Replies

I consider this issue to be the height of stupidity when it becomes Rule or Ruin and can never support giving in to stupidity. Your analysis is glib but greatly overrates the separation between the Single Issuers. If such was the case I would not be seeing the same names threatening yet again to doom the party by staying home. Nor do I share your optimism that they can be appeased short of Nuking Mexico City.

And the costs of allowing Clinton to achieve office greatly exceeded any benefit the Gullible achieved by voting for a Crackpot. It endangered our National Security to such an extent we are now threatened far more than we were. It allowed al Queda and Iraq to become a far greater problem than it should. And it disgraced the Presidency and showed just how deluded the American People can be at times.

Nor was Miers opposed to anything the Pro-life wing wanted no matter what they thought. Miers would have been confirmed had she not withdrawn after the Lynch Mob formed and went howling through the streets.

A political leader of merit cannot hop from one group of outraged to the other without becoming a democrat. That is one of the things I admire in the President, his refusal to vacilate with the wind direction.

To me the party is NOT about the President per se. It is about defending and standing up with the President when under outrageous attacks by corps of Liars because he is doing the RIGHT thing. We see NOTHING positive coming out of a reduction in GOP power and IMMENSE harm to the Nation.

"I consider this issue to be the height of stupidity when it becomes Rule or Ruin and can never support giving in to stupidity."

If you really believe that, then your FIRST principle is not to win the War On Terror, but to stand for the principle of never giving in to stupidity.

In politics, to achieve the greater goal, you often have to give in to a lot of what you think is stupidity on a lot of other fronts, because those other fronts are all somebody else's greater goal.

In this case, if the Democrats get Congress, funds are cut for operations in Iraq and the War On Terror is lost. Democrats will get Congress if the BorderBots leave. The BorderBots look like they have left, and won't come back unless they get what they want. You won't give them what they want, because you think it is stupid, and you think that giving into stupidity is the worst sin of all.

Which means that you're willing to lose the war in order to teach a lesson to the stupid.

I wouldn't stand on the "teaching a lesson" principle if I were you. Nobody ever learns that sort of lesson.

The better thing to do is focus on what you think is most important. Winning the War On Terror is a noble goal. To win it, you need to keep Congress. To do that, you have to give some people you think are stupid, demanding and petulant what they want. It's your only shot, and it doesn't cost you anything other than the irritation of agreeing to stupid things to appease stupid people.
But that's the price.

If, instead, you eschew winning the War On Terror in pursuit of the "higher" goal of teaching "stupid" people a lesson by not giving into them on principle, they won't get what they want, and the War On Terror will be lost. The plane crashes, and they will blame you and not learn a damned thing anyway.

With men, it's best to stick with the possible. Making stupid people smart is not possible, either way. I'm confident there are plenty of them who think YOU'RE stupid.
But you can work with stupid people to get the biggest part of your agenda. You originally stated that was the War On Terror. You originally stated that the War On Terror is an absolute, which we MUST win.

Here, you've said that you can NEVER support giving in to stupidity?

Well, you HAVE TO, if you want to win the War On Terror.
So, which is it going to be?

I think you were right all along: the War On Terror is too important to lose. And that means that you actually HAVE to "give into stupidity" on the Border and give the BorderBots substantially what they want. Otherwise the war is lost with Congress. And that's just not worth it in the service of stubbornness.