Replies

Voting for the lesser of two evils, as you suggest, is the same thing as feeding a junkie. You're just enabling his heroin habit and preventing him from facing his problem.

The junkie in this case is the Republican party establishment.

We cannot expect the party to turn around if we're still willing to vote in lockstep for its pro-choice, big government candidates, just because they're the so-called lesser of the two evils. And we cannot turn this nation around until we manage to turn the Republican party around. When the money and the votes stop flowing, we'll get their attention. The proof of this is in Rove's beginning to notice that Christians aren't all that excited about voting Republican anymore.

"voting for the lesser of two evils . . . is like feeding a junkie." You know, that is one of the stupidist things I've ever read on this forum.

The POINT of Jesus not coming as an earthly king was to show that there would BE NO perfection on this earth until His Second Coming. Therefore, unless you are in a dictatorship (as He was), ANY AND EVERY election is a choice of the "lesser of two evils" because no people, and thus no parties, will ever be perfect.

So I guess you would have opposed George Washington---the original "big government guy" who CREATED a cabinet when none was outlined in the Constitution (and, I should add, did not believe in personal liberaty because he was a slaver); or opposed Jefferson (because he was a bigger slaver) because he believed in controlling all business (by slapping an embargo on Europe); or John Marshall because he thought the Federal Government should have the authority to take measures "necessary and prudent" to conduct business; or James Monroe because he believed in "compromise" . . .

Well, you get the point. When you get to politics the name of the game is COMPROMISE to get your way. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. The only governments that do not practice compromise are dictatorships. I prefer ours.

When the money and the votes stop flowing, we'll get their attention.

It is a little humorous for the part of the GOP that makes the smallest contributions to talk about its money clout. To the extent that the GOP leadership does not consist of true believers, and generally it does not, and they having decided that they have made a good faith effort to attract religious voters, which they have decided, I do not think they will react to a Christian lack of support in the way you suggest. I think they will decide that the Christian conservatives can not be relied upon, and therefore no further effort should be made on their issues. They will simply go and find some other coaltion partner who will be more agreeable.

Fortunately this is not a problem, since there is no chance whatsoever of a signifigant proportion of the pro-life Christian community following your position.