Americans have voted for “the lesser of two evils” in the past. This scenario is actually true for many other (third world) countries. I personally believe voting for someone who represents a modicum of your own interest is better than not voting at all. The people have always responded to military dictators attempted to rewrite the constitution to give them unlimited power / term, or abolish the right to vote. And they often paid the price. Voting acutally takes effort in some countries, and they’re often rendered moot as the system is rigged. Of course, you have the right NOT to vote, but to say “I refuse vote if the nominated candidate doesn’t parrot my values”? It does strike me as selfish.
I supported George Bush in his bid for the second term even though I was skeptical about the war and his reckless style. I’m a conservative Asian Christian against abortion and stem cell reaserch. Some of my dislikes about Bush notwithstanding, I didn’t want to see a liberal Democrat in office, so I made the decision.
You have to give up something, make room for compromise. This image of a pure “Reagan conservative” which serves as blueprint on which the perfect GOP candidate must be modeled on is an ILLUSION. AS the author points out, the guy was pretty liberal on certain issues, but he served conservative agendas. Many Dem favoring Asians LOVE Reagan for his anti communist fight.
Don’t like Mccain’s amnesty stance (which I’m open to actually)? If he’s the GOP candidate, vote for him first, then oppose him on certain issues if you must. Anti war activists will vote for ANY democrat candidate, any NON GOP candiate. Their cause is consilidated and the media loves it. Obama says he’ll quit Iraq COMPLETELY once he’s presient. WTF are you kidding me? Standing by the Iraqi people and fighting against killers is more important than our immigration issue. It’s a matter of life and death over there.
