Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne; rabscuttle385; Lakeshark
A brilliant post, as always D1.

Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

Let that bit soak in a while, folks. There is a simple but very important wisdom here.

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the sharpest pencil in the box. For this reason I don't assert the same "Traitor to our cause" comment I do to McCain.

You seem to be following this line of thinking:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte

...Which I applaud, I really do. And normally I would be content to embrace a similar attitude. But in our current state, and in the present political economy, while I might be congenial enough to waive off such things in the general sense, the raw statistical risk is one I daresay we cannot afford.

Once again I rise to present the terms of the Reagan Coalition: *No* conservative faction should be expected to 'take one for the team' when it comes to their basic unmovable principles. Our point of compromise *must* begin after the point where those principles are served.

Is it right to support a candidate who supported LOST? This is no mere faux pas - this erodes the very sovereignty of our nation. And the follow-on question: Is it right to expect our defenders of the Constitution, that faction among us who are civil-libertarian minded, and those in the military who are put at risk by LOST, to compromise... to take one for the team?

With that as an example, I must react with a jaundiced eye. WHATEVER my personal feelings might be, I know that many of our brothers-in-arms will not be able to swallow that 'mistake' and vote for her. And I know that they will likely support someone else, causing a fracture which immediately spells defeat.

And if by chance there is victory, and whether by malice or ignorance, if there comes a day when LOST is once again before the president's pen... that victory will be a Pyrrhic one indeed.

So if one is to err, I would submit that it is better to err toward suspecting malice - toward assuming the worst and acting accordingly... at the very least, where conservative principles are concerned. Folks seem to forget how many of our elected representatives crow Conservatism until they are in office - whereupon they drop the act and revert to form. Perhaps that is a cynical view, but it is one earned by many years of betrayal.

176 posted on 07/29/2011 9:35:50 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1
I appreciate the opening.  Thank you.  Your response was informative, reinforcing, and instructive.  For that reason, and of course partially because we agree, I see your response in the same terms.

The quotes were timely, fitting, and enlightening.  The issues you addressed were important.  Your thoughts were clearly expressed, and carried weight.

At the end of the day, when bad legislation is passed, when bad policies are enacted, when our nation is ultimately harmed, it makes no difference if it resulted from malice or ignorance.  It is harmed.

It is not harmed less, if the person did it by accident.  And so, it does make a certain sense to consider each such act to carry the weight of malace, as this does frame the accidental harm for the full force it carries.

I generally like to grade on the old standard, A, B, C, D, F.  When it comes to presidential contenders, I have a pass/fail standard.  If a person is too shallow, or is known to be of questionable character (not of sound Conservative mind, and not above doing things that will harm our nation on purpose), they get a fail from me.

At then end of the day, I do want to adhere to Bonaparte's line of reasoning.  That doesn't mean I want any unfit person to sit in the Oval Office chair.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  I enjoyed it.

One thing is certain, we have each had our fill of promises and reversions.
178 posted on 07/29/2011 10:15:40 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ($1.8 tril yearly deficits = $18 tril in ten years. So now we're proposing $4 tril in cuts? Really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson