“Moderates by definition have no principles"

[jonks]

Huh, looks like I'm not the only one thinking about this:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/rel17e.pdf

It appears the GOP is more interested in ideological purity than in winning elections. That's not a winning strategy I don't think. NY23, to wit.

Frum agrees:
http://www.frumforum.com/who-you-calling-a-rino
Here’s something I’ll never understand. Why is it that those of us who are willing to do what it takes to beat Democrats are called “Republicans in name only” or worse? Meanwhile those conservatives willing to accept years of Democratic government rather than adjust any point congratulate themselves on their commitment and dedication. Seems backwards, no? For the moment, of course, it’s the latter group who outnumber the former. But that will change. As sure as anything in politics, that will change, for the reason once brutally explained by Benjamin Franklin: “Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.”

 

[JulesMaximus]

This is complete and utter horseshit. There are some principles I agree with from the left and the right and some I disagree with generally from the extreme left and the extreme right.

I'm a registered republican who doesn't give a shit about religion or abortion. I'm only mildly concerned about gun control. I am for being fiscally conservative. I also think we need to reduce our dependance on foreign oil and improve our image around the globe. Tell me, what party represents me?

This is nothing more than a lame attempt at getting people to pick a side…as if there are only two viewpoints, the right and the left.

 

[werepossum]

Huh, looks like I'm not the only one thinking about this:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/rel17e.pdf

It appears the GOP is more interested in ideological purity than in winning elections. That's not a winning strategy I don't think. NY23, to wit.

Frum agrees:
http://www.frumforum.com/who-you-calling-a-rino
Here’s something I’ll never understand. Why is it that those of us who are willing to do what it takes to beat Democrats are called “Republicans in name only” or worse? Meanwhile those conservatives willing to accept years of Democratic government rather than adjust any point congratulate themselves on their commitment and dedication. Seems backwards, no? For the moment, of course, it’s the latter group who outnumber the former. But that will change. As sure as anything in politics, that will change, for the reason once brutally explained by Benjamin Franklin: “Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.”

I'm pretty pragmatic, but I would prefer someone who honestly stands on the other side of an issue to someone who pretends to be on my side. Democrats have gotten very good at nominating people who pretend to be conservative but vote liberal; Republicans have also gotten very good at nominating people who pretend to be conservative but vote liberal. Personally I'd prefer a Dennis Kucinich, who openly holds far left views, to either Bush who evidently secretly embraced at least some of those same views - or to that chick in New York. I see no benefit in having Republicans elected for no better reason than they aren't Democrats, so if my choices are two people who to me are liberal, I'm voting for the Democrat who is at least being more honest about it.

The same would apply to Democrats who only pretend to embrace my liberal views - environmental protection, liberalization of personal freedoms, elimination of prohibitions against gay marriage (or at least making gays happy enough to shut the hell up for awhile - the love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't ever shut up.) But Democrats at the moment anyway seem pretty honest about their liberal beliefs.

That's one point in favor of Obama - most of his campaign speeches were vacuous even for a politician, but those few times when he spoke specifics, he told us exactly where he stood on the political scale. "My energy plan means your electric bill will necessarily skyrocket." "We can’t just keep eating whatever we want, driving our SUVs wherever we want, keeping our homes at 72 degrees at all times regardless of whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world’s resources with just 3 percent of the world’s population, and expect the rest of the world to say you just go ahead. We’ll be fine. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen." He told us exactly what he was going to do to us; if we didn't listen, then we're idiots, because for a politician he was unusually specific.

 

[sandorski]

Huh, looks like I'm not the only one thinking about this:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/rel17e.pdf

It appears the GOP is more interested in ideological purity than in winning elections. That's not a winning strategy I don't think. NY23, to wit.

Frum agrees:
http://www.frumforum.com/who-you-calling-a-rino
Here’s something I’ll never understand. Why is it that those of us who are willing to do what it takes to beat Democrats are called “Republicans in name only” or worse? Meanwhile those conservatives willing to accept years of Democratic government rather than adjust any point congratulate themselves on their commitment and dedication. Seems backwards, no? For the moment, of course, it’s the latter group who outnumber the former. But that will change. As sure as anything in politics, that will change, for the reason once brutally explained by Benjamin Franklin: “Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.”

Embracing RW Christianity was a Poison Pill that will take awhile to recover from. Taking that Pill gave a large Voter Block which had some short term gains, but with it came a Hard Line no Compromise Philosophy that now prevents making necessary change.

 

[Vic]

It is moderates who actually have principles, and they let those principles guide their lives and their decisions, unlike partisans who go along with whatever they're told to go along with, no matter how contradictory.

 

[jonks]

I'm a little surprised that no one either googled the quote or if they did google it didn't post about it.