But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.So let me get this straight--the guy who lost the senate primary is lecturing the 10-term congressman on how to win elections?
And the guy who is attracting phenomenal and unprecedented support from people who are enthusiastic about the ideals he represents is being advised to tone down on those ideals and embrace typical beltway dealmaking and compromises--regardless of what the Constitution says? And that would put more fire in the belly of his supporters how...?
Is that about the crux of it?
I guess if you allow the Club for Growth to be the arbiter of what is "good," they might have a point. But if "good" is defined as allowing government to assume undelegated powers just because they're doing your bidding, it should be obvious to all what a dangerous and destructive path that is. How much more evidence--aside from the sorry mess we're in now--do we need?
Perhaps they should change their name to the Club for Metastasization...?
[Via Snowflakes in Hell]
3 comments:
Some are afraid of any real change, preferring to whine about how they wish it was. Freedom is scary to them.
I see the argument of perfect despoiling the good somewhat differently and along the lines of compromising by mixing dirty water and clean water ... you just end up with a lot of dirty water.
--MuzzleBlast
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
I think he's following the right leader in princles.
Post a Comment