[Jerrbear]

During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered. Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes? Isn't this moral decline a factor in producing the spinelessness that has disaffected many conservatives. If consevative leaders cannot show themselves to be better than their liberal opponents, then what difference does it make who we elect?

[Theodore R.]

Yes, you are right in your assessment from the standpoint of morality. But politics is not the sport of the pure -- only the less imperfect. And our people will keep paying the price, I guess, as the Democrats prosper. But if one stands only on moral principle at all costs, perhaps he had to withhold their vote in the AR Senate race. Still, I suspect that many of those who deserted Hutchinson will in other races in time take the pragmatic approach and set aside principle from time to time.

[Zack Nguyen]

During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered. Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes?

Exactly! Excellent reasoning. I'm sure Hutchinson is a good guy, but we should demand moral accountability in our leaders.

[montag813]

Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes?

Yes

[aruanan]

During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered.

Of course character matters; but it matters that our characters win, some of which may not be as good as we'd want them to be, rather than yield the majority to their characters who are even worse. To cause by inaction something worse to happen is to be culpable for that worse outcome. Those who stayed home in both the Clinton elections or who voted for a candidate that couldn't possibly have been elected bear partial responsibility for Clinton's time in office; especially for his second term since there was no way anyone who isn't a carrot could plead ignorance of the pestilence that was Clinton. A vote against a worse candidate is better than refraining from voting for a less worse candidate since the former will help prevent a demonstrably worse condition than the latter. The latter is simply self-indulgence.