[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Guess you haven't heard that Bush is putting 850,000 Federal jobs up to competition from the private sector. Yep, no difference between the two parties.

My point is that in order to progress towards your principled goals you must vote for a candidate that can actually make some of that progress happen. Putting purity of principles (i.e., he doesn't believe in everything I believe in, so I won't vote for him) seems to be more important that progressing towards those principles (i.e., he doesn't believe in everything I believe in, but he will work towards 4 of my 10 goals while his opponent will work towards non of my goals.)

"Purity before Progress"

[Eagle Eye]

My point is that in order to progress towards your principled goals you must vote for a candidate that can actually make some of that progress happen.

I'd like to vigorously disagree.

There are many, many individuals that impact policy without even running, let alone winning an office. Influencing policy is NOT dependent on winning elections.

If a third party never wins a national election yet forces change through its voice, it has earned a victory.

If it requires third party voices to make the Republicans remember that they claim to be the small government, lower tax, pro-individual party and they then act accordingly, that, too, is a victory.

[steve-b]

Guess you haven't heard that Bush is putting 850,000 Federal jobs up to competition from the private sector.

Either the jobs are proper functions of government (in which case the government should be doing them itself), or they are not (in which case it contracting them out is simply putting the pea under a different shell).