On choosing the lesser of two evils today
Posted 35 weeks 5 days ago byI don't like choosing the lesser of two evils. I don't like it, but that's politics. Nothing is ever pure. Compromise is the coin of the realm.
But does choosing a lesser candidate require compromising one's cherished beliefs and political principles? Not necessarily, no.
So I voted today for... Mitt Romney. That's right, "flip-flopping," "tax-raising," "abortion-loving," "RINO" Romney. I voted for Romney because it's the primary, he's still in the hunt in California, and I would prefer Romney over "Maverick" John McCain any day of the week.
You vote for the candidates you have, not the candidates you want to have. Unfortunately, neither Ronald Reagan nor Calvin Coolidge were available. Under the circumstances, I concluded that Romney is a better conservative than McCain. Not the purest conservative, but merely the better of the two. And he's actually electable. I wish the same could have been said for Duncan Hunter, but you can't have nice things.
Now, I know endorsements mean something to some people and nothing to a lot of people. People I know and respect have thrown in with McCain. I voted for Steve Forbes in the 2000 Republican primary, well after he dropped out of the race. What can I say? I liked Forbes's platform. Well, Forbes endorsed John McCain last week.
I had the honor of working with Bruce Herschensohn in the late 1990s. He should have been the United States Senator from California. He is one of the wisest, most patriotic men I know. And Herschensohn is backing John McCain, too.
Herschensohn makes a sincere case for McCain, which boils down to the idea that McCain would be just savage enough to win the war America is in. Columnist Jeff Jacoby makes a similarly sincere case for McCain. "For all his transgressions and backsliding," Jacoby writes, "McCain radiates integrity and steadfastness, and if his heterodox stands have at times been infuriating, they also attest to his resolve. Time and again he has taken an unpopular stand and stuck with it, putting his career on the line when it would have been easier to go along with the crowd."
True enough. Trouble is, McCain's "infuriating" stands have been on some vital issues: the Constitution, the First Amendment, American sovereignty, regulation of the U.S. economy. Those failings are tough to get past, especially on primary day when I have other options. Maybe McCain learned his lesson on immigration, maybe not. Maybe we'll find out in a year or so. But rather than take a chance on "Maverick" McCain, I preferred to bet on "RINO" Romney.
I don't like choosing the lesser of two evils, but I chose one today. And I'll choose another one in November.
Thoughts
Gimme the evil!
Submitted on February 7th, 2008 by Monkey RobbLWhen it comes to choosing amongst evils, you know where my vote's going!
From what I hear
Submitted on February 5th, 2008 by AnonymousRomney Kills Taxes - Not Babies! So you made a wise choice.
Re: The lesser of two evils
Submitted on February 5th, 2008 by Jim LakelyBen, you cite Jacoby:
Not only are those stands often "infurating," as you note, but they are not often all that brave. Jacoby gives McCain too much credit on this count. The "surge" notwithstanding, McCain often does go along with the crowd -- it's just not the conservative crowd, but the crowd that gets flowers thrown at them by The New York Times editorial board and other cluckers in the elite media. And that is an easy crowd to woo: Simply toss conservative prinicples under the bus.
As Thomas Sowell puts it in his latest column:
Tough, but true. I, too, chose the lesser of two evils by voting for Romney in the California primary today. But I think Romney is much less of a political "evil" than McCain.