Response to friendly taunting

A little over a week ago I noticed that The Modern Pharisee had resumed blogging. In his post The Lesser of Three Evils, he essentially laid out the case that Ron Paul supporters owed it to themselves and their country to choke back their bile and disgust and vote for "the best conservative candidate on the ballot" this Fall, citing the experience of King David.

In The Pharisee's view, David chose "the lesser of three evils" when given a choice.

While I was reading the post, a paraphrase of Carly Simon's 1970s hit song You're So Vain kept running through my head. "You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you, don't you, don't you?"

Well, uh, yeah. I did think that post was about me. Hugh and I have had that particular discussion before. But whether or not it was vanity became irrelevant when I received this Google message from Hugh.

Hugh: I'm back to blogging, and this is for you (and a few others)

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2012/04/lesser-of-three-evils.html.

That got a smile out of me. Okay, taunt accepted. Now it's my turn.

I like your analogy. But it's a bit flawed (sorry, Hugh). David was forced to choose between three horrible punishments, while we may choose between three options that, while not pleasant, are certainly NOT horrible punishments. David's three choices were (a) seven years of famine, (b) fleeing his enemies for three months, or (c) three days of pestilence. Our three choices are (a) vote for the incumbent Corporatist thug, Il Duce, (b) vote for the winner of the Republican primaries Corporatist dilettante hand-chosen by the Team Elephant elites, or (c) stay home and flip 'em both the bird. In our case, choice (c) is not only no punishment, but satisfying, in a juvenile sort of way.

Hugh's analogy further breaks down. David did NOT choose the punishment that befell his people. He chose one of the three options that he absolutely did not want to occur. He left the final decision up to the Lord.

I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

One way or another, in our situation, we have to choose (a), (b), or (c).

We know that choice (a) is out of the question. Il Duce incorporates all of the worst traits of horrendous presidents of the past, including thug Woodrow Wilson, messianic Franklin Roosevelt, "Great Society" Lyndon Johnson, and bumbling Jimmy Carter. But is choice (b) really that much better? Sure, Il Dilettante has great, presidential hair. But he's flip-flopped on every major issue over the past 20 years. If he's a conservative, then I'm Conrad Hilton. The elites moved heaven and earth -- including turning Fox News into the official Romney for President communications organ -- to push Romney through. Why so much effort? It's because...wait for it...NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY) wants him. Okay, Ann Coulter wants him. She can have him.

Choice (c) looks better and better to me all the time. I've already stated that this country is too far gone for any single individual operating as President to fix it.

Four years ago I reacted angrily when The Hausfraurer said that he would no longer vote, because, by voting, he was lending legitimacy to this phony, Corporatist system. Four years later, I completely agree with him.

The game is rigged. There isn't a dime's bit of difference between the "two" candidates. They both love big government; they only disagree when it comes to how big and who pays.

Sign me up for choice (c).