Comments on: Party or principle?

By: Bobby A-G

Bobby A-G — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 02:16:11 +0000

Yes, and I need to get busy thanking Diebold for their assistance in my win…

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 01:13:51 +0000

In the ‘76 presidential campaign, Gerald Ford claimed that “Jimmy Carter will say anything, anywhere” to be elected president. That saying was meant to express a theme, not a literal truth.
Oh, wait, my candidate has conceded. Now I’m supposed to move from support to trashing.

By: Bobby A-G

Bobby A-G — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:14:11 +0000

Sorry for getting snarky with that last comment…

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:55:17 +0000

I concede.

By: Bobby A-G

Bobby A-G — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:00:08 +0000

Also, to answer your question of “how I got that one,” I generally “get that one” from whatever statement I’ve placed in italics immediately before beginning my commentary with “That sentence…,” which indicates I’m referring to the sentence that was highlighted and placed immediately before my comment.

By: Bobby A-G

Bobby A-G — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:57:25 +0000

Also, as a person I like Hewitt a lot, and never suggested he cheats. I’m really not sure how you got that one Bobby.
I’m not saying you meant to suggest it. I certainly don’t think you did. I’m just pointing out that the phrasing could suggest it. “Everything possible” could certainly include cheating, unless some metaphysical event has occured recently that makes cheating in our universe an impossibility…

By: susan b.

susan b. — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:12:43 +0000

Just want to clarify a couple of things…
When I said “win at all costs”, I was not at all saying that Hewitt believes in cheating. What I meant was placing the importance of winning above ideology.
Also, I actually agree with Thunder Runner that most of the time the Republican is more likely to push things in the conservative direction. But there are some exceptions to this, and it’s those exceptions I was referring to.

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:24:39 +0000

Ideological partisanship is good; partisanship of a personal and vindictive nature or that regularly puts party above principle constitutes the harmful.
Still, there will always be disagreements as to when we are standing for principle and when we are standing for party. For example, if a legislative body hangs in a one-vote balance, it is to be expected that many if not most would favor a candidate farther from one’s own ideological perspective if it would help maintain control, because the fight for being in power can’t avoid all compromises.
When President Bush favored Senator Specter in the primary was he sacricing ideology and/or principle or looking to the greater good of his own chances of carrying Pennsylvania in the presidential race? I think that is a close question on the basis of an individual race. However, if one repeatedly puts party above principle, lots of would-be participants in the political process may become disillusioned.
Josh, I didn’t think you were suggesting that people not fight, only that it be on a more principled plane related to issues over personalities and more narrow party interests. Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy fought hard against each other’s ideas, but they remained strong personal friends. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are fewer of those types of friendships today.

By: Thunder Runner

Thunder Runner — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:12:28 +0000

Mind if I jump in the fray? I’m sure I’ll get crucified for this…but I’ll take Hewitt’s side. The comment was made, “To him, Republican = Conservative”. I am a Christian (first), and a conservative Republican. I tend to advocate the Republican=Conservative agenda as well. I don’t think that Hewitt pushes winning for winning’s sake.
I obviously can’t speak for Hewitt, but there are those of us out here that disagree nearly point for point with the Democrat platform. Winning = pushing conservative agenda. Winning means (hopefully) having success in getting conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court, etc.
I will concede that not every Republican elected official or candidate is the best…but if a person runs as a Democrat…then one must take into consideration that they support at least some of the platform of which conservatives so strongly disagree. To paraphrase an earlier comment it often comes down to choosing the better of two poor choices.
I certainly don’t agree with a win at all costs attitude (cheating). I do believe that it is fine to push your own agenda. If pushing your political agenda means being taking the party line for Republican candidates…I personally am OK with this.
I’m sure I’ll get some strong disagreements with this. That’s ok. Thanks for the great (and thought provoking post). I always enjoy reading your blog.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:54:23 +0000

I think everyone involved in the political process is fighting for something. Too many here are characterizing my remarks to suggest fighting isn’t always good. The question is what you’re fighting for – people that support your principle and ideology, or a party irregardless of those things.
Also, as a person I like Hewitt a lot, and never suggested he cheats. I’m really not sure how you got that one Bobby.