TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote: My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:

I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.

If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.

This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly (read: Cotton approach) than it is to fail immediately and permanently (read: Stickland approach).

State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.