[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

1. I can respect someone refusing to vote for a candidate on a matter of principle, though I believe it to be misguided. Nothing is perfect, and we choose the “lesser of two evils” all the time in our lives.

2. I do, however, find it difficult to appreciate, given the vast differences here and the supreme threat faced by Barack Hussein Obama [my usual spiel omitted], allowing personal offense and/or ideological purity to prevent one from acting to mitigate the damage. I understand the logic, but not the decision. Literally every bad thing McCain might do, Hussein would do in spades (yes, I said it), and so many more (and more destructive) things.

Please, to the Judeo-Christian people in that camp, consider just one scripture passage. Please consider the entire thing:

– Ecclesiastes 7:15-17

Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon will help you understand.

I have seen everything in my days of vanity:

There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness,
And there is a wicked man who prolongs life in his wickedness.

Do not be overly righteous,
Nor be overly wise:
Why should you destroy yourself? (or your country, I might add)

Do not be overly wicked,
Nor be foolish:
Why should you die before your time?

– Ecclesiastes 7:15-17 (emphasis and comment added)

Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon will help you understand.

Those who say we have no choice bring to my mind what Alexander’s generals must have said to him: “But, Alexander, be reasonable! They’ve got chariots! No one can win against chariots! We should just concede the field…”

“We don’t need artillery (to win). We’re gentlemen.” — From Gone With the Wind. (And as I look at the situation with the CSA today, we see how well that worked out.)

ONE LAST POINT, and then I have duty: Just because you work for a candidate, it doesn’t mean you agree with him/her on everything, or even most things. It merely means that at that time and that place, that person’s success served what you perceived to be the nation’s best interests.

The people in “The Cold Within” could work together to stay alive, and then later pursue the implementation of their attitudes (positions), attitudes which they could easily have held even while keeping each other/themselves alive. (I know, it’s not the best analogy–work with me here! lolol)

You can help get someone elected based on that, and then respectfully work to oppose aspects of their agenda with which you disagree.

That is political reality.

THIS war will be won by the details. By that I mean that we must win from the smallest unit up to the apex, not the other way around. We must keep our name, Concervatism, pure. If we don’t keep our Good Name, after JM we’ll have pick another… and that will set us back years!

“Keep our name, Conservative, pure”. Uh, as much as the Internet has turned a few things, the MSM will always malign “our name”.

To be blunt, your approach puts an avowed enemy of the country in the White House. The battle with Hussein is not a battle a merely opposing agenda, though I have tried to be nice about that up until now. It is a battle with a movement which makes typical 1960s hippies look like patriots. It is a battle with someone pushing ideas that are not simply non-traditional or bad, or even unAmerican in places, but which is fundamentally anti-American. Yes, I do question his patriotism.

While I appreciate long-term perspective, it is denying the short-term threat. It is like the problem (at least, the one I have) with certain Buchananesque views of WW2: It is absolutely true Communism was the vastly worse long-term threat, but to have not opposed Nazism, etc. (after all, Hitler was fighting Bolshevism–and please don’t do that common Conservative stupid twisting of the traditional Right-Left distinction there; try to be honest) would have allowed that far more immediate and pressing threat to win.

Hitler and Tojo were shooting at us, Stalin was not (right then). We had to work against the Axis, and then take on the Commies.

Unfortunately, today it is reversed–the larger threat is also the more imminent one. Hussein and friends stand on the verge of creating the most fundamental defeat America has ever suffered. They are prepared to not just alter a few matters here and there, but rather to set the country on an irrevocable course to hell.

On the other hand, amnesty supporters are milder threats, and threats which can be handled. One loss there does not destroy the country, whereas a Hussein administration handing over the Middle East to terrorists, destroying American military power, and instituting “comprehensive hate-speech reform” in America will.

Your focus on the “smallest unit” is the very self-indulgence of which I speak. Years ago, an Israeli general expressed some concern about Jewish settlements being built in the West Bank. He explained that with those settlements there, in the event of war, he would be faced with times when the tactical reality called for giving up some particular settlements in order to win the whole war. He might have to (temporarily) allow a settlement to be captured in order to maneuver and save the whole country. He did not like having to make decisions like that.

Here, there may be times when we have to lose a little here and now in places in order to save the base and bulk of our positions, with an eye toward (re)gaining lost ground.

You use your Command School experience. Well, remember the end-of-the-day adage, “Is this the hill you want to die on?” Remember, it’s not just you dying, it’s your country. Your insistence on trying to hold every little hill all the time will get us all killed.

It’s not the abandonment of the ideological belief or desire, it’s the recognition that that position is not implementable at a given time. I fear you are, as described before, ignoring the difference and focusing exclusively on belief. God will understand if you have to backburner the implementation of something.

McCain disagrees with most of us here on some things. Hussein disagrees with most of here on virtually everything. For whatever reason (I’ve laid out my view of why it is), we have come to this place where this ticket is the ONLY thing to stop the Leftist juggernaut. That is the reality.

First, on the reference to Reagan’s 11th Commandment, I respectfully disagree. My main point was about the Left lining up behind one ticket, while the Right is very divided. The Left looks at the destination of their their ideology, and supports (with exceptions) the ticket which will do the most to support that. The Right looks (with exceptions) only at their policy positions themselves, and sees them as items with value purely of and in themselves, and cuts out those who don’t specifically support them. (The Left does, by the nature of sociopolitical human nature, can find it easier to do this, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

On “ideological self-indulgence,” which is action based on the above, all I seek to refer to is the tendency of purists to say, “My way or the highway” to too many tickets. Like intense religious pro-lifers (with all due respect to our next VP — )Not to single out any particular group, some issue groups seem to see politics as less about actually running a community (polity), and more about “getting their ideas out there” or “making a statement”. They view their vote as less the Starship Trooper-esque exercise of authority and more about “pleasin’ duh Lo-wor-da”. They look less at results than they do some sort

A point I made earlier on tried to hit at this: They think God will look at their vote/campaigning in isolation and say, “You supported only pro-lifegood candidates. I am well pleased,” when that action may in fact, by virtue of court appointments, bully pulpit influence, etc., lead to more abortionsoutcomes very contrary to their desires. It’s a combination near-self-righteousness and cutting off the nose to spite the face.

I urge them to see political involvement from a broader perspective: Working with people, parties, etc., regardless of whether they are sufficiently pro-lifeexactly right on particular issues, in order to effect the policies and changes desired. Keep ethics and honesty, that is fine, but be realistic.

The following is a touchy-feeling poem that I’ve long remembered. It’s offered here not as a cumbaya crap, but rather as a metaphor for ideological self-indulgence. Think of the expressed attitudes as policy positions, “coldness” as something like how ideologies (your own, or those of others) have movement and effect for or against you, and the fire as the general policy positions which need to be in effect for your agenda (survival, in this metaphor) to actually proceed (not just “be expressed”). Each person indulged in their positions completely, and you can see the result.

THE COLD WITHIN,
by James Patrick Kinney
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1248.html

Six humans trapped by happenstance
In dark and bitter cold
Each possessed a stick of wood–
Or so the story’s told.

Their dying fire in need of logs,
But the first one held hers back,
For, of the faces around the fire,
She noticed one was black.

The next one looked cross the way
Saw one not of his church,
And could not bring himself to give
The fire his stick of birch.

The third one sat in tattered clothes
He gave his coat a hitch,
Why should his log be put to use
To warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought
Of wealth he had in store,
And keeping all that he had earned
From the lazy, shiftless poor.

The black man’s face bespoke revenge
As the fire passed from his sight,
For he saw in his stick of wood
A chance to spite the white.

And the last man of this forlorn group
Did nought except for gain,
Giving just to those who gave
Was how he played the game,

Their sticks held tight in death’s stilled hands
Was proof enough of sin;
They did not die from cold without–
They died from cold within.

VERY NICELY SAID!!

Thanks Tommygun, you too have been eloquent and reasoned here. Thanks for that.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 am, Send_Me said:

You’re wasting your time by supplying the links, your intended audience won’t visit them but instead will attack tou with mouth-foaming enthusiasm.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 am, love2rumba said:

AND

On September 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 am, graysonret said:

I think that McCain picked her for expediency. I think he will be surprised when she comes for his corruption.
I am considering voting for Palin/McCain, myself.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 am, nyc123me said:

Why doesn’t he go for the whole enchilada: invite the KKK & the Black Panthers up there too?

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 am, Beaker1214 said:
Look folks; we can bicker all we want to about triviata and shoulda’s, but in the end, it’s either McCain Solialist or the Super-Socialist. Bottom line. That’s it. Focus on the goal or we’ll have a loooong time to discuss all the tidbits.

Sorry, couldn’t resist the correctiuon. Let’s keep the terms accurate…
(please! someone attack me on my McCain change above! I’ve got lots of links to his own words supporting my position…. )

On September 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am, HappyGene said:

Absolutly correct. One of the things I’m least happy about McCarbonTax is he is a past-master of using Liberl-speak to cloak his movements.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:11 am, Weary Citizen said:
Rest assured there are more pokes in the eye coming before the election. A leopard does not change its spots, comes to mind with mcamnesty. What happened to the gop platform posted yesterday with regards to no amensty or open borders? Didn’t take long for that to be dropped, or at least wadded up and jammed in our face. The gop is pandering to all sides. I’ll give mcamnesty credit, at least he is consistent.

Yeah, he’s certainly developing a pattern here: pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, pat-on-the-head, poke-in-the-eye, rinse & repeat.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am, Tommygun said:

——

On September 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 am, lgm said:

Republicans (or Democrats) cannot win without a “big tent”. Reagan understood that (thou shall not criticize another Republican”).
Correct. The Communists have lined up with their man Hussein. You can play “principle” and not line up with McCain. And then bask in your self-righteousness as the country you knew is transformed into something more different than can be described here.

I don’t know if it is deliberate, Tommygun, but you seem to be either unaware or mistaking Reagan’s comment. There were people whowere bad-mouthing Dems who followed Reagan simply because they were Dems — even though they were Conservatives. He had little use for those who were stuck on “I always vote R because he’s and “R”…!”.
Reagan wanted to accept people into the party as Conservatives, not as any-old-warm-body, keeping their Leftist viewpoint intact. His actions illustrated this.
If you let anyone, regardless of viewpoint in sor the sake of the Sacred Big Tent, you’re basically saying that while you agree with boarders for our Country, you don’t for the Republican Party. I assure you that the same reasons obtain conserning borders for either.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 am, St. Louis Blue said:

Hi, St.LB! Who’s your father? (sonehow, whenever I type that, I always hear Vader’s voice in my ear… )

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am, Artbyruth said:
Hmmm, let’s see…

Aug 18th, after his Saddleback appearance, commentors here went nuts over McCain and supported him.

By Aug 22nd, MM and the rest of you hated him again and were saying you would NOT support him for whatever reason it was that week.

Not I. And I don’t hate him. I have just looked at every public thing he’s done, and see how he’s no more than an opprotunist. I don’t know where McCain the Vet went, but I wish he’d come back. Maybe when he wins he’ll find what he needs to straighten-out & fly right. I hope so. If he continues on his current course, he will wind up worse than OB could be… he will kill Conservatism for at least a generation and Madam Hilary will be the elected 2012. W/o Conservatism’s straigthening influence we will walk off that cliff.

Here it is Sept 3rd and now you all are against McCain again…for whatever reason it is this week.

The reasons are still the same. To say differently is to twist things all out of shape.

Look, if Obama gets in control of the White House and the Liberals keep control of the Congress…life as we know it is over. They will make it so that the USA is a One Party state. There will be no more elections at all. Don’t you get it???
There is so much more at stake here than we realize.

In Command School, the 1st thing taught is: always decide. Even a wrong decision is better than no decision.
The 2nd thing is: never make a decision out of or from fear.

Is this why the slavering McCainanites can’t see the figurative two days ahead? Why they can’t see what is plain: Nixon was called a Conservative by the press. He was not. He tainted Conservatism until it was reclaimed from the trash heap by Reagan. The danger is that McGagOrderPriorToAnElection will do the same, and at a time when the Left has learned how to shut down dissent.

THINK people. There is no one perfect candidate any more. Even Ronald Reagan did things that made the base angry. Yes, even RR made a mistake in Lebanon and Marines were killed.

Yes, borders are an example, too. He made the mistake of trusting the Republicans in Congress, that they wouldn’t colude with the the Liberals in Congress, and that Congress collectively, would keep their word. He negotiated with the Liberals. You could say he reached across the isle! A true example of McCain bipatisanship!

So, now we should place in office a person who takes one of Reagan’s big flaws, and in magnifying it, makes it a major character trait? How is that good?

Everyone slavering over McCain, trying to shut down a critical look at his flaws, say OB wouldn’t listen at all. OK, I’ll grant that for discussion’s sake.
Except for his pick of Palin, (which is easily explainable as a tactic to quiet us “Noisy People”), when has McCarbonTax changed any of his actions to more Conservative ones? Don’t tell me what he’s said!

BTW, did you know I’m Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? What, you don’t beleive me? Why on earth not? What’s that you say: “Just because I say something is/will be so, doesn’t make it so?”

And before the phoney RTL-ers, (as opposed to real RTL-ers… of which I am one) pop-up to escoriate me, tell me you’ve looked at and can discuss McCain’s complete record on RTL, (incl. Wisconsin, which is an easy to find place to start…). Would that he really was RTL!

Yes, no one is perfect. My opinion was the Palin was a pick to head-off an uprising at the convention. That is what the history of JM’s actions indicate. If you look at his Sen. races, he has a habit of changing about 1.5 yrs out, back to what he promised at this election. His voting record was solid Conservative… when Conservatives were a tiny minority and he’d stand out. They went Liberal when he needed to stand out from the Conservative Repubs and then even more so when the Lightly-Left GWB became President. How is this different?

BTW: Go ahead, look it up! His voting record is at The Conservaive Union, look it up… all of it. Graph it. Come back, we’ll talk.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am, Tommygun said:
…
McCain will, at worst, not be as destructive as Hussein. Thus, in four years, there will be less repair to do. And in the meantime, more towelhead Jihadists will meet Allah, and we have a better chance at getting halfway decent judges and keeping our guns.

Thoughtful analysis, there are flaws. Your term “Ideological Self-indulgance” is very interesting. What you seem to basically be saying is that we can’t stop the the slow march off the cliff, so be happy. I see this term used mostly by Liberal bloggers trying to sway those who aren’t moored in Conservatism, trying to equait them with those Nasty Rabid Ideologs, while simultaneously appearing to be one of those “hurmmmm… Well Reasoned Centrists”. Is that your intent?

(And btw, to whoever posted that about McCain voting to confirm certain judges, you should know the general rule is to approve a judge unless there is some uber-bad reason not to do so. And no, “that judge has such and such a position on Issue X” is not such a reason. If liberals get into the White House, you will get liberal judges no matter who controls Congress.)

And w/McGagOrderPriorToAnElection, you expect him to nominate Conservatives? You know, ones that will tear-down his Landmark Piece Of Law: McCain-Feingold? What of his action causes you to think that? I ask in seriousness, since I am looking for reasons to vote for Palin/McCain

So MM, and others doing the same thing, cut with the self-defeating. What you call “refusing to look the other way at the GOP’s flaws and the McCain camp’s open-borders roots” is in fact doing the enemy’s work for them. It is self-indulgent. Our country can’t afford it, and conservatives lost any right to that a long time ago.

Why, yes you could say that… and I am sure that you’ll tell us how self-destructive, and enemy-enabling it is to complain when Pres. JM calls on Congress to quickly pass the New/Old Not Amnesty bill. They’ll probably pass it in less than 4 days. Preceeded of course by the 1st Admentment Protection Act… The one that makes any communication, unless lic. as a lobbiest, with Congress an illegal campaign contribution.

All those who say that OB will sign bills so much worse than JM, and if we vote JM into office we can hold his feet-to-the-fire, I ask: How is it any different calling the WH switchboard to meltdown with JM than with OB? When JM has our vote, how will he listen any better than OB? With his back-wrenching dashes to the “other side of the isle”, how will JM hold the line? With a veto-proof Congress, why would JM fight for Conservatives when his every political inclination is against it? Don’t tell what he’s said. A man can say anything, and Politicians always do. His actions show the secrets of his heart. Show me the actions that proves falws in my analysis, and I’ll happly become one of the choir.

Now you see why the Blue-blood Repubs front-loaded the primaries, and why they provided the talking points for a willing press to bring JM’s run back from the dead. No matter who gets the WH, Conservatism and those who practice it are going to be the targets of the next admin. JM/OB both will strength anti-1st Amendment laws, and either will use SCOTUS nominee picks as a Liberal/Liberal replacement exercise. The different is JM will probably pick Semi-Cons and immediately buckle when his “good friends” in Congress have a word w/him.

I know how people will dismiss this comment: “so we should give up, right… go away!”

NO! Those who say we have no choice bring to my mind what Alexander’s generals must have said to him: “But, Alexander, be reasonable! They’ve got chariots! No one can win against chariots! We should just concede the field…”

THIS war will be won by the details. By that I mean that we must win from the smallest unit up to the apex, not the other way around. We must keep our name, Concervatism, pure. If we don’t keep our Good Name, after JM we’ll have pick another… and that will set us back years!

Oops, time to leave for the outbrief…

On September 4th, 2008 at 1:43 am, Tommygun said:

On September 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm, symrian said:

That’s been done.

VERY NICELY SAID!!

Tommygun,

Gee, let’s call everyone that doesn’t fall into line with McCain childish and self-defeating. I’m sure that will turn them into fanatical McCain supporters.

And it is so adult of you to get mad and go off your own way, the country be damned. And your attitude is sure to keep Hussein out of the White House.

I’m not asking for fanatical supporters. I’m just asking for cooperation while the rest of us fight the battle for your freedom.

I’ll grant you that McCain reached out to us quite a bit with Palin, but after seven years of eye-poking for his own selfish political gain, I’m still not convinced. He should be grateful there are many conservatives who will hold their nose for him now, and do exactly what you’re asking, because it’s more than he deserves.

Try worrying less about what McCain himself deserves and more about what the country needs. It needs Hussein kept out.

=====

On September 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

Time to thicken the skin. It’s a culture war that’s being fought on two fronts: ours and the enemy (democrats). The combatants are trying to rally their troops plus turn the enemy combatants into allies. A few internal skirmishes aside, hopefully the bigger picture will yield a victory for all.

Very nicely put.

=====

I want everyone like symrian and VP to explain why Hussein winning will be better for the country than McCain winning. Please do come on here and tell us how great things will be. After all, between the increased PC pressure, the “Fairness Doctrine”, “hate speech” laws, etc., if that Socialist Black Nationalist — with the cooperative, White Liberal Guilt-plagued Congress and a thinly-balanced Supreme Court — manages to seize control, you soon won’t be able to say anything else anyway.

The Gov.s in question are all in favor of amnesty:

It is another opportunity to fight it. Fighting it there is one of the tactics we can use, along with fighting it in the house, senate and presidency. WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION OTHER THEN CAPITULATION? Seriously; lets hear your solution. Lets hear how we can fight amnesty under Obama.

“they will sign off on Jan. 21st. “

They told you this, eh? Even though it will cost them federal dollars.

“The GOPers will follow along if he’s leading the charge, after all, he’s just been elected with everyone knowing he’s for amnesty.”

He wont be leading the charge, enforcement first, remember? There is so much supposition and mind reading here… Did the GOPers follow along the last time after people rang their phones off the wall and flooded them with mail?

“It could be on his desk in Feb. and he’d sign it.”

So roll over and elect Obama. What else can I say? You clearly wont listen to reason.

“On the other hand, Obama may not even get around to it”

The idea that you are pinning your hopes on Obama just not getting to it is pretty lame. It is wishful thinking. He will probably get to it within the first 100 days when he is looking for some easy legislative achievements to be able to say “look what I did”.

“No indication that he’s as committed to it as McCain.”

McCain has promised enforcement first, Obama hasn’t. Obama has said he will “Give the 12 million people who are here illegally… many of whom have U.S. citi­zens for children…a pathway to legalization.”.. Amnesty.

“If he is stupid enough to step in front of this bus, as McCain has twice already, he’ll find quite a few of the Democrats in Congress don’t wish to commit political suicide with him.”

Will he? He would have a democrat-controlled house and a democrat controlled senate. How many democrats were thrown out over the last Amnesty vote?

“The GOP is providing cover for the Democrats. It’s way past time for this issue to divide the Democrats.”

The GOP was the only thing that prevented it the last time. The democrats were lined up to vote for it because it essentially creates more democrats.

“That can only happen if McCain loses.”

If McCain loses, and the house and senate go the way they are predicted to go there will be absolutely nothing to stand in the way of an Amnesty bill. (This is like beating my head against a brick wall at this point.) Democrats for amnesty. Dems think amnesty good.

“Then the GOP might decide to represent American citizens instead of illegal aliens and their employers. The midterms of 2010 could give them more seats than ‘94.”

Another you have to lose in order to win fellow. Eh? That idea was first tossed out by the Hill & Knowlton PR firm as a way of capitalizing on republican ambivalence toward John McCain in Texas in order to keep the rubes and suckers on their tractors for the primaries so that they could get Hillary Clinton elected. It is a tactic, a trick to split the hard right off the Republican Party and keep you home on election day, patting yourself on the back for being such a good conservative while you have effectively helped elect the most liberal senator we have.

You do not gain influence by losing elections. Think about it.

I think that you are trying to look at this like it was a chess game, sacrifice a few pawns here and there and you can mate the king. It isn’t. It is more like a football game where we need people to push the ball down the field. Lose elections and the opposition will have no problem pushing the ball (Laws, policies, continuation of their power) down the field. That means socialism, capitulation in the war on terror, bankruptcy and yes Amnesty.

You do not gain influence by losing elections.

“I would rejoice and vote for him if he had an epiphany and decided to side with American citizens who want the laws enforced.”

You have had as much as you are going to get. If you are serious about stopping amnesty then it will take work to counter the people who are pushing for it.

“If we are going to lose our country either way, I’m not going to assist in national suicide.”

I respectfully submit that is exactly what you are doing by condoning an Obama presidency.

This will be my 10th presidential election. Our country and economy was limping along for decades until Ronald Reagan came along. His influence and success was of such a magnitude that it carried clear through the terms of Bush 41 and 8 years of that lady’s man…

I said no such thing, Bill. You’re thinking of zorro.

Stop trying to take credit for zorros’ writing Solo, people will think you are Joe Biden.

Hey, when did amnesty become a centrist position?

It hasn’t.

Last time I checked, that was a pure leftist issue, plain and simple.

Correct. Any republican that thinks legalizing millions of illegal aliens is a good idea is either insane or a liberal. 70+ percent of those that register are going to vote democrat. Why do you think the MSM supported McCain during the primaries? They know conservatism is circling the drain and it’s only a matter of time before a rino like McCain completely flushes it.