“The flip side is, of course, why the hell does it matter if you win elections if you’re wrong?”
Because no one gets everything that they want in politics. The “wrong” you speak of is 70% right. If the other side wins, and you get 10% of what you want. Neither choice is ideal, but there is a clear choice. Ronald Reagan said that if you get 70% of what you want in politics, take it and run away. I would rather have had either McCain or Romney, as much as I dislike them and their policies, than Obama.
There is a persistent line of reasoning which argues that in order for things to get better, they first have to get much worse. Well, I can’t think of much worse then the situation we have right now. if the people in this country cannot coalesce around somebody who is not collectivist, then things will get worse yet. Allowing ANY Democrat to be President after Obama leaves will finish this country. Even the most RINO of Republicans will slow the descent to collectivism and give this country a little bit of breathing room to actually stop the slide, and to later reverse it...and remember that they will have a fairly conservative Congress pushing him to do the right thing.
All those who stayed home in 2012 and allowed Obama to win forgot George Patton’s admonition: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
What I’m seeing on this thread reminds me of Boehner and McConnell: Surrender all leverage you possess before the battle is even engaged, out of abject fear of the Democrats.
Thinking like this is the first step to another RINO Republican presidential nominee, and the demand that those who call themselves conservatives vote for what they say they hate.
“All those who stayed home in 2012 and allowed Obama to win forgot George Patton’s admonition: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” “
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Exactly. I know the Freepers here who think otherwise may have their hearts in the right place, but they are wrong - totally wrong. They are just too proud or too short-sighted to admit it.