Should one stick to their principles even if it jeopardizes their chance to win the election?

[rhett o rick]

I don’t pretend to have the answer. For example, in a war one must kill to prevail, I think we all understand that. But just how far can you go before you turn into what you are fighting against?

Dennis Kucinich sticks by his principles and he certainly won’t be taking the presidency away from the republicanTs. Obama on the other hand appears willing to bend his principles, maybe it’s necessary to defeat McStrange. Maybe it’s our only chance. I don’t know.

Would you rather lose the election before you would consider tactics the republicanTs take for granted? Like swift boating, sliming, or actually stealing an election. Aren’t we at war? War against the Neocon cabal.

Help me out here, because I am getting pretty frustrated.

[kiranon]

1. Yes. /nt

[exothermic]

2. Yes is right. If we're willing to become the same as our foes, what's the point?

It -is- possible to be pragmatic without becoming craven.
;-)

[Solly Mack]

3. ...

The idea that someone who will - lie/sell-out/bend & twist like a slinky - on the campaign trial will magically, somehow, stop the - lying/selling- out/bending & twisting - once in office.... is well - delusional.

He/she will lie to gain office but won't lie while in office?

Seriously delusional.


Point being...principles do matter. And if they don't matter during the campaign, people are delusional to think they will matter while the elected are in office.

May as well say, "I will have principles when it is safe and comfortable for me to have principles - until then, anything goes"



Please note that this is a general statement. Anyone applying it any other way can go grind their axe elsewhere.

[Indenturedebtor]

4. Yes. Otherwise what's the point. If the US had embraced fascism in WWII...

What then? Why fight?

[fla nocount]

5. If you're willing to compromise yourself to win.

One has to wonder what your going to do after you've won seeing as how you've already proved you have no integrity or principles.

[bemildred]

6. Does the end justify the means employed to achieve it? nt

[rhett o rick]

12. Hey that's my question. What do you think? nm

[bemildred]

13. I think principles don't mean shit if you sell them out all the time. nt

[NNN0LHI]

7. The way the game is played is we win first and concern ourselves with principals later

That is how the system is set up to operate here in America.

If someone doesn't like the system they should try and change change it. But a few months before a general election is not the time for that.

Winning is job one right now.

Don

[Joe Fields]

8. Here's a more relevent question:

What kind of leaders capitulate to the enemy when they have the upper hand, especially at the expense of the people they so desperately want to lead?

[bemildred]

9. Good question.

:thumbsup:

One could suspect that there is some sort of shuck and jive going no to fool the public.

[bigwillq]

10. Yes.

I would. And yes, DK would. And I think Dean would. Which is why I voted for both of those men in my primaries (Dean in '04, DK in '08).

But at this point, I would rather have our candidate bend a little bit in order to get to the White House.

[rhett o rick]

11. Let me recap what I hear you saying. You think one should stick to their principles

unless they need to bend a little to get to the white house? Do you hold an elective office?

[bigwillq]

18. No, I do not hold an elective office.

And maybe my principles would change if I did. That's part of the game of politics. While I don't agree 100 percent with Obama's decision regarding the FISA bill, I do understand maybe way he voted the way he did. If H. Clinton was our nominee, she might've voted for it and Obama against. That's the way it goes. Sadly.

It is not right that Obama had to vote this way in order to seem strong on defense, and I hope that is the reason he voted the way he did. But sometimes you have to do things in order to achieve a greater good, which is the White House. All politicians are whores, for lack of a better and less offensive word, to the game of politics. Every single one of them. I am not surprised by Obama's vote. People shouldn't be. They can't really believe that he is any different than any other politician. I never believed that. He may be better than some but not entirely different.

[undeterred]

14. Vote for him and then hold him accountable.

He's obviously our only chance to fix the country. But he will have to be pushed in the right direction. The Obama honeymoon is already over.

[Fumesucker]

21. Sounds good..

Just one question...

Exactly how do we "hold him accountable"?

Not vote for him in 2012?

[undeterred]

25. We hound our representatives

and keep protesting in every way we can. I don't think Obama will be as indifferent to what the people want as Bush is.

[spanone]

15. someone willing to compromise their priciples is unfit for to win elections imo

[TexasObserver]

16. Winning is what matters.

Retaining one's chastity is for virgins. This is politics.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. Do not become the enemy. You would have a hard time undoing the damage

and forgiving yourself.

[rhett o rick]

19. You make it sound so easy. But isn't it a matter of degree? nm

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. I don't think so. Kucinich made a decision which cost him his political career

for a number of years, but it was the right decision and saved Ohio'ans from a predatory corporation's plans. When that became clear, he was welcomed again.

Doing the right thing means just that. Yes, it takes immense practice and solidarity. Few want the right thing to happen, and usually fight tooth and nail against it.

[Fumesucker]

20. Principles are for losers..

Winners do whatever it takes, lie, cheat, steal, murder.. Anything.

I guess I'm a loser. :(

[ljm2002]

22. If one does not stick to one's principles...

...one can hardly claim to have any.

Oh I know all of the so-called 'pragmatic' arguments why one cannot do so. And I see just how well that's worked out for us.

See, our side 'won' in 2006. It felt great. Wowzers, finally we could put some checks on that out-of-control Executive (and the barnacle that was really running the show).

Right? Right??

Yeah, sure, right.

[terryter1]

23. If you don't have your principles, what do you have?

Mort Kondracke had an interesting article today in Roll Call:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_4/kondracke/26520-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[Rhythm]

24. It depends on the issue.

I'm willing to forgive a lot, and I understand the need to move to the center on certain issues in order to blunt the weapons of the GOP. Corporatism? Offshore oil drilling? Trade policy? Ethanol? Other similar issues? Sure, I can understand it. I don't support it, but it's not a deal-breaker either.

However, ANY issue that is directly related to upholding our Constitution and civil liberties? No, I don't think there should ever be compromise there. The Constitution comes first--or it should.