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

To: CharlesWayneCT
You make a good point *if* the messenger in question actually believes in and can be trusted to fight for the platform. In this case, I have a sneaking suspicion - backed by evidence - that the messenger's platform is merely a transitory tool.

I argue that we're already in trouble if the spokesman for conservative principles is a transparent phony. Our mistrust has more basis in reality and record than Romney's two-year old devotion to conservatism.

206 posted on 01/31/2008 12:04:37 PM PST by manapua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]


To: manapua

sneaking suspicion is more important when you have another choice that is better.

But I don’t see how it wins out over certain catastrophe.

It’s like you are standing on a ledge, and the bear is about to attack you. There’s a bridge, but it looks shaky, and you have a sneaking suspicion that it might break if you run over it.

So instead you just sit their and let the bear devour you.

It just doesn’t make sense. If there was a better option, then it might. If the bridge wasn’t there, it would make sense.

But you don’t have to sacrifice your principles to vote for Romney, because you are voting for a man with a solid conservative platform. You only have to suspend your disbelief. That’s not a “principle”, that’s a hope and a prayer.

It’s not “unprincipled” to vote for a man who says he will do what’s right, simply because you think he might be lying. It may be naive, or simple, but when there are no alternatives, what’s the harm?


393 posted on 01/31/2008 2:39:22 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | 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