Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

[JerryNumbers]

<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<div>We have had discussions on this matter several times. If not mistake, John has stated the same thought I have, a vote for the best of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And one thing I have never had anyone present to me is any evidence at all that Jesus participated in politics, affairs of this world. We do know that many of them during Jesus’ days, even His chosen ones, thought He came to set His kingdom up in this world, &amp; were sorely disappointed, turning from following Him when they found out that was not His goal. And it is amazing of the faith Peter finally showed when he realized Jesus’ truths &amp; preached such a great sermon filled with His faith in Jesus on the day of Pentecost. Peter had let go of the world, placed all of his faith in Jesus. After which he &amp; the other apostles never looked back towards the cares of this world &amp; the affairs of this world, truly carrying out the works that Jesus ordained them to do. Most of them even died for the Savior, &amp; would not back off their beliefs in order to save their own life. Thus dying for the sake of Christ.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Laws, &amp; are certain people in worldly leadership position of this country will not draw people to Christ, will not help build the kingdom Jesus spoke of. That is only done by putting all of a persons faith in Jesus &amp; Him alone. Them live our life doing the work Jesus has ordained us to do. That is to go, teach, baptizing, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, &amp; of course that teachings is the teachings that’s only found in the old Book &amp; has nothing to do with affairs of this life, or this world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And yes, I know its quite hard to overcome the world, &amp; its prince, &amp; his helpers. Yet it can be done.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1Jo 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.</div>
<div>1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.</div>
<div>1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yet, if a person is surely saved, having the Holy Ghost abiding within them, greater is He that’s within you, than that wicked one that tries to get us involved in affairs of this world, &amp; away from what Jesus ordained us to do with our life. Those of the world has some great rhetoric even using Bible verses trying to convince Jesus’ brothers &amp; sisters to fall in behind the prince of this world.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How can we be a good soldier for our savior, when we are mixed up in the affairs of this life?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We can’t, we cannot please Him who has saved us while entangled in worldly affairs, for it chokes out the word of God. And politics is the affairs of this life, an not the affairs of our Savior.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mr 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul spoke of Demas, having love for this present world, having forsaken him, yet worse that that, he had forsaken the Savior Jesus. And that is what happens, it even happens today, the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in (1 John 2:16), choke the word of God out of us, &amp; we can’t be a good soldier for Him who called us.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The sad part is, those Christians that are all mixed up in the affairs of this life, this world, will say that those who are truly trusting Christ, that are doing the works He has ordained them to do, are setting around doing nothing. That helps them win even more to follow to follow them &amp; the prince of this world.</div>

[HappyChristian]

Jerry, Christians who are concerned about the direction of this country and who actively try to do something about it (you know, work and pray both) are not following the prince of this world. We have been given, by God, a wonderful country. One that is in tatters right now. And you would have us believe that, because Jesus wasn't involved in politics we shouldn't be. There were a number of things Jesus didn't do that we do, and it's bogus theology to say we shouldn't be involved in politics because Jesus wasn't. If God doesn't lead you to be involved in political work, so be it. But I will never believe that God doesn't want Christians to vote. We are to take our earthly responsibilities seriously, even though we are citizens of Heaven. And part of that responsibility is our country (no matter in which one we happen to live). And voting is the easiest way to take part in that responsibility. Using the responsibility of being a witness for Christ (or doing what God's ordained us to do) as an excuse to not vote is simply that: an excuse.

But it's easier to condemn Christians who are honestly seeking how to bring the most glory to God via elections.

And, yes, any time we vote it is for the lesser of two evils. Because we are all sinners. Christians are saved sinners, but sinners nonetheless.

[1Timothy115]

John Adams said,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


However, please note that he did not say Christian (many purport that he was a Christian, but he was actually Unitarian...last I heard, their beliefs aren't biblical...). He said moral and religious. I realize that Christianity is the true root of morality, so that is not the point. But the founders inserted into the Constitution the caveat that no religious test is to be applied to office seekers. That doesn't mean individuals can't make their own requirements; that means that there can be no forbidding of federal office holders due to religious belief or lack thereof (the only religion I would not include, and I don't believe our founders would either, is islam because it is a politico/religious system which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and therefore followers of that can not truthfully promise to uphold the Constitution, but rather work to undermine it).

See, the thing that so many Americans (and it seems especially Christians nowadays) don't understand is that we the people are to be the true rulers in America. WE are supposed to hold our office holders (public SERVANTS, not rulers) to the US Constitution (for federal congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - SCOTUS can be impeached, although people think they are the final say so on everything...but they aren't, really. We the people are, Constitutionally) and to each individual state Constitution. Many states, in their original Constitutions, put in the requirement that office-seekers were to be of a religious nature (some put in that they need to believe in God and fear Him; others specify that they must believe in Jesus Christ). States can do that, because states, under the US Constitution are supposed to be sovereign, only being held to federal scrutiny where the US Constitution specifically states it (NOT where people like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi and their ilk proclaim there is authority - you know, like in that [non-existent] general welfare clause...).

God does allow things...but to be quite honest, the responsibility for the direction this country has gone and continues to go lies squarely on the shoulders of the Christians who sit back and do nothing. YES, we are to win souls (but ARE we?), YES, we are to be a right witness (but ARE we?)...but YES we are to put our feet to work and DO SOMETHING to preserve the liberties our forefathers fought and died for. I'm so glad they weren't apathetic! I truly have no respect for Christians who gripe about government (whether federal, state, or local) who do not put feet to their supposed prayers.

I liked everything you said so much, I decided to leave out the part I could have written myself. But, I will further stress what you, Rick, and Annie have already said.

You've heard me say before I believe you have to be a Christian to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution. That said, The President of the United States is not supposed to interpret, or change the U.S. Constitution. By the U.S. Constitution his powers are limited to preserve, protect, and defend.

POTUS as well as any public office as established by the U.S. Constitution is a secular office.
United States Constitution, Article. VI
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So, where does that leave Christians? It leaves us picking the person who would best support Christian values. Edited January 25, 2012 by 1Tim115

[ThePilgrim]

I am afraid too many of us will actually choose the greater of the evils because we do not have the gumption to really study the alternatives. Indeed to not keep oneself fully informed by studying all the facts and history of the persons and options involved is where most fall short in their duty to choose wisely among the choices. For instance those who consider watching the nightly news and reading things such as Time and Newsweek an hardly be well informed, but yet that is how the mass of voters come to their decisions on the lesser of two evils. Neither can watching the so-called debates and analyses by the so-called experts following, be considered keeping oneself informed.

Today we have a lot more information available than we did even twenty or thirty years ago. That information is available on the internet. I hesitate to bring that fact up on a christian site because I am afraid that the response will be the same here as it is at our Saturday men's breakfasts in discussions with my brother's in Christ. "The internet is filled with conspiracy theories." "The internet is unchristian."

Yes the internet is unchristian, but then again, so is the world. Yes, the internet is filled with conspiracy theories, but then again, so is the world. Indeed the internet is full of all forms of evil and ungodliness and again so is the world.
So many say they will not venture onto the internet lest they become contaminated. Should we stay away from the world lest it contaminate us? No, of course not. We are left her in the world but we are not of it.t


John 17:1-21

17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
KJV

Our heavenly Father gives us protection as we travel through this foreign country bound for a better one. The Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and guidance in making the correct decisions.
To those who will not venture onto the internet in search of whatever truth may be found there, I ask do you go to the library or to a book store? If you answer yes, do you find ungodly or evil things there?
The internet is no different than the library the bookstore or the world. There you will find an abundance of lies but also truth. Just as you must avert your eyes in your walk through this world so you must also do so on the internet.

Some say I will not go to this or that blog, news, or commentary site where there might possibly be some truth,because there are unchristian things there, may be passing up a useful bit of information they should know.

Some of the sites I go to are not christian, indeed some of them are written by agnostic or atheists. If I am going to those sites to pick up information on economics, foreign policy, politics or events of the day, which I filter through my IFB christian filter am I behaving in a unchristian manner?

Now to the original problem choosing the lesser of two evils.
When Pilate was confronted with his dilemma, did he choose the lesser of the two evils that confronted him?

John 19:10-16

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
KJV


God bless,
Larry

[Brother Rick]

I don't know about that, Rick...I think it all depends on what you mean by the "best man." I personally think Romney would make a better President than Santorum or Paul...Christians have the liberty to disagree on that. (As I said, I'm not passionate about any of the candidates, really.) I don't vote in the general election based solely on "Christianity" or character, or even on past performance...so, why should I do so in the primary? Electability does indeed enter in; why nominate a candidate that (no matter how squeaky clean or Constitutionally correct) you KNOW will lose the general election race before even entering it? This fact plays into the whole "lesser of two evils" option. The greater evil is a shoo-in if the lesser evil has no chance to win. Christians have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election, just as they have the obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in any other area of their lives. This will look different for every Christian. After prayerful evaluation, you might choose Santorum or Paul over Romney, and I might choose Gingrich over all the others. We're different people with different opinions. We can both be guided by Scriptural principles, and make two different selections, because no candidate is perfect.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should nominate the man who has the best chance of beating Obama. I think that man is Newt Gingrich, not Romney.. (And I like Newt anyway for the reasons I've mentioned before.) To nominate an obvious loser is to choose the greater evil.

In short, I believe it is my inescapable Christian and civic duty to choose the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils in the 2012 Presidential election. I am not choosing the lesser of two evils if I throw my support behind a candidate who will certainly lose to Obama. I am choosing the greater evil.

That's where I disagree with you. If you really believe that Romney would make the best president out of all the ones available, then I believe you should vote for him in the primary. To do any less would be to compromise your own convictions. This is the thought pattern and the reason the Republican Party keeps being represented by liberals.

Here's the deal, when you claim that a candidate has "no shot" of beating Obama, you're basing that off of your own understanding and preconceptions. I'm not trying to be harsh, you know I like you, but when people start talking that way they start removing God from the picture. You're leaning on your own understanding, and not voting for the guy who you think would make the better president.

Over and over again people keep saying Ron Paul doesn't have a shot, and yet he's making a strong showing. In spite of everything that everyone is saying, he's still a contender. I wonder where he'd be if people voted based upon who they thought was right for the job and not who they thought would win. If someone contends in the primary and wins the GOP nod, anything can happen.

If we're basing our decisions off Scriptural principles, then it is clear that we do the best with what we can. But it is also clear that faith, prayer, and trust in what God can do should also enter the picture. Those latter principles are never more important for a Christian voter than during the primary, because it is at that time we can really make our voice heard. The "electability" argument is based entirely on perception, which is as unstable as water. Israel made their choice for Saul based upon electability, not on who he was, his heart, or his ability to lead. I know the other three aren't David, but the principle remains the same: pick the best available for the job based upon their ability to do the job, not their ability to get the job. Leave the getting of the job to God.

[John81]

If Gingrich gets the nomination, I'm definitely voting for Obama. Obama has much more character, whereas Gingrich seems to me to be morally bankrupt.

If Romney gets the nomination, I am up in the air on who to vote for.

I like Obama's tax policy, health care policy, and international policy, but I dislike his policy on most social issues.

So you like the charactor of a man who supports the murder of babies worldwide?

You like tax policies designed to cripple businesses and redistribute wealth?

You like a health care policy that is unconstitutional, forces folks to pay for the unhealthy choices of others, places government in control of health issues and leads to a downgrading of American healthcare?

You support international policy based upon America being "the big bad" that Obama constantly apologizes for, where policy is constantly blowing in the wind?

You supporth the Obama social issues of mass baby murder, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, ignoring the Constitution, promoting class warfare, playing the race card, the downgrading of American lifestyle to the lowest common denominator?

[Invicta]

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Invicta

[Brother Rick]

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

Hahahahaha... this made me laugh. Yeah, we have those. One of them is the "Green Party," they are enviromentalist wackos.

[rancher824]

For those who say we should never vote for the lesser of two evils, Would you vote for a man who had an affair while in office and then gave orders to end her husband to the front line so he would be killed? if not you would not vote for a man like David, a man after God's own heart. Or perhaps a man with 700 wives and 300 more women on the side? Then you would not vote for Solomon, the man God had build the temple in Jerusalem. You see if we are not willing to vote for imperfect men, we would not approve of the men God put into place. Perhap if a man who was righteous enough to be a pastor was running we could vote for him, or would we critisize him for not preaching the gospel instead!!! As to Jesus not doing anything in politics, his entire reason for coming would have been undermind if he had, as he would have had to overthrow the roman empire, and become king. Then he would not have been crusified. He WILL come again one day and set up a kingdom. Now tell me how will me voting for a man that is not perfect undermine my work here on this earth? If I feel led (which I do not) to be president, how would that destroy my work for Christ? If I was led to do so it might be that God would use it to spread the Gospel through freedom. Another thought,(I have mentioned this before) Christ did not have a home (owned or rented). He traveled from town to town preaching. Those who feel that since Jesus did nothing political, neither should we need to move out of their homes (if they own they need to sell), quit trying to be conected to this old world, and travel preaching. Some may say "I do preach" but still have a home. Christ Never Had A Home, so neither should you!!!

[Invicta]

Hahahahaha... this made me laugh. Yeah, we have those. One of them is the "Green Party," they are enviromentalist wackos.

Yes we also have the Greens. They are the majority party in the local government in Brighton. We also have a Monster Raving Loony Party and they don't always come last.

[ThePilgrim]

Does England also have a tea party?

Sorry,
Larry

[Invicta]

They sometimes have a tea dance. Out local B&Q DIY store has one once a year.

But a tea party would be a children's party.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Invicta

[John81]

Over here many people will vote for the one they think will have the best chance of beating the one they dislike most.

It is called 'tactical voting'

It works like this, (say) there are three candidates, Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative.

'One' likes the Conservative best and the labour he hates. But the Con, is last in the polls so 'one' votes for Lib Dem, as most likely to beat labour.

On the other hand 'one' may think they are all rubbish, so vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party. Have you got one of those?

Depending on what State one is in, there are options like the Green Party or Libertarian Party. Oftentimes some offshoot will also run in some States. There is also the option to vote for no one in a particular category.

[Annie]

That's where I disagree with you. If you really believe that Romney would make the best president out of all the ones available, then I believe you should vote for him in the primary. To do any less would be to compromise your own convictions. This is the thought pattern and the reason the Republican Party keeps being represented by liberals.

First of all, I don't like Romney. I actually don't think he'd make the best President out of the Republican contenders. He'd be better than Paul or Santorum, but not Gingrich, IMO. I believe Gingrich 1) would make the best President and 2)is the most electable against Obama. So, I really don't have any conundrums this time.

Here's the deal, when you claim that a candidate has "no shot" of beating Obama, you're basing that off of your own understanding and preconceptions. I'm not trying to be harsh, you know I like you, but when people start talking that way they start removing God from the picture. You're leaning on your own understanding, and not voting for the guy who you think would make the better president.

Rick, you're not being harsh. I like a friendly, frank discussion, and I'm pretty hard to offend. I think you're that way, too. I guess I would have to say that everything I am (and you are) taking into consideration is from "my own (and your own) understanding" since I can't see into the hearts of the men who are running. God can do whatever He pleases--I completely acknowledge that. But I'm responsible to weigh the evidence I see with my eyes and hear with my ears. I don't have any secret insight into either 1) the real character of a man or 2) his electability. Since that is true, I have to go by what I think is right based on my perceptions. Such is true about any area of my life. (I'm certainly not downplaying the importance of prayer, faith, etc.)

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I would not vote for a person ONLY because I feel he's the most electable...but that factor does play heavily into my voting decision. For example, in this primary election...
**Santorum's a great guy; all of the "homeschooly" people around here are endorsing him. Do I think his character is probably the very best of all of the men who are running? Yep. But I don't think he would make a good President; he would not be an effective leader. And he's IMO not electable.
**Do I think Romney would be an effective leader? Is he smart? Yep. But I don't like his policies, and I don't trust him as much as I trust someone like Newt. I can't be sure about his character, b/c he comes across as plastic and fake. Is he electable? I don't think he's AS electable as Newt. (But I could be completely wrong...I know that!)
**Newt's "character grade" isn't that great...except for the fact that he has admitted mistakes and shown remorse and humility about his failings. That counts for something, especially in politics. Newt is IMO the most electable one. Do I like everything he has done policy-wise? Nope, but I like it a lot better than I do Romney's record.

See...this is the kind of thought process I go through. It's not JUST "character" or "electability," "past performance," or "who has the best leadership skills." It's a combination of these traits and more. I guess I could sum up by saying that I would NOT vote for someone ONLY because I think he's electable, and I would NOT vote for someone who IMO is not AT ALL electable. There's middle ground here, at least in this particular primary election. Now, if there were only one Republican candidate who stood any kind of chance against Obama, he would get my vote, hands down. Not to vote for him would be to vote for the greater evil.

Over and over again people keep saying Ron Paul doesn't have a shot, and yet he's making a strong showing. In spite of everything that everyone is saying, he's still a contender. I wonder where he'd be if people voted based upon who they thought was right for the job and not who they thought would win. If someone contends in the primary and wins the GOP nod, anything can happen.

Ron Paul would be my last choice for a Republican President. He is nowhere on my radar. The only time I'd cast a vote for him is if/when he's running against Obama. He fails too many of my tests. Character? Probably okay--I have no idea. Presidential material? Not on your life. Rhetoric? Way too whiny. Good leader? Can't see that happening. Electable? Not at all.

If we're basing our decisions off Scriptural principles, then it is clear that we do the best with what we can. But it is also clear that faith, prayer, and trust in what God can do should also enter the picture. Those latter principles are never more important for a Christian voter than during the primary, because it is at that time we can really make our voice heard.

Maybe you can, Rick. (Where do you live?) By the time we vote, just about everyone has been weeded out except the obvious front runner. We still vote since it's our duty, but I don't feel like my voice is heard at all during primary elections. I agree about faith, prayer, and trust in God.

The "electability" argument is based entirely on perception, which is as unstable as water. Israel made their choice for Saul based upon electability, not on who he was, his heart, or his ability to lead. I know the other three aren't David, but the principle remains the same: pick the best available for the job based upon their ability to do the job, not their ability to get the job. Leave the getting of the job to God.

Saul was chosen by God through Samuel, not Israel, right? I'm not sure how Saul fits into the picture, since he wasn't "elected" or running against anyone else. That was a totally different situation...and Saul was actually a good guy there at the beginning of his reign.
About perception...you're right--things can flip-flop overnight, mainly because the American public are as dumb as sheep most of the time...but polls do mean something. If someone scores consistently low in the polls (like over years of time), he's not electable, period. I would say that I do choose whom I vote for based on their ability to do the job...but electability does figure in, too. How can it not? It does absolutely no good to put a Republican on the ticket who has no chance of winning (I'm not talking "iffy," but NO chance). Putting a Paul or Santorum on the ticket is handing the win to the greater evil. Edited January 26, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

Does anyone remember that Gingrich, during his time in congress, voted most often like a big government Democrat? Gingrich supported all the globalization efforts, including NAFTA and GATT. Newt has long supported the UN. Newt talked up conservative principles, made the contract with America, and then caved or compromised it all away. This, in part, is why he was forced to resign. There is a reason that many who have actually worked with Newt speak out against the idea he could be a good president.

On a number of social issues, including immigration, Newt holds virtually the same position as the likes of Obama and Clinton.

Republicans have wrongly built up the idea that Newt forced President Clinton to the center, when it's more realistic to say Clinton got his way using Newt. Newt didn't stand firm on any of the conservative ideas he said he would stand upon. Instead, Newt either caved outright or compromised away the conservative foundations in order to make compromises with President Clinton.

It's also interesting to consider that Newt feels justified in having spoke out against President Clinton for having an adulterous affair while Newt himself was having an adulterous affair (while his wife was gravely ill) at the same time. Newt justifies this by saying President Clinton lied about his affair, while Newt didn't (he was keeping it a secret and latter admited to it after he decided to divorce his ill wife and marry his mistress).

The unconstitutional nationalization of various crimes and other matters put forth in the "crime bill" during Clinton's presidency was the total result of Newt pushing it into being. The bill had been defeated when Clinton first brought it out. Then Newt resurrected the liberal-socialist bill, pushed it through congress and President Clinton signed it into law.

Newt Gingrich has a very long history of saying one thing and doing another. This is true in his political and personal dealings.