Evil v. Anybody But - - -

[Flanders]

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:

Wow. It’s one week before Election Day, the re-election of Obama is unthinkable, and the election is extremely close – every vote counts.

Against this backdrop, I am still seeing lots of articles and blog postings from self-described conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, independents and patriots fervently proclaiming they will not vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, because they refuse to choose “the lesser of two evils.”

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:

“The lesser of two evils is still evil,” they intone, as though those magical words encapsulate some transcendent logic.

Ironically, most of these people revere America’s Founding Fathers, quote them and refer to them often – indeed they see themselves as following in the founders’ footsteps, or at least adhering to their principles.

But in this they are profoundly deluded. For in reality, the Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils.

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:

Therefore, to all those who today proclaim so high-mindedly that they cannot dishonor God by choosing “the lesser of two evils,” I would say this:

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.

 

[Grandma]

Do you work for Dick Cheney?

 

[editec]

Which lesser-of-two-evils would Jesus vote for?

 

[Flanders]

Do you work for Dick Cheney?

To Grandma: Once again —— it’s not about me.

Which lesser-of-two-evils would Jesus vote for?

To editec: J. C. wouldn’t vote. Voting only encourages them. He would throw the moneylenders out of the temple.