Humph! For the "good of the party"

Sen. John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States, having garnered the required delegates needed from the various caucuses and primaries that were held over the last few months.

However, not everyone in the party are quite happy with the presumptive nominee. For example, exit polls in Texas and Ohio showed that evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, while almost every other Republican demographic group chose McCain.

In fact when you compare McCain against Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, Romney was deemed more conservative than the senator. Even Texas Congressman Ron Paul's record was more conservative too.

Yet, after the bickering and mud-slinging, the Republican nominee is finally selected and we are all expected to stand behind that person for the "good of the party." It seemed so easy for Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson to do this, but Ron Paul refused to follow the rest of the team.

How can [he], in good conscience, support a candidate that does not follow true conservative ideals?

Instead of the argument that we must support a candidate who represents the ideals of the Republican Party, leaders argue that the candidate who has the best electability must be supported. Thus, we must compromise in order to get a result that is favorable to us. It may seem alright for most folks but is McCain really the right choice?

We certainly have the right to keep on criticizing McCain's record no matter what. Where is his straight talk business? Where is his pledge of not raising taxes? How about him getting a rating of "D-minus" from the Gun Owners of America from 2000 to 2006? How can he handle a failed Iraq War and a huge national debt?

But these questions are not being answered. We are being told to shut up and just support him.

This happened to Emily L. Mullin, a student at Ohio University studying journalism and political science. She writes for the local newspaper as a campus reporter and is the vice-president and acting president of the OU College Republicans. She was actively involved with the Ron Paul presidential campaign.

She recently wrote a column in The Athens News giving her assessment on GOP presidential candidate and nominee, John McCain. Unfortunately, members of the club and local county Republican Party were not happy with her candid evaluation of the senator. They accused her of being "divisive" and "irresponsible." She was advised that she must support John McCain for the "sake of the club" and the "good of the party." She was even asked to resign from her club post because it compromised party and club unity. If she did not do so, she would be impeached.

While the controversy has mostly blown over, the actions taken by Ms. Mullin's peers has shown us the dangers of trying to uphold our principles against "the greater good."

But what can you do? Pick the lesser of two evils. But it is still evil.

I liked her summation of both political parties.

"The Democrats want to maximize central planning in domestic and economic issues while the Republicans want to limit personal freedom and perpetuate a modern form of imperialism. In effect, one party advocates socialism, the other, fascism. Neither party promotes a smaller government. Rather, both parties want more government control – just in different aspects."

It is unfortunate that the reception she received for trying to uphold her beliefs have led her to deciding not to run for re-election or seek a new position in the OU College Republicans club.

She is correct that change will probably come in a different way instead of our failed democratic system in order for free-thinking, free-willed individuals who are trying to preserve a free society.

It would seem that we are truly alone while we are in our pursuit of that word called "freedom."