Putting principle aside to win elections; the bizarre concept of "attainability"

It seems that Republicans have been losing in Washington state so much and for so long that they've ginned up "attainability" as the next excuse meme for compromising or shattering principles in the name of getting elected.

One thing I admire about democrats generally on the political scene is that they rarely rely on such nonsensical verbal gymnastics to succeed.  They typically put a political philosophy out there and stick to it, even if they lose.

The result?  Up until recently, democrats have become increasingly successful on the political scene.  Of course, gross incompetence like that displayed at most political levels since the election of the empty suit in the White House doesn't serve to further their aims; but on principle, any retreat is temporary, a mere speed bump in their agenda as they rightly know that Republicans increasingly lack the courage needed to effectively oppose their aims... because, after all, we are completely wrapped around the axles of "attainability" and "pragmatism," which are, of course, descriptive terms for cowardice wrapped in compromise, selling out merely to get a body with an "R" after it's name into elective office.

Many Republicans excuse this kind of cowardice, this moral prevarication.  They point out that "attainability" is the thing.  They cling to the bizarre idea that the ONLY thing that matters is the letter after the candidate's name.

I disagree.

I do this sort of thing for a living.  Some might find that odd, because in holding those accountable who would trade their principles, like say, Reagan Dunn would trade his to attain elective office, they might think that it's costing me money.

And it does, I admit it.  But I could not live with myself professionally or personally if I were to sell out my principles.

In the most recent election, for example, I was supporting an effort, and getting paid for it, that involved people who ultimately turned out to be rather unsavory.  When I discovered that fact, I quit.  Immediately... walking away from thousands of dollars... because I would not compromise in the name of "attainability." 

If "attainability" was successful, for example, at the local level, Tom Mielke would not have been elected county commissioner against a much better funded, all the media-supported democrat candidate.

He had no right to win.  No one believed he would win.  But he fought a battle on principle (The nonsensical CRC scam) instead of the political expediency apparently coming into favor for so many recently, and HE won.

And that he won in the midst of the Obama tsunami... that he won on a shoe string... that he stuck to principle... shows that it CAN be done.... IF you know what you're doing.... and IF you stick to principle.... you CAN win... "attainability" be damned.

Running on some sort of platform of getting elected at any price is not the answer.  Lying to win is not the answer.

For some, the success of those two philosophies is the thing.  Getting elected, no matter how, no matter what is said is the thing, you see.  But when the first casualty of politics is the truth, it ain't gonna happen with my support.

Remember: "mainstreaming" is just another term for becoming more democrat, and less Republican.  And if you don't think so, then feel free to check the Mainstream Republicans out: you'll come to find out that they have many more similarities to the democrat political positions then you will find differences.

And if doing it the situationally ethical way that King County does it was all that, it wouldn't be the democrat bastion that it has been for decades now.

Marc Boldt is a stellar example of the kind of "attainability" those only interested in outcomes achieve.  He's sold us out repeatedly in a variety of ways, but, by God, he has an "R" after his name, and that's all that matters.

Well, not to me it ain't.

Much more to come.