RE: Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?
Well, in this case, you would not have voted for Ronald reagan then. What did he do for the pro-life movement that prevented abortions from happening under his term?
It is better for someone to at least SPEAK OUT against the practice than not. Even a small light is better than total darkness.
If as you say, Gosnell’s case is not an isolated incident, then it has been happening since Roe vs Wade even under Reagan.
Are we then to argue that we’d rather not have a Reagan as President and allow the likes of Mondale or Carter to be President simply because he could not do anything about abortion?
rE: Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.
But HE HAS THE BULLY PULPIT. And I argue that a bully pulpit FOR tax cuts is better than the tired old Obama rhetoric we’ve been hearing. And again, i argue that if Romney had won, the two houses would have gone GOP.
RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —
OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?
I argue that it is EXACTLY what we have now.
RE: Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.
Again, I’d vote for the Romney — IF — He keeps his promise to cut corporate taxes to 25%, eliminate the death tax and sign Obamacare repeal.
And yes, I believe he would have done that.
In a primary, I would have chosen someone else, and I did. However, it did not end up the way I wanted.
Therefore, I only have a Romney and Obama to choose.
Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.
>> RE: That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. —
>
> OK, I’ll bite. In a Romney vs Obama scenario, what is the third choice? And ask yourself what would have happened if enough people voted this way?
(1) Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, ran Libertarian and got 1% of the popular vote.
(2) Vergil Goode, Constitution party.
(3) Tom Hoefling, America’s Party.
There’s three choices right there.
I’ll only go w/ the top one, Johnson, but the others were in the running too. Johnson is slightly less firm on the abortion issue than I’d like, saying it should be a state-level decision, but that’s a respectable position to take when you consider that before Roe v Wade that’s exactly the position the states were in (and most had anti-abortion laws which Roe v. Wade dissolved). He left NM with a budget surplus, which is pretty impressive when you know how the State works... and did such a good job he was reelected even though, at the time, the State was solidly Democrat. ~ As President I would expect him to end the War on Drugs (which, along with the War on Terror has has VERY obviously deleterious effect on the 4th and 5th amendments and arguably the 6th). I would also expect him to seriously reign in federal spending, possibly even dissolving federal agencies; he would oppose tax increases and encourage congress to lower the rate [perhaps endorsing a uniform flat-rate].
Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ils8Ost3Dt8&feature=BFa
In short, there is absolutely nothing I can think of that a Romney presidency would have over a Johnson presidency... and a good deal more that Johnson had over Romney.
> Guess what I choose the lesser evil. Why? because to do nothing simply ensures the greater evil wins.
I never said “do nothing.”