Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wallace T.
The best thing you can say about John McCain is that he is the lesser of two evils

That very well may be. However, I submit this for consideration:

How much falsehood do you have to add to the truth to make it false. And how much truth to you have to add to a lie to make it true (not a lie anymore).

My point, if you couldn't figure it out, is that McCain may be the lesser of the two evils in the McCain vs. Obama battle, but evil is still evil, no matter to what degree it is. And good is not good until no evil exists within it.

64 posted on 06/10/2008 7:04:34 AM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: BloodOrFreedom
Freelance Photographer: One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics.
 
 
 
Watch out for the biting monkeys.  ;-|

102 posted on 06/10/2008 8:52:28 AM PDT by LomanBill (A bird flies because the right wing opposes the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: BloodOrFreedom
As a conservative who regards myself as in the tradition of the post-World War II conservative movement, I have faced a "lesser of two evils" dilemma with all Republican Presidential candidates in my lifetime other than Goldwater and Reagan.

In this election, I have three options: voting for a third party candidate, abstaining from voting, or voting for McCain.

Voting for a third party candidate can leave me with a clear conscience even though my vote is ineffectual. There is no way either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin will win; they lack the funds, name recognition, and grass roots organization. Bob Barr is personally repugnant, not only for his adultery, but for his activism in the subversive ACLU after leaving Congress. I have no problem with Chuck Baldwin in this regard. He is a patriotic and principled Christian man. In any case, I am closer to the platform of the Constitution Party than to that of the Libertarian Party. My problem with the Constitution Party is its Ron Paul-like position on foreign policy. While I do not agree with all the foreign policy positions of the current Administration or with the prolonged "no-win" war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sudden withdrawal from overseas commitments will leave a power vacuum that Russia and China, our enemies, will happily fill. Evacuation from Iraq and Afghanistan with any result short of victory will also clear the way for Iranian and Russian domination of the Persian Gulf.

Abstaining from voting is another option, and one that would not involve the hesitation I might have with Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. There are circumstances where it would be advisable to do so. I do not believe this election is such a case.

Voting for McCain means putting a man into the White House who is to the left of President Bush on a number of issues, including environmental protection and tax policy. He is as bad as the incumbent on issues such as NAFTA, immigration, welfare programs, and Federal involvement in public education. McCain is highly unlikely to appoint conservatives to judicial positions, especially with the probability of a more liberal Congress in 2009 and 2010. At best, we will get mushy moderates like Sandra O'Connor and William Kennedy. There are a lot of reasons to dislike McCain and to dread him in the White House.

The only plausible alternative, barring divine intervention or a coup d'etat, to McCain is Barack Obama. The pattern in American politics, going back 75 years, has been for a liberal Democrat President, when aligned with a Democrat Congress, to pass socialistic legislation that the Republicans, even when they control the White House and Congress, do not repeal. Reagan might have made some progress in this area had he not had to deal with the liberal Tip O'Neil to assure funding for the military buildup that ultimately bankrupted the USSR. Indeed, from 2001 to 2006, the Republicans controlled the White House and one or both Houses of Congress, yet government spending, including entitlements, actually grew more rapidly than under Bill Clinton.

With the dismal track record of the GOP from 1953 to 2008, we cannot rely upon a Republican resurgence to overturn new programs that Obama and Congress might put in place. Additionally, an Obama/Brzezinski foreign policy would be even worse than a Ron Paul policy, insofar as we would let our foreign policy be directed by supranational agencies like NATO and the UN, thus surrendering more of our sovereignty.

This may be something like the Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke contest for Governor of Louisiana. Vote for the crook, not the racist.

129 posted on 06/10/2008 10:13:59 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson