Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Quote of the awesome

David reminds us that when you compromise on principal you can only lose.

I know, I know: "Ron Paul can't win and this'll just help Hillary. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Politics is the art of compromise."

How's that working out for us?

From David.


Christopher S. Lawton said...


Best Ron Paul video - (Reply: WRONG!...Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)

NotClauswitz said...

I like Paulaner more, it's a beer from Munich.

No Names Necessary said...

As much as people like Ron Paul, there's a line that needs to be drawn between idealism and reality. Just "marching out" isn't a reality.

I don't see him contributing anything except a Hoover style of government...which works when things are all dandy...but not during crisis.

blogagog said...

In an ideal world, everyone would have a six-pack of Paulaner.

Fletch said...

Thank you, Chris, for the obligatory Ron Paul cheer leader chant that gets posted on any and every result of a technorati search for... RP.

SR; If my opinions didn't differ that much from those of the main Republican candidates, then I'd be more than willing to bend a little bit. This is not the case. (except maybe with Fred, which remains to be seen) There were only two reasons I was saving my vote for a republican; the war on terror, and they most closely represent me. But it's obvious now that even someone like Hillary would be hawkish on the war, if only to prove herself. After the next attack the democrat in office will re-christen the "war on terror" and public opinion (bolstered my the MSM) will rally behind it because a republican didn't say it. While this may annoy republicans; they're not going to oppose their country taking the war more seriously. Even if it takes another attack for Hillary to start taking the war seriously, it could be argued that any republican in the office would have his hands tied just as much as Bush due to MSM/public opinion, until after another attack. I don't think we'd be losing much in the war on terror if we had a D or an R in the white house. Except, perhaps, that the dems could be more aggressive due to MSM support.

I think we can both agree that the Republicans have gotten far off base of late. Conservatism is persona non grata in this republican party, limited government and spending are nowhere to be seen. If we elect another republican we will not be voting for a change in the party, and should not expect the party to change. But, imagine if RP got 3%, and the republicans lost by 3%? They'd be falling over each other to get closer to RP, and ideals I agree with. (though maybe not to the degree RP agrees with them; as you said, reality and idealism are two different things)

Even if all that is wrong, the fact remains that at the moment, people _want_ socialism. They want the government involved in their daily lives, and giving free money to people who didn't earn it. They want free health care and wealth redistribution. They want it because they've forgotten how these ideas failed in the past, and continue to fail all over the world. Electing a republican is not going to change that, it will just feed it. These minds aren't going to change unless they receive a big shot of reality. I dare say a dem who wants socialized health care will accomplish that. Hopefully before the health care system is too badly damaged.

For all the bad that could happen; I still think it would be a small price to pay to get the pendulum to start swinging back to the right.