Replies

Let me explain this for those of you who are getting all self-righteous about this or that candidate.

Let me explain this to those of you who are too dim-witted to understand why many of us are done with the GOP-e, forever (hint: it has nothing to do with self-righteousness, a characterization that applies more to those who think, incorrectly, that they are smart in voting for a Republican solely because they have an "R" next to their name). Just because candidate R is marginally less liberal than candidate D, this does not make him automatically the lesser of two evils. Liberal Republicans are in a position to do far more harm to conservatism (and therefore this country), than are Democrats. Liberal Republicans (who detest conservatism with a passion that is often greater than that of Democrats) are in a position to prevent a cohesive opposition party to emerge. This is something that Democrats simply cannot do, but liberal/anti-conservative Republicans can. They can tarnish conservatives and conservatism in a way that Democrats can't, they can muddy the conservative message in a way that Democrats can't, and they can sabotage conservative Republicans in a way that Democrats can't. While the primary is obviously the best place to rid the political world of these vermin, it is not the only place. Put either way, the situation is quite simple: as long as the McCains, McConnells, Cornyn's, Grahams, are in reasonably powerful positions within the Republican party, there will be no effective opposition to liberalism. To vote for any of those in the general election, is to vote for the elimination of any cohesive opposition to liberalism.

We would be much better off with a party that occupied 30% of the house/senate, but was cohesive, united, committed, agile, and most importantly effective, than we are with 50%, but are completely (almost comically) ineffective, and populated by people who are actively opposed to conservatism. The former can lead to eventual success. History is full of examples of relatively small political movements that, because they are cohesive, committed, and effective, are ultimately successful. The latter, of which you approve, inevitably leads to failure, and a long slide into the oblivion which is full-blown socialism. That, as you say, is the reality.

Let me explain this to those of you who are too dim-witted to understand why many of us are done with the GOP-e

Democrats long ago discovered the wisdom of incremental change. They knew that if they had said in the 70's or 80's that they were in favor of gay marriage, they wouldn't win an election. They didn't insist on electing the most left leaning candidate, just the most left leaning that stood a chance of winning.

They brought people over to their agenda bit by bit. They may have wanted Jerry Brown for President, but they were wise enough not to put him on the national ticket. With their allies in the press and education system, they have effectively boiled the frog, to a point that they pass items that would have been political suicide 30 or 40 years ago.

We are not going be able to yank the pendulum back all at once. Instead, we need candidates who agree with us as much as they can and still get elected. Just like they did with liberal policies, the public will accept conservative policies bit by bit.

Keep your eyes on the prize. Wars can be won by winning many small battles.