The Lesser of Two Evils is not necessarily evil.

[coloradodem2005]

My thoughts on this. The lesser of two evils sounds like a compromise between bad and worse. For some people that is true. The lesser of two evils is a very subjective concept. Why are the candidates evils? Because they differ from you, the voter, on issues. Everybody has talked about the lesser of two evils in 2000 with Gore and Bush. Some will say the same thing in 2004 with Kerry and Bush. The truth of the matter, you are never going to agree with any candidate 100% of the time. But you pick a viable candidate that you agree with the most and support him/her. I was a Dean supporter, because of the viable Democratic candidates, he was the least of all evils. As for the 2000 GE the only viable candidates were Gore and Bush. In 2004 the only viable candidates are Kerry and Bush. IN 2000 I was much closer to Gore on issues, though I did not always agree with him. I know that in 2004, I am much closer to Kerry than Bush on issues. Though I don't always agree with him. If Nader were a truly viable candidate in either 2000 or 2004, the contest would be to find the lesser of three evils.

I don't think that Kerry is Bush-lite. That honor goes to Lieberman. Everything being said, yes we always have to compromise a little, but not at an unacceptable level. Therefore, we need to keep Kerry from compromising.

But as Bill Maher said "The lesser of two evils is not nearly as bad as the greater of two evils." In a way the candidate we support in any case is always going to be the lesser of n evils. It may not be great all the time. But it would not be as bad as letting the greater of two evils get in. That is the lesson of 2000.

[enki23]

1. now *there's* some semantic silliness

i'll have to agree with the title sentence, just like i'd agree with the statements:
"this statement is false"
"there aren't any beans in this bean soup"
"my other cat is a hamburger"