point a year ago:
RUSH ARCHIVES: This notion that it doesn't matter who wins because the Democrats aren't going to have a big enough majority? That's going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It's going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it. And right now, that looks like McCain, above anybody else -- who, I must tell you, is not a conservative. And so what are you probably going to end up doing? You're going to be so frustrated by 2008, and the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming president so obnoxious, so abhorrent; that in 2008 you will flush your precious principles down the drain and elect a Republican, precisely the kind of Republican you think you're running against now -- or you will at least nominate one. Who knows how that election will go? So the very principle that you are fighting here, if you succeed, you will be given a candidate who fits the very thing you're angry about: somebody who's not conservative enough but probably has the best chance of winning.
When we began this conversation, that's what I was addressing: WHY McCain is the nominee. It's not because of anti-Christian bigotry.
It's because conservatives bailed on the party in 2006 and now they're saying they are going to bail again. It's because conservatives barely voted for the more conservatives candidates in the primaries when they had every opportunity to do so.
So the party, which must has a nominee, and which exists for the purpose of winning elections, has no choice (from their point of view) but to try to find a way to win with what they got. And McCain has always said he's the man to bring in Independents and Reagan Democrats---IOW, he's the man who can provide some replacement players so the party can try to win this thing.
As Rush said:
In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it.
This is WHY McCain is the nominee. Political parties exist to win. When the conservative way doesn't deliver, then the party (meaning: the majority of people voting in the primaries and lending support to candidates) does something else. That's all.
Rush goes on to make a point about voting for congresscritters, not president. But his analysis (and my analogy) is certainly something to think about.
Again, quitting may be justified, but the risk that the team will truly move on without those who quit (which would not be good for the country, IMHO) is real. That's all. Whether it's the coach or the players to blame, that's all.
Well, we’re at the point where we can see eachother’s point, but yikes, that’s no reason to get so long-winded
;-)
Great post! btt
You’re right.
The bottomline is that we are not electing the pope. perfection is not possible, nor required.
We win by pushing everyone to move further to the right than they would be without us. Not by moving everyone to our ideal position.
The idea that the conservative movement is a failure because McCain got the nomination is after some consideration a false conclusion. If we succeeded in moving McCain much further to the right than he would had been before, that’s *already* a victory.