I can only tell you of my beliefs on the issues you have stated. I too am a man of principles.mojo84 wrote:This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.
I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.
How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?
How do you balance principle and compromise?
On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?
Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?
Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?
Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?
Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?
Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?
Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?
Is it acceptable to put party over issue?
Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.
I believe that if I were to run for office, the principles and platforms that I ran on would be my guide and I would stand hard on them because that is what I promised to do. A man is only as good as his word in my book.
As for compromise, not sure I would or could
Although I don't agree with Sticklands tactics, whether he has rendered himself politically impotent or ineffective remains to be seen in the log run. I am not sure what issues he ran on but if he stood by his beliefs and principles totally, then those that voted him in should be happy and vote for him again.
I think that he did bring attention to his issues whether good or bad. I think his biggest problems were he was in the pocket of OCT and OCTC, he is a freshman and has a lot to learn about how to do things and when to keep his mouth shut.
Although I am a registered Republican, there are a very few areas I agree with other parties and would vote that way.
The problem with politics for as far back as I remember, is that there is to much wheeling and dealing going on. (you vote against this and I will vote for that) and they tend to drift away from their principles just to look good.
Just my .02