Skip to comments.Holding Your Nose, AKA the Lesser of Two Evils (Vanity)
Posted on 02/11/2007 6:00:59 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
It boggles the mind.
First of all, it's only a few months after the 2006 elections ended, and we're already on the move towards the 2008 elections. I'm sorry, but doesn't Bush have two years left? A lot can change until then.
Secondly, let's look at some of the current frontrunners for the GOP.
Mitt Romney. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani.
Romney has flip-flopped on positions many times, so I wouldn't give him my vote. John McCain, despite his strong conservative rating from the ACU (lifetime of 83), he is partially responsibility for the travesty of McCain-Feingold, aka CFR. He is also a supporter of amnesty. Sorry.
Giuliani, although strong on national defense, is a devout Leftist. Pro-abortion. Pro-gun control. Pro-homosexual rights. He embraces illegal immigration. It stuns me that he has as large a following on Free Republic as he does.
There are far better candidates out there. Tom Tancredo (lifetime rating of 99). Sam Brownback (lifetime rating of 95). Duncan Hunter (lifetime rating of 92).
Why are so many going to hold their noses and compromise their beliefs? Name recognition? Why? It bewilders me.
We have Pro-Life candidates in Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo. We have anti-illegal immigration and Pro-border control candidates in Hunter and Tancredo (this is where Brownback slips up; support for a guest worker program? Voted yes on allowing illegals access to Social Security? No thanks.). We have pro-second amendment candidates in all three (NRA gave Hunter an A+, and both Brownback and Tancredo an A). All three are supportive of the War on Terror.
So please. Tell me. Why not vote for any of these three (particularly Tancredo and Hunter; Brownback's position on immigration irks me)? Why not?
Who cares about name recognition at this point? It's 2007. November 2008 is a long way away. A lot can change between now and then.
I refuse to compromise on MY beliefs in this matter. I will not vote for a candidate who is socially no different from the socialists on the Left. Hanging up your hat at this point is akin to giving up.
Vote for Hunter. Vote for Tancredo. Get the word out.
"I'll probably vote for Hunter in the primary but I'll vote for whoever the "R" is in the general."
I will vote for Hunter in the primary, and I can support Brownback or Tancredo if they are nominated instead.
If Guiliani or McCain wins, I will sit home and let Hillary have it. Better to endure four years of her and let the Reps know we mean business, than to let the liberals own both parties.
I should add that Hunter will need the people to help him overcome the media lovefest with the less than conservative(RINO) candidates being pushed as the frontrunners at the expense of not giving other candidates an opportunity. His site is at http://www.gohunter08.com
But if you vote for Cthulu, you will vote for someone much more powerful than the Lizard Queen. Cthulu can win and beat her reptilian powers. He will eat your soul.
Yes, and that spotlight will turn ugly when the media goes on the attack and they are no longer their darlings. The Republican is going to have to be effective in responding and sure of their beliefs to make others comfortable with them. Hunter is excellent.
War inevitably involves the death of innocents, no war has been fought where one side was able to totally avoid collateral damage and death.
By your definition, we should never compromise our Judeo-Christian beliefs and go to war. Killing an innocent is about the greatest sin one can commit, so how can we rationalize war as ok since it is at best only the 'lesser of evils'?
Because failure to stop the greater evil will result in far, far more death and bloodshed.
When the family hid Ann Frank they broke the law, failed to 'Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's", and repeatedly lied. The bible clearly says not to lie. Was the family wrong to commit the 'lesser of evils'?
So clearly, there are times when choosing the 'lesser of evils' is the only moral and right choice to make. And the invoking of that phrase is misleading and extremely short-sighted and foolish.
Self-righteousness cannot absolve oneself of responsibilities (see Pontius Pilate...)
Thank you. I appreciate the technical term. I just call it smoke & mirrors to cow the sheeple.
And love yer tag. I used to have one I stole from Laz.
It doesn't matter...
Your fine with his stance on Iraq and joining with the Demonrats? I don't think he speaks very well as well. Did poorly on Fox News Sunday a few weeks back.
You are correct, of course. But, there are bedrock principles that some of us will never compromise.
Well placed vanity and interesting/informative comments. Thanks.
Now I checked out his website and he's only touting 3 issues. Now fair trade, pro-defense, and being pro-life is fine, but it's all moot if government continues to confiscate our incomes and promote liberal policies that destroys families and promotes destructive lifestyles.
"Government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he (Giuliani) said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering."
Just like they did on Bob Dole in 1995, the always-treacherous and slimy Jonathan Alter telling Republicans in one of his magazine essays in August 1995 that in order to be "taken seriously," Republicans would have to nominate Dole because of his gravitas in 1996.
Of course, by that date Dick Morris had already put in Bill Clinton's hands polling data (bought with Chinese reptile money, let's not forget -- that's what Slick used their money for) that showed Dole was their best matchup on the GOP side -- Clinton's ideal opponent.
Let me put this discussion in simply terms;
A Republican President is more likely to ensure that the enemy and his ability to wage war continues to be destroyed, somewhere other than the USA.
A Democratic President will end the killing of terrorists. Ceasefires are just a time for the enemy to reload as lonf as they are alive.
A Democratic President will seal the fate of New York City and hundreds of thousands of civilians who will die at the hand of terrorists that should be being killed themselves.
Okay, We lose NYC or we elect a Republican President who even though he has some personal liberal social views but will nominate strict constitutionally originists judges.
Now go vote!
When it comes down to the national election, I will probably vote R. It depends.
But when it comes to the primaries, there is NO reason to hang up your hat and vote for someone like Giuliani this early.
I could win the war in a matter of weeks...
I could stop the treason, security leaks and sedition coming from the media in New York...
The trouble is your pet liberal hasn't the guts to speak up and challenge his liberal lovers in Rockefeller Plaza...
In that unfortunate event, my vote would be 3rd party. Of course, it will make no difference in the results. But, my conscience will be clear.
"Just one of 435 House members". Yeah, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Sure, that doesn't set him apart!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.