President Obama finally sticking to his guns and nominating Chuck Hagel

[No1]

isn't that TUHs main point?

You're just asking questions that were already answered. I'll just re-post this and go to bed. Again, you're free to disagree.

You're trying to play this game of technicalities where you can say well "Hagel doesn't have legislative ability" but that does not matter. He is an official in government who has stances that you disagree with in principle that you're supporting because of what you believe in him on other issues (and because you're a military guy and biased in that way). On balance, you believe he is the better candidate. People could very easily use his stances on other issues to say that symbolically he is not the type of man that should sit in that post and that he is the wrong man for the job because of that (which has happened countless times). But some liberals are compromising on it because he's for shorter terms for military members, a reduction of the US departments, ambivalent towards Israel, etc.

Government is full of compromises in myriad ways, whether on policy or in principle. Your argument that your compromise is a "lesser" compromise is weak.

It was never about weighing compromises in regards to Hagel specifically, it was pointing out that everyone compromises so his stringent stances don't make sense and that the weight of a compromise depends on the person. One of the biggest lines of attack on here against Ron Paul was trying to get people that agreed with him in policy to disagree with his potential nomination because he may be racist. On principled grounds, not on policy. Many of those people did not care. They accept that the same way others accept a certain degree of corruption. Thus, given that the level of a compromise depends on the person, it is not fair to call others unprincipled because of how they weigh them in a given situation unless it goes against the moral scale they have used previously. I'm too tired to bring up cases studies with Thailand and places like that. But you get the point.