Killing Hitler, Aborting Stalin

A friend of mine sent me this story from CNN about a nasty turn in the increasingly heated governor's race next door in Virginia. Supposedly the Democratic candidate has professed before that his anti-death penalty stance is principled enough that, were it up to him, he would not have executed Hitler, Stalin, or any other of the world's great bastards. This has led his Republican rival to charge that the Dem is "soft" on crime, or some such nonsense, because of that position. Sadly, the Dem will probably fold like a tent when actually forced to deal with the issue. If he's got some backbone, I'd like to se him ask his challenger a question like this:

Yes, I oppose the death penalty. It's not particularly relevant to the office I'm seeking, as I'd have no choice under Virginia law but to impose that punishment when the law called for it. But I do, in principle, think that executing other human beings is immoral. In much the same way, I believe, sir, that you believe that abortion is the taking of a human life and thus immoral. So, Mr. GOP, would you have aborted Hitler or Stalin and spared the world their atrocities?

There is no good answer to that question for a pro-lifer (it's sort of the equivalent to "when did you stop beating your wife?"). If he admits that he is principled enough to have not aborted Hitler or Stalin (who were, at that point, innocent, after all), it pretty much destroys the "soft on crime" angle on the death penalty. If he says he would have aborted them, than it shows him to be a hypocrite on basic moral issues, willing to bend his "principles" to certain cases. I think the fundies call that "moral relativism" and it's evil!!!

But that won't happen. Instead we'll just have to be content with the truth of my friend's comment to me: "Republicans can be such assholes . . ."

UPDATE: The Roanoke Times has this article on the controversy that gives a little more background.