"the lesser of two evils" In Perspective.

It is disturbing, the exchange that is going on within the Democratic race. It is good that there is still a choice. And it is good that they are being testy in preparation for the general. But it must be remembered that the choice that is important will be in November. Of course the choice now is still important and it's a shame that there is still not more choice. But no matter the choice now, the November choice is the one that is really "the lesser of two evils".

I say this from an independent perspective in NOT that I call them both evil, but from a Democratic and American perspective, they are less good and more evil.[*] The Democrats get diluted by the independent vote, and the Republicans get deluded by their departure. While the Democrats have lost some of their good by the wayside, and it is now the lesser of two goods, the Republicans have lost the lesser of their evils if it remains McCain.

Now Huckabee may be the compassionate conservative that has no chance, but his rhetoric and revelations may be relevant. Unless a viable alternative is in the race, it is a choice between the major parties. Even an un-viable candidate, Nader, will be a vote that is not against the greater evil and for a lesser good. But a more balanced un-viable ticket, Nader / Paul might be the too good and the least evil, but at least represent the "hard work" of dialogue needed, and if these efforts are not attempts to broker the issues, would still be likely spoilers for the balance of good and evil.

It would be an interesting independent ticket if Bloomberg/Nader or Bloomberg/Paul or even Bloomberg/Huckabee could work on their issues. But that is a dream and what needs to be worked on is preventing the nightmare, and in that case a dangerous Republican ticket might be McCain/Huckabee.

[*] 6-3-08 UPDATE inserted NOT and it must be further clarified I am talking about the November choice.

Two Evils? Or flippin flop?

[Pre-Emptive]* Comments on Business and Voting
In this case {Pre-Emptive} , meaning after barely a glance at the articles but reading their briefs in my daily TruthOut .

Two Reports Assail State Department Role on Iraq Security
By Eric Schmitt and David Rohde The New York Times

GOP Team Revives Electoral Vote Initiative
By Dan Morain and Joe Mathews
The Los Angeles Times

In the first matter of the first MBA prez I took a bit longer {of a glance at a} tangent.
And reached a familiar metaphor {embedded there} : Poker. And {we can} conclude that he does not like to play the hand he is dealt and he is the dealer.

In the second matter, Electoral College aside, it seems a matter of black and white. In this case whether Californians want their candidate to be president or to dilute their vote. It is admirable that some states have proportional representation but when it is applied to a larger state and not to all states, it seems to defy some reasoning, much as voting for a third candidate on a lesser of two evils {theory}.

It should be clear that the only thing that should be black and white is ones vote. And the way the vote should work is that the winner is the one that gets the most votes. If a third candidate gets some, it should not be hard to see that the greater of two evils results.

* normally I reserve brackets for edited changes at the bottom, in this case this will mean this will be veering from that policy, and upgrade this post other than than housekeeping with {brackets}s.

"if I were dictator"

Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."

As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."

Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?

Is there another kind of politics or reality?

I'll have to check and get back to you.

[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]

What politics is about.

Progress for People

Hands Off Connecticut
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

My Tangent or Triangulation:

Much of what I may leave unsaid may be because if tables were turned I would not say them, but I do not think this is the case. While outside influence on a state's political race interferes with the local voter's intentions, it also flies back out of the state to others who feel that they understand what the party does not.

Until there is a viable third party and a change in primary and general election processes that can eliminate the hazzard that a third party will win it for the wrong side, outside help should focus on the general elections rather than in primaries. And for the dissappointed, there is value in voting for the lesser of two evils, provided that your vote does not put in office the greater.

For the voter in the primary, vote your conscience, it is not throwing a vote away or voting for the other guy. But come the general, things are black and white and you must vote for a viable winner or be satisfied that you will possibly be putting in a loser.

[Update: two evils (cartoon and labels added)]