A commenter on my post about Newt Gingrich said that he/she was "glad to see your moral principles mean so much to you. It would be hypocritical to base them on politics." This sounds like a sarcastic reference to the part of my post saying I would vote for Gingrich or Giuliani despite their moral failings over any likely Democrat.
There are many moral issues to take into consideration when voting for a candidate. Some are personal, some are related to policy. I certainly consider having an affair to be a major personal moral failing that would almost certainly disqualify a candidate in my mind. Unless the candidate he or she was running against was guilty of equal or greater moral failings.
The death (abortion and terrorism), destruction (abandoning of military commitments and national security), and enslavement (dependence on government handouts) that would result from electing Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, especially if the Democrats retain control of Congress, certainly qualifies as a huge moral negative.
This is why I would vote for Giuliani or Gingrich over the top three Democrats. The fact that Giuliani supports killing pre-born children puts him perilously close to the Democrat side of the equation, but his strengths on national security, crime, and economics still make him a better choice than the Democrats. A better choice, but not a good choice.
If a conservative pro-life Democrat ran against Giuliani or Gingrich, I would probably vote for the Democrat. However, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are as liberal as can be and would be a disaster for the nation, so I must vote Republican, even if it is only the lesser of two evils.
--Red
Recent Comments