No, it isn’t beside the point.
I do believe it is the point.
At least the point you are trying to make.
Your point is we should elect Obama over McCain because McCain would be bad. That means then, in your mind, that Obama would be better.
In fact, you said Obama was your 2nd choice for president, following Hillary Clinton, and McCain trailed behind both of them, followed by Romney in as what you deemed the worst choice of all.
So clearly you think Obama would be a better president than McCain.
So tell us then, where exactly would Obama be better?
No, It is quite beside the point, and perhaps that is why you and I are not understanding each other.
Your point is we should elect Obama over McCain because McCain would be bad. That means then, in your mind, that Obama would be better.
No, my point has always been that we should not 'elect' either one (D or R). Your vote is your endorsement.
In fact, you said Obama was your 2nd choice for president, following Hillary Clinton, and McCain trailed behind both of them, followed by Romney in as what you deemed the worst choice of all.
I believe you are referring to Post #09, quoted below for your convenience:
"I believe the most dangerous candidates for president in this cycle were (1) Romney, (2) McCain, (3) Obama and (4) Clinton. It admittedly took me some time to figure out that Giuliani wasn't a serious threat, and I didn't become convinced Romney was an egomaniacal fraud until the Reagan library debate." -Kurt Evans, Post #09
If so, you have mistakenly attributed Kurt Evans' words to me. That being said, I also believe it to be quite evident that you would deliberately misconstrue his words to use them against him (and me). Yours is not a fair reading of what he said, either here or in Post #13, where you build your false construct.
Not to put words in Kurt Evans' mouth, but it seems very clear to me that the first words in his statement deny your interpretation, and make his intentions apparent:
"I believe the most dangerous candidates for president [...]" inherently infers a lack of confidence in all of the named candidates, and finds acceptable candidates only in those he omitted from his list.
He then goes on to display a perfectly cogent reason for his statement, which you fail to address:
"The critical difference between a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Republican president is that the Democrat would face substantial congressional opposition. Congressional Republicans have already begun rolling over for McCain's liberalism." -Kurt Evans, Post #09
while I agree with Kurt Evans in spirit, I would go even farther than he, finding no solace in any candidate to the left of and including Fred Thompson. All of them represent a real and present danger to our country, and I will not endorse any of them, regardless of party affiliation, or proportion with respect to each other.
So clearly you think Obama would be a better president than McCain. So tell us then, where exactly would Obama be better?
I do not think either Obama or McCain would be better or worse. They are merely two sides of the same damnable coin.
I would say that Dr. Alan Keyes would make a fine president, embodying the patriot spirit, and the statesmanship our forefathers would require of us by the writ of their blood spilled upon the ground. In that understanding alone, no other current candidate can come close in comparison.