We should also not subsidize the obviously piss poor (Mittler) as the enemy of BOTH the good and the perfect just because he MAY be a sliver better than Obozo which is a far lower standard than any to which pro-lifers should ever stoop. That's like favoring Hitler over Stalin because Hitler MAY have allowed some vestigial "free enterprise" (however heavily regulated but at least he did not mass murder the Kulaks for being prosperous). What mad house are we living in when otherwise sensible people would make or accept such arguments???
BTW, "We" knew George W. Bush. He was 80% a friend of ours.... While Dubya was not perfect, he deserves a better fate than being used on behalf of Mittler who would not be worth Dubya pissing on his grave. And, yes, Dubya has endorsed Mittler which does not matter in the slightest to the moral responsibilities of voters NOT to vote for junkyard pro-aborts and two-faced liars like Mittler OR Obozo.
I normally agree with your posts and I look forward to your regaining your customary common sense when the fever has passed.
God bless you and yours!
the better argument, in my opinion, is more like the following:
In CT-5 we have NARAL GOP Roraback vs. NARAL Dem Esty. If Roraback wins, it is a worse outcome.
1. because then the NARALs would have taken over both parties, instead of only one.
2. it encourages the scumbags to do more of the same in other districts.
3. it disables the pro-life opposition from winning the seat in future elections. Very unlikely to recruit a solid pro-life DEM to run against Roraback and do it effectively.
Now, I would not want to argue in favor of supporting Esty:
1. it would fall on deaf ears.
2. Some would believe that supporting an Esty is intrinsically evil and cannot ever be justified.
Better that Esty wins, so support the pro-life 3rd party guy this year. If Roraback were 78-years old, might be different. If we had term limits, different story.
Getting back to Romney, the flaw in the pro-MITT argument is that his election:
1. Disables pro-lifers regarding 2016. Might be different if Mitt were term-limited to one term.
2. Starts a Romney dynasty with 5 sons.
3. Romney’s influence on ‘16 and also ‘20 election. And beyond.
The effects of a Romney election on future elections and the future of the party are real, imminent, reasonable and not based on wild speculation.
Philosophical reading would include “double effect”, “prudence” and “sound judgment”. The lesser of 2 evils argument is poor scholarship.