Replies

"And maybe when you’re pragmatic, put away absolutism and stop insisting on having everything your way and accept less than a full plate realizing you can’t always have your way in a large and diverse organization like a political party, maybe in the end you’ll just be surprised at how much you are receiving and how filled up you really are and you’ll be pleasantly surprised, instead of always expecting the worst when you have to compromise just a little."

I'm truly amazed that there are still people trumpeting the lesser of two evils mantra, at this point in time. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that either we (you) don't think the condition of our government and country is that bad... or we have been conditioned by those in power to keep letting that line go lower and lower.

We have sunk so low that now we're at the point now where many will probably get behind the "Republican candidate" who is a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, gun-control supporting, open borders globalist... why? Because he has an (R) by his name!!! And what's the mantra again? Ah yes, he's the lesser of two evils! Woohooo!

:-/

National security is THE issue to me in this election with the state of the economy not far behind. Without national security, we’ll all be aborted and the ease of buying a gun won’t really matter a whole lot. At that point who marries whom isn’t of paramount importance to me.

And all of the GOP candidates will be far stronger in the defense of this nation than will the Democrats. Far from being a “lesser of two evils” proposition as you set up, it is a good vs. evil proposition, good being those who will protect this nation’s security, work to win the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror and maintain a wise homeland security policy here domestically as versus Democrats who simply just don’t take it seriously and see talk of national security as being hopelessly simple-minded and the stuff of red necks and talk radio, the subject being an annoying distraction from the all-important agenda of providing as many government goodies as possible to get as many Americans as dependent on government, and thus the Democratic party, as possible. $5000 scholarships for babies and unneeded expansions of S Chips are the priority. The defense of the nation will just take care of itself if we surrender to the UN and Europe’s will and cease taking a pro-active security stance. Then jihadist nihilists will decide we’re not such bad people and we’ll all join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Do you see now why I don’t see it as accepting the lesser of two evils, which is always the same tired mantra put up by the absolutists, but rather resisting what I see as being evil, i.e. Democrats who would leave you, me and those we love vulnerable to foreign assault, to get behind whoever the eventual GOP nominee is regardless of his less than perfect adherence to some supposed conservative credential or another. I see it as accepting that the only candidate who will ever see things exactly as I do is me, and I’m not running. That doesn’t make any of our candidates evil. Far from it, they’re all good men. I’d be proud to have any one of them, White Flag Ron, excepted, being our standard bearer especially compared to the corrupt, anti-American and dishonest trash running for the Democrats.

When viewed in that light, I think how you can see why I don’t think any of the issues you name matter a damn if we’re not first secure as a nation and those who would do us harm are left unmolested. And Republicans with the sole exception of Ron Paul will be about the business of securing this nation first and I believe will do so vigorously. When that’s accomplished, we can then have a debate about the other issues. Those are debates for tranquil times, not something to take our eye off the ball of what needs done right now to keep us all alive and well.