The best answer I can give you is this. Each of us has to do what they feel is right. I personally would have gone it without Russia, had I been in charge and added a few historical nuke drops to the war time roster. Prior to that, I’d have fought to the best of my ability.
Back to today, I see an evil man. One who has made baby parts a $50 menu choice on the healthcare menu. I see an evil man that has pushed ‘gay rights’ on a people that do not believe such exist. His laws have resulted in evil being done to straight people, legally, financially and morally. I see an evil man that has pushed an eco agenda that has led to financial catastrophe, suicide by people pushed over the financial brink, people frozen to death unable to afford his green heat and people baked to death unable to afford green air conditioning.
And I see an evil man that dispite all that and more, so called Free Republic Conservatives are tripping over themselves to vote for, should Newt fail.
I see no logical, moral or rational way one can vote for such a person and claim with a straight face that they are trye blue conservatives doing some ‘better’ thing for the country.
I would note that history is littered with examples of a people in fear of the current wolf running like sheep toward the protection of the new wolf in leader’s clothing. And again, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Best answer I have.
Without arguing about what Romneycare specifically does, I want to make a more general comment.
Every state is required by law to provide abortion coverage under medicaid. Of the 50 states:
- 17 states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions. Of these, 13 are due to a court order, 4 did so voluntarily.
- 32 states provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest. 2 add fetal impairment, 3 add “grave, long-lasting damage to the woman’s physical health”
- 1 state provides abortions only in cases of life endangerment
So every governor of every state in the union, if he has signed a budget law, has approved the murder of innocent children. We are not allowed to discuss whether Romneycare is particularly worse in this regard than other state laws (I think we probably could, but someone would claim it was “defending Romney”, and I don’t want to go there). I think the existance of Romneycare itself created a more serious problem, but only in degree, not in substance (same problem, just more of it, so I don’t think it makes one evil and one “not evil”).
On the “gay” issue, I think measured by the standard you suggest we would have a more serious problem with people otherwise considered good conservatives. Without getting into an argument over it, I will say that there is SOME evidence that Sarah Palin is not as strict on the issue of homosexuality as some suggest is necessary (there was some dust-up about that, I have decided that until she makes a direct pronouncement I will not take sides on what her position is). Clearly Dick Cheney supports gay agenda items I find abhorent, but I don’t think that makes him “evil”. But that’s not an argument against your label, just a note that I think your argument makes more people “evil” than one might imagine.
I think we hit similar problems with other issues taken singly — we will find otherwise acceptable conservatives who were on the wrong side of the eco issue, or of the financial mess, or other issues — and this includes people who did more than just state a position, but who actually voted for things that you cite as causing evil outcomes. Again, maybe they ARE all evil — I’m not arguing whether you are right or wrong on that point, only noting that the list of “evil” people would be rather larger than the one man you mention, and would cover people we have supported at Free Republic at times in the past and present.
It could be that the measure is to take all the individual things together, and by preponderance of wrong choices one becomes “evil”. I would argue that this would be a “degree” of evil, rather than crossing a dividing line between “good” and “evil”, but I would understand the opposing argument.