This is EXACTLY why we got the loser the SECOND time!
You've not learned that the lesser of the two evils is STILL evil?
"At least he's better than..." is NOT a good foundation to try to run this country.
I doubt very much that if I (and presumably millions of other people) hadn’t voted for McCain in the 2008 general election that Romney wouldn’t have been the nominee in 2012 if that’s what you’re trying to say. No electorally strong conservative even ran against him for the nomination. I doubt one would have if a few more disgruntled conservatives had voted third party (or stayed home) in 2008. Most people here FOOLISHLY supported Newt Gingrich, who is JUST AS MUCH a RINO as Mitt, with the added bonus of being a clueless and arrogant twit, Santorum (my primary vote) was the best candidate by default and that was SAD because he’s a former Senator that was ousted by 17 points.
“You’ve not learned that the lesser of the two evils is STILL evil?”
Don’t care, another term for a rat President means a high likelihood of that POS replacing Scalia or Thomas (and countless more lower court judges), that’s would be bullet to brain of America, game over. I’d take my chances with whoever is nominated on the Republican side, as for the last 2 elections, I sure as hell wasn’t gonna waste my vote on the Constitution party, which I don’t like anyway, they weren’t even on the ballot in my state, Goode got 415 write-in votes. And not being in need of any weed, an abortion, or a gay marriage, I sure as hell wasn’t gonna vote for Gary Johnson either. Both of those third party twerps were “lesser evils” too.
But to be clear, I STRONGLY support nominating a conservative, something we haven’t done since 1984. Bush Jr. I voted for as well, he sure as heck wasn’t a conservative.
What can you do, the world is a stove and the knob is not within my reach, when I’m in the fire and my feet are burning I’m gonna jump into the frying pan, you can jump where you like, I respectfully agree to disagree.
I don’t see any need to argue about this, we should be discussing nominating a conservative and helping him/her carry states like New Hampshire, not bickering over whether we’d hold our nose in a general election for Romney/Jeb/Fatboy or vote for some guy who’s gonna get less than 1% of the vote, that’s a pointless debate.
__________________
A few years ago, Father Frank Pavone (longtime head of Priests for Life) wrote about what a voter should do when faced with two imperfect candidates. While he was writing specifically about the abortion issue, his teaching on what we should do when faced with the reality of an imperfect world is a sound lesson for all contexts:
“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.
By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.
Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”
http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm