[aruanan]

During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered.

Of course character matters; but it matters that our characters win, some of which may not be as good as we'd want them to be, rather than yield the majority to their characters who are even worse. To cause by inaction something worse to happen is to be culpable for that worse outcome. Those who stayed home in both the Clinton elections or who voted for a candidate that couldn't possibly have been elected bear partial responsibility for Clinton's time in office; especially for his second term since there was no way anyone who isn't a carrot could plead ignorance of the pestilence that was Clinton. A vote against a worse candidate is better than refraining from voting for a less worse candidate since the former will help prevent a demonstrably worse condition than the latter. The latter is simply self-indulgence.

[Jerrbear]

Following your logic, we should only adhere to our principles if by doing so we advance our cause. I am not innocent in this. I consistently vote the conservative ticket, even when it means choosing the lesser evil. But the entire system has become so Clintonized, so compromised, that there is virtually no difference between the conservative and liberal camps. I don't see this as a victory, having a majority of spineless whimps who govern based on the polls rather than principle. Shouldn't someone stand up for what is right and just, even if it means we lose for a while?