In the beginning the establishment-Republican call to arms was “Anybody But Obama” —— with the occasional “The lesser of two evils” thrown in for good measure. Admittedly, the two slogans are interchangeable at first glance. Much to my shame I’ve used both. They are not all that interchangeable when they are examined in depth. It’s impossible to know how many will refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I suspect that David Kupelian sees Tea Partiers as a voting bloc. His dissertation makes more sense if it is aimed at a voting bloc rather than a few individuals: Calling an opponent evil is too precise to be used as a general term, and it does call up the image of a Bible-thumper; whereas, “Anybody But - - -” can be used against any candidate. In addition, Anybody But - - - encompasses a political party as in John McCain verses Hussein. “Anybody but the Democrat” was supposed to be reason enough to vote for McCain. Also, Hussein was not evil enough in 2008 to invoke “the lesser of two evils” choice. To say it in 2012 implies that Hussein was a saint in 2008 who fell from grace after he became president. I can’t accept that because I had him pegged for a sinner long before he sought his party’s nomination. Kupelian goes on to say: Jumping from individuals to implementing a political philosophy is playing dirty pool. Evil can be highlighted when comparing a totalitarian form of government to the limited form of government the Founders setup. The lesser of two evils gets a little dicey when the record shows the American people get the same thing in election after election no matter who wins. Business as usual is Romney’s major problem for some of us. With the sole exception of promising to repeal Hillarycare II, Romney offers platitudes and vague economic solutions to convince voters he will be different than Hussein. In short: Romney is going to win, but the lesser of two evils should not be recorded as the reason. I cannot speak for others, and certainly not for Tea Partiers, but refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils has nothing to do with God; it’s a purely political decision. In any event one can hardly expect atheists and agnostics to consider God in their decision making process: Beware the 'lesser-of-two-evils' trap Exclusive: David Kupelian on how Founding Fathers would vote Nov. 6 Published: 13 hours ago by DAVID KUPELIAN Beware the ‘lesser-of-two-evils’ trap Finally, Hussein’s handling of events in Benghazi before and after the attack define evil in every sense of the word, yet Romney wimped out in the final debate. That’s one more reason why I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. evil ( adjective) eviler, evilest 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. noun 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.