There is another sort of candidate, one who articulates a vision of growth and limited government which is not a novel idea on my part but one which was tried and proved true by Ronald Reagan.
Posted on 06/03/2011 9:46:39 AM PDT by Hawk720
Gov. Haley Barbour issued a warning to social conservatives in choosing their Republican nominee for 2012: “Purity is the enemy of victory.”
“Remember purity in politics, purity is the enemy of victory,” Barbour said. “We can’t start out with the idea out as the Faith & Freedom Coalition that our candidate’s got to agree with me on every single thing. We cannot expect our candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity. Winning is about us sticking together to achieve the main thing.”
“Conservatives, religious people, small government people, we are not going to have purity. We’re not going to have a perfect candidate,” Barbour said. “There’s only been one perfect person that ever walked on this earth. And there ain’t gonna be another one in this election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
“Purity” is a code word used by party elitists to describe conservative ideology, which they greatly fear. They are afraid it is going to destroy the party. That glorious party which has enabled them to be elites in the first place, and for that reason is more important than any ideology.
Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He was one of those darn purists that just didn’t understand that you have to go along to get along.
When I say I don’t expect “purity” (that’s why I put in in quotation marks, BTW), I mean I don’t expect any candidate to hold exactly the same position I hold on every issue. Period, paragraph.
But that in no way implies I’ll vote for any yahoo who thinks he/she’s qualified, like the Pawlentys, Giulanis, Pauls and Romneys of this world. I expect them to be conservative, and I expect them to win through the primary process. But I don’t, after all is said and done, expect to be in lock-step with the winner.
And that’s NOT “purity”.
You have to set the bar at some level.
Purity = strawman.
Why don't the people who are only economic conservatives compromise and support someone who is both an economic and social conservative?
Why don't the people who are only social conservatives compromise and support someone who is both a social and economic conservative?
I am through swallowing hard, holding my nose and voting.
You are right about that. If I ever turn into a “one issue” voter. It will be voting for the candidate who cuts spending and entitlements. Everything else will flow from that. You can’t have social liberalism pushed down your throat by a government that is small. By the same token, the fatal flaw of “Compassionate Conservatism” / Christian Socialism pushed by the Bush and Huckabee types is that government will always be Godless and Liberal and twist any conservative program into a liberal one.
Barbour’s stock value keeps going down when he says stupid stuff like this.
Mistuh Barbour suh, we don’t demand purity but certainly hope for cleaner hands than yours that grabbed huge gobs of greenbacks lobbying for wetbacks. And then announcing “I’m a lobbyist and proud of it”.
And the there’s that little matter of the partnership with DNC chair Terry McAuliffe in the super expensive Capitol Hill restaurant “The Caucus Room” where lobbists and pols can wheel and deal.
FUHB
Move over rover. Its time for the Tea Party to take over.
There is another sort of candidate, one who articulates a vision of growth and limited government which is not a novel idea on my part but one which was tried and proved true by Ronald Reagan.
So the next time a politician of moderate go along to get along uses any form of the word purity find out explicitly what they are referencing... chances are it will wind back through their gated communities to amnesty for their cheap labors.
Sure it does. As I stated, they're scared to death of what's coming. They love their plush, enriching, elite lifestyle provided by the labor of others and don't want to give it up. So they'll say and do anything to denigrate those considered outsiders.
But I'm not going to settle for any ol' candidate; especially those has-beens who've been around the block of failure. I want new, conservative blood. I may not get all I want, but it'll be a step in the right direction if all goes well.
“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Thanks for making our job so easy Haley.
I am as conservative as anyone here, but Haley is correct.
Move away from the Kool-Aid you got some more recovery to do!
Well, yes. The best - and only realistic - way to attack social liberalism is with fiscal conservatism. Leftist social activists (and MSM journalists) lose much of their motivation when there is no hope of ever obtaining a monthly government check for themselves.
>>Purity is the Enemy of Victory<<
I guess it depends on what kind of victory you are seeking. I know Jesus and the apostles would counsel differently than the author of the OP.
Tell that to the elites, i.e. Rove and Sour Kraut who smear Palin.
I like that, purity. How about a basic understanding of the constitution. As the left moves farther left the RINOs follow close behind, staying just to the right. How far do they have to go before we’re allowed to oppose them Mr. Barbour?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.