A Moral Dilemma

The candidate who will do the least harm.

If your vote to third party candidate C allows senator A to be the deciding vote in favor of radical abortionist supreme court nominee X.

We can’t foresee all circumstances of our actions, but some we can.  You do have to “play the odds” to a certain extent to get a better outcome sometimes.

To me the question is a vote for a Herod v. a vote for Pol Pot…clearly Herod would be responsible for less murders…but is it really a legitimate use of the vote to support him? There comes a time when the voting for the least offensive guy constitutes a moral offense.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/principles-for-voting-text/

To me the question is a vote for a Herod v. a vote for Pol Pot

Fortunately then for the rest of us, you are just a parish priest with a very narrow opinion, which I fully support your right to proclaim. 

In politics, there are no perfect candidates.  Never have been, never will be.  The politician who lined up 100% with CFW would probably be anathma to other voters, vice versa.

Bill2 expressed it well.  For all the Sundays after Labor Day we will pray for the country at the end of our service in Resurrection Anglican Church on the Gulf [Prayer 18, pg 820, 1979 BCP].  The Sunday before the election I will preach on how one should consider their vote, in the tradition of the Black Robe Regiment.

To vote for the Incumbant, or throw your vote away on the libertarian which is also a vote for the Incumbant, is to throw us, our children, and grandchildren into the arms of tyranny and the one world socialist order, the likes of which this country has not seen since pre-revolutionary time.

I realize you are a lot younger than me so you do not have any true recollection of who Pol Pot was.  In my opinion you bring shame on yourself for that depiction of the Republican candidate.

Hi Capt. Father Warren,

“Fortunately then for the rest of us, you are just a parish priest with a very narrow opinion”

I’m crushed.

“which I fully support your right to proclaim.”

I’m relieved

“In politics, there are no perfect candidates.”

Right. But having a candidate that does not support the dismemberment of babies is not asking for a “perfect” candidate…merely a non-monstrous one.

“The politician who lined up 100% with CFW would probably be anathma to other voters, vice versa.”

See above.

“To vote for the Incumbant, or throw your vote away on the libertarian which is also a vote for the Incumbant, is to throw us, our children, and grandchildren into the arms of tyranny and the one world socialist order, the likes of which this country has not seen since pre-revolutionary time.”

And to vote for the challenger is to support the GOP’s leftward movement on the question of abortion. If Romney wins with his present position, then it will obviously be no longer necessary for future candidates to track to his right and possible for candidates to track to his left. Think beyond the next four years.

“I realize you are a lot younger than me so you do not have any true recollection of who Pol Pot was.”

Actually, though young, I know well who he was. His crimes actually pale in comparison to abortion. He didn’t dismember 50 million babies. I have absolutely no qualms equating abortionist candidates with the worst most murderous tyrants in history. Homicidal tyrants.

“In my opinion you bring shame on yourself for that depiction of the Republican candidate.”

And you bring disrepute on your ability to read since I was not comparing the Republican candidate to Pol Pot.

Um, you guys are missing the strategy needed to make abortion “go away”. 

Just as PP and their supporers have “chipped away” at the barriers to abortion, we must be patient and do the same.

IF we can get a law passed that eliminates abortion for all cases except when the life of the mother is in danger or rape, you have eliminated 99% of all legal abortions.

Once that settles, over time we can “chip away” at the rest…

So really we’re looking at voting for 16,000 dismembered or voting for 1.6 million dismembered babies. I don’t think I can vote for either.

I think you also have to consider the legal landscape.  The Supreme Court has taken this issue, at least so far as any of the positions articulated here, out of politics.  Until the Court substantially overturns Roe v. Wade, no elected politician can make any of the positions articulated here a possibility, much less a reality.  So, if we are rational, we must consider the best way to get to a Court that would consign Roe v. Wade to the dustbin of erroneous decisions, where it belongs.  Looked at this way, there is no real moral dilemma.  We must support the only candidate who has a chance against the incumbent, who has made it clear that support for Roe is his litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

I am stuck with Hobson’s choice. Candidate C lost in the primaries.

#5, you are correct.  The so-called “regligous right” have waged a tactical warfare of looking for the perfect candidate for 20 years, over which time millions of unborn children have been aborted.  Here in Mississippi, we have slowly chipped away at the abortion problem to the point where only a federal judge with a court order has been able to save the LAST abortion clinic in the state; and we are hoping that closes soon.

But to be fair, the hunt for the ‘perfect candidate’ is more fun because it is a hunt that will never end.

Meanwhile, we have an Administration in office that is one election away from taking this country down a path that few Americans really want to travel.  If that Administration stays in power all the progress on abortion will disappear.  All the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution will disappear.  We are likely to see a genuine fiscal collapse in this country.

I could probably have a decent life under that scenario; but I have a son, a daughter-in-law and 4 beautiful grandchildren that I do not want to consign to the one world socialist order.  So, I will argue to everyone to vote for Romney, even if you have to hold your nose doing it.  If you follow the proposed strategy of Fr. Kennedy you are working to send us down into darkness without freedom for many generations to come.

heh…not the perfect candidate…just one who won’t sanction the dismemberment of 16,000 babies. Surely there is some candidate somewhere between “monstrous” and “perfect”

So really we’re looking at voting for 16,000 dismembered or voting for 1.6 million dismembered babies. I don’t think I can vote for either.

I would never vote FOR 16,000 dismembered babies.
I plan to vote AGAINST 1.6 million dismembered babies and to continue to vote for a Congress that will actually stand up and hold Romney/Ryan accountable to true conservative and moral principles, unlike this collection of Congressional Col. Klinks.

I have to agree with #s 1,3, and 5-9 as the only realistic strategy with a hope to one day eliminate all elective abortions including those for rape or incest (not considering rare tubal pregnancies with no hope of successful re-location/re-implantation that truly endanger the life of the mother).

Did abolitionists abstain from voting for any candidates here or in Britain who were not 100% opposed to slavery on principle and pledged to abolish slavery immediately upon being sworn in?  It took a long time to achieve freedom for slaves, and even longer to achieve equal rights for all races under the law.  Abraham Lincoln was not opposed to slavery on principle at the beginning of his term, only later did his principles and convictions catch up with his political and military pragmatism.  But had his opponent won the Presidency, slavery might have been abolished much later and affected far more lives and after an even more bloody, destructive and divisive war with more modern arms.  I’m voting for B.

RE: “To vote for the Incumbant, or throw your vote away on the libertarian which is also a vote for the Incumbant, is to throw us, our children, and grandchildren into the arms of tyranny and the one world socialist order, the likes of which this country has not seen since pre-revolutionary time.”

Actually, to vote for the slightly-less-large, slow-down-to-90-mph-rather-than-130-mph government guy is to vote for 1) a third party split when his term proves even more disastrous than the last three years of GWB’s reign, and the 2) resulting rule by Multiple Democrat Obamas for the next 25 years while the third party sorts itself out.

So same difference.  “Into the arms of tyranny and one world socialist order, the likes of which this country has not seen since pre-revolutionary time.”

Two can play that game.

Me—I’ll just be consistent with my principle. I will not vote for non-conservatives that the Republican Party nominates and that will ring the death knell of that party, and force the founding of a third party, which will bring Democrat rule for decades longer. It will devastate our country.

I can see both sides on the Romney vote making a case for disaster for our country, so I understand others making the choice to vote for him.

If we’re all still alive in 2020, we’ll see which side was right.

In my humble opinion, the decision who to vote for is a good deal more complex than either (a) looking for the perfect candidate or (b) accepting the lesser of two evils.  From my perspective looking at the choices we have in this election, voting for Obama is completely out of the question for any serious, ethical Christian, and I doubt very many of those who post here would disagree.

The question is should you support Romney, who says he is against abortion except for cases of “rape and incest”?  This requires a good deal more thought.  Some very good arguments have been made above about the need to vote strategically - but the question remains open - is voting for Romney good strategy (he supposedly will help the pro-life cause even if he isn’t necessarily 100% on board) or bad strategy (this will signal to the Republican party that Republicans will back non-pro-life leaders).  Tough question.  A few thoughts:

1. It is very likely that there will be vacancies on the Supreme Court which will need filling in the next 4 years.
2. Romney has been pro-abortion in the past, but now claims to be pro-life.  Many suspect that his position on abortion depends on what will bring him the greatest political advantage (which is why, I think, he trots out the “rape and incest” exception).
3. I think that Romney knows that if he would choose a new justice for the Supreme Court, his smart pick would be a conservative judge.  The Dems will oppose anyone who isn’t a full-on liberal anyway, but he would cement the GOP base by choosing someone like Alito, Thomas or Scalia.  Romney is a consummate politician and he knows that he will be hit no matter what so he might as well get some benefit out of it.
4. I think that Romney chose a VP candidate who has solid pro-life convictions, and that this is a sign that Romney understands that this is a critical issue for much of the base.
5. The sort of Republican that is best not voted for are those like the New York Republican state senators who voted in favor of same-sex “marriage” and Republicans who openly proclaim themselves liberal on social issues.  Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line and to know how someone will vote or act at the critical time, but my hunch is that Romney understands that it is to his political advantage right now to put his eggs in the pro-life basket even as he tries to sound “moderate” to the media.

Basically, in my opinion, it matters less what Romney says or believes about abortion, and more what he will do about it.  My suspicion is that Romney doesn’t have strong feelings about abortion (NOT GOOD, by the way) but that he understands that as a Republican president he needs to appear to be pro-life and will need to appoint conservative judges to the Court.

So in my opinion, I think that the best strategy for pro-lifers right now is to cautiously support Romney for now, but once he is elected be sure that the pressure is kept on him, so that he understands very well that if he doesn’t appoint a conservative judge and reverse some of Obama’s pro-abortion executive actions, he will lose the pro-life vote.  Also, by voting in Romney, you vote in Ryan as VP.  Ryan is solid and this would give a solid pro-lifer a significant leg up.

Thus, while I don’t much like Romney and don’t trust him, I do think that at this point he is the best choice.

I will vote for Romney, despite the fact that he isn’t a true conservative like Rick Santorum.  Obama can’t be allowed another term.  I understand Sarah’s position, and ultimately she may turn out to be right, but another four years of Obama is simply too awful to contemplate.

We are only able to vote for the lesser of two evils, whether it be the candidate or the party.  In any event,  I submit this year there is absolutely no question about which one is the lesser evil.

Everything else aside, isn’t a vote for Obama vs. Romney a vote between incompentency and competency?  It’s painfully clear that the only abilities that Obama has are making speeches and playing rounds of golf at taxpayer expense.  He hasn’t done any work for months and months and months.  At least the other guy has a track record of accomplishing things.

If you want an eye-opening experience, check out the “President’s Schedule” page on a regular basis:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012.  This guy is the laziest and most unengaged president this country has ever had.

A lazy and unengaged Obama is bad in what way?

Even with him not at the wheel, the country is still going off the cliff at an ever increasing rate of speed.  Question is whether even with a Romney/GOP Congress the crash can be prevented or is it too late already.  Part of me is pessimistic about that.  The other part of me remembers that our economic situation was not caused by anything wrong with the economy, it was entirely caused by stupid government policies exacerbated by stupid/corrupt politicians.  So if enough of the bad apples are thrown out or neutralized politically, we have a chance.

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? - James 2-15-16

Okay.  You can’t in good conscience vote for options A or B so you opt for C.  Because you wouldn’t support option B, option A wins a close election.  You weren’t in favor of either choice so you helped usher in the worst possible outcome.  But at least your conscience is clear.

Sometimes there simply are no good choices. Those Americans who voted for the Liberty or Free Soil Parties in the 1800’s probably slept really well at night but did nothing constructive whatsoever for enslaved blacks.  And do you know what might have happened if the South had never seceded from the Union?  Chattel slavery could very well have persisted in this country into the century in which I was born.  Read Lincoln’s own words or the Republican Party platforms in the antebellum period.  Anti-slavery though he was, Lincoln said over and over that he had no intention of affecting slavery where it already existed and indeed had no legal and constitutional right to do so.  All he and the Republicans wanted to do was to keep it from spreading.

So the upcoming Romney presidency will prove “even more disastrous than the last three years of GWB’s reign,” will it?  Know that for a fact?  Or are you projecting?  And it’s wonderful that you’re so sanguine about the fact that Obama’s reelection “will ring the death knell of that party, and force the founding of a third party, which will bring Democrat rule for decades longer,” and “will devastate our country.”  John C. Calhounian of you.

Some of us prefer to deal with life as it actually is, not as we think it ought to be.

I beg the reader’s indulgence.  The meaning of the analogy will become clear at some point. 

Once upon a time in a land far far away, I was an engineer for a company that designed a “bear-proof garbage can” specifically meant for people who lived in the hinterlands.  We were quite proud of it.  For a long, long time we pointed out how bears were no longer able to raid our garbage cans. 

After a while, we started calling our garbage cans, “bear-resistant.”  We were still proud of our garbage cans;  it’s just that bears are pernicious where their stomachs are concerned, which didn’t work in our favor combined with their strength and cunning.  Oh well, our garbage cans were still better than regular garbage cans, and they did their job most of the time. 

Now, what if my life were different, and I didn’t live in the Midwest, but lived out in the hinters, and really REALLY needed something to keep the bears away from me and mine?  What if it was a matter of life or death?  And suppose I had been made aware of the problem with the “bear-resistant” garbage cans.  How would I handle this clearly unacceptable situation? 

There are a couple of ways I could go about this.  One way would be to reject garbage cans and just put the trash out near the curb in plastic bags.  That’s going to drive ALL the animals nuts…  Not really a plan. 

The next way is I could reject the new garbage can and go back to my old garbage can.  But that’s apt to attact more bears than without the new can, not less.  That’s unacceptable - it puts my family in more danger than I had with the new can. 
But suppose I stop there, and accept that the new garbage can is my new status quo.  And one day a bear mauls one of my neighbor’s kids.  I shake my head, grieve with my neighbor, but absolve myself of responsibility because after all, I was using the best garbage can on the market. 

But suppose, just suppose, I didn’t accept the status quo that the new garbage was acceptable as the status quo.  Suppose I installed additional countermeasures.  Suppose I sat out on my porch with a 12 gauge during the time of day I knew the bears would be milling around.  Suppose I installed bear spray at several locations around my property.  Suppose I instilled in my kids that one of them better grow up to be an engineer and entrepreneur who could design a better bear-resistant garbage can for the marketplace?

All of these things are certainly good things to do against the Day of the Bear.  I could certainly hold my head high when the day came, and tell myself that I had fought that evil with all of my creativity, intellect, industry, and time.  And who knows?  Maybe I would have gotten the better of that Day, for all of mine? 

Regarding how this applies to the current political climate - I would suggest the same strategy.  We do need in my opinion, our own political party that is broad enough to be shared with conservative non-Christians.  That will take a LOT of time, and we would face a lot of defeats with smaller elections, over several decades. 

But the stakes now, are a little different than one-percent of a murder rate compared to a hundred percent of it.  Obama isn’t a failed American politician.  He is a highly successful politician in the American political arena, whose worldview isn’t close to most of our population.  He isn’t apt to play lame duck president in his second term;  in fact, he may accelerate the agendas he has already put in place. 

I do recommend that everyone watch D’Souza’s documentary (2016:  Obama’s America) before voting.  Very few of us knew this man. 

Meanwhile, I’m formulating long term and short term strategies and working them.

There are other considerations. And I don’t just mean other issues that pertain to this election. I mean other considerations that have a bearing on this issue and how it may be resolved in the future.

After another 4 years of Obama, it may not be possible for citizens to change the policy on things like abortion, or anything for that matter. We could sign an international “treaty” that would bind our national laws to UN resolutions, ie. we would lose our sovereignty by voting for Obama simply to spite the Republicans for not nominating someone who agrees with us on every jot and tittle.

At least Romney will offer us a hope that we can change the policy in the future. If you truly care about this issue more than expressing sour grapes by voting 3rd party, you’ll hold your nose and vote Romney.

RE:  “the only abilities that Obama has are making speeches and playing rounds of golf at taxpayer expense.  He hasn’t done any work for months and months and months.  At least the other guy has a track record of accomplishing things.”

That’s what I used to believe. 

Acutally, Obama is successful in that he has carried out the goals and values he undoubtably holds.  In fact, he is not only successful as a politician, but he has more success than most of us enjoy during our lives.  And he’s done in the past three and a half years. 

I would like everyone here to stop and think about that for a moment. 

http://2016themovie.com/

Remember that the Left has gotten where they are in this country by implementing a strategy of incrementalism over the past 50 years.  Take an inch, promise you won’t go any further, wait till people get used to it; take an inch, promise you won’t go any further, wait till people get used to it; take an inch, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, it seems that we are advocating instant political purity that if we don’t have a candidate/party/platform that gives us 100%, we won’t support it.

Well, politics and life doesn’t work that way.  We have to be willing to reverse the process, step by step, the same way the Left did it originally.

I spend a lot of time in our local legislature, and I can tell you, it’s always the “purist” groups, that refuse to compromise and have to have everything they want immediately, are always the ones that end up with zero at the end of the legislative session.

I have no problem with Romney, he’s still a night and day improvement over what we’ve got, and hopefully a Republican Congress will keep him honest.  I couldn’t support the last GOP guy, mainly because he was an adulterer, and dishonest, and truly was a closet Democrat, but I don’t see those problems with Romney.

#22 Moot—He’s gotten where he is because he is a very photogenic puppet for other folks who are pulling the strings.  You look at his record, he has done nothing on his own, it has all been handed to him his entire life.  Being the first “affirmative action” president is a big part of it, but there are also powerful folks on the Left that have been positioning him and underwriting him for a long time.  And they completely control him.

Our local Democrat Party is very much like that.  The “politicians” are basically selected by the real party powers—mainly labor union fat cats and corporations and “community organizations” making their millions off the government dole, and then they are put into office to do what the power base wants.

Hi Christopher Johnson…I hear your argument: you guys need to stop worrying about perfection and purity because your conscience is going to destroy the country.

I hear that.

I think that argument works if we are talking about the constitution, economics, warfare in general…really any other issue.

Not with abortion - the sanctioned murder of a baby, in this case - to put numbers on it - 1.6 million versus 16,000 babies.

Do you want to gas all Jews or just some Jews…doesn’t fit the moral argument you seem to be making above. The Christian must not support murdering any Jews. Or any babies.

There are some national sins with which it is utterly impossible for Christians to participate in any way. This is not about my personal purity or anyone elses. It’s about supporting a candidate who has said he will sanction the dismemberment of approximately 16,000 babies a year.

I humbly submit that Matt is cursing the darkness rather than light a candle, no matter how dimly it may glow with a Romney vote.  Supposing Dietrich Bonhoeffer had just said “well, if I wait Hitler will eventually die, so there is no need to try and kill him now?”

RE:  “He’s gotten where he is because he is a very photogenic puppet for other folks who are pulling the strings.”

Undoubtably. 

Same with Teddy Roosevelt.  He had a party boss to appease too. 

Same with the Kennedys. 

Same with Truman. 

Yes, there is a helping hand.  I’m quite sure of it.  And they are very good at what they do;  I’m quite sure of that too. 

What you need to figure out is, why would people like that, waste their time on a loser?

RE:  “Do you want to gas all Jews or just some Jews…doesn’t fit the moral argument you seem to be making above”

Or, do you want to save a lot of Jews, a few Jews, or not any Jews at all? 

(said the scion of Corrie Ten Boom’s countrymen, who had some stories of their own)

RE: “So the upcoming Romney presidency will prove “even more disastrous than the last three years of GWB’s reign,” will it?  Know that for a fact?”

Oh, I know it just as much as a fact as those who are huffing about how if Obama is re-elected—even, apparently, if the Dems don’t own the Senate and House—it will “throw us, our children, and grandchildren into the arms of tyranny and the one world socialist order, the likes of which this country has not seen since pre-revolutionary time.”

Everybody’s producing analysis based on the past—and I think GWB’s last term was precisely what led to Obama and a historic debacle of a Senate and House election in 2008. So I “know” this just like everybody else “knows” their dire predictions of the future.

RE: “And it’s wonderful that you’re so sanguine about the fact that Obama’s reelection “will ring the death knell of that party, and force the founding of a third party, which will bring Democrat rule for decades longer,” and “will devastate our country.” 

Huh?  That’s what Chris Johnson’s allies are saying, not I.  I’m the one saying that *Romney’s* election will lead to the same thing, since the Republican party won’t be able to recover from the exact same debacle that GWB inflicted on the party in 2008.

Of course, how it goes is this way: Romney gets elected, he’s even more left-wing than GWB, the Republican Party splits and a third party is started—and *then* all the Chris Johnson’s of the world start huffing about how awful the conservatives are to leave a Republican Party that has consistently offered up hack, non-conservatives.

So either way, conservatives don’t win.  If Obama is elected, the evil conservatives have Caused The Destruction Of Our Country [not, of course, the Republican hacks who offer up the likes of John McCain as their chosen nominee and expect conservatives to deal with it].

If Romney is elected and makes a thorough hash of it—another Tarp, another couple of auto bailouts, yet another Very Important Prescription Drug Entitlement addition—then the evil conservatives who leave the Republican Party for a third party have Caused The Destruction Of Our Country.

And so it goes.  Until Hillary Clinton is nominated as the Republican Nominee, going up against Another Obama Democrat, and we’re all adjured to Vote For Hillary, because if we don’t, Somebody Even Worse Will Get Elected and that will Cause The Destruction Of Our Country.

RE: “Some of us prefer to deal with life as it actually is . . . “

Actually, all of us on this thread do.

This is life as it is.  Some people refuse to vote for the non-conservative guy that the so-called party of conservatives serves up to us.  Unfortunately the Republican Party refuses to deal with life as it actually is—conservatives not voting for their non-conservative candidate.

I don’t need purity, either. I need someone above a certain baseline.  And Romney’s record demonstrates that he’s not above that baseline—not on abortion, not on gay rights, not on the economy, not on healthcare, and not on many many other issues.

Hi Daniel,

Nope, the course you seem to favor is a bit more like Deitrich Bonhoeffer supporting euthenizing the mentally and physically disabled so long as we don’t murder all the jews.

I’m the one saying that *Romney’s* election will lead to the same thing, since the Republican party won’t be able to recover from the exact same debacle that GWB inflicted on the party in 2008

Even though I did not like GWB, I voted for him as I thought he was likely to do us better than John Kerry, who has excelled at one thing and one thing only; marrying money.

That said, GWB is no longer president.  So it seems like a weak argument to join the chorus of the Democratic party, “blame Bush”.

Will Romney’s presidency be a good one? A great one?  A disastor?  Darned if I know the answer to that one.  But then, I don’t think anyone else does either.

But the terrain is different this time.  As opposed to 2008, not all the electorate is asleep or hypnotized by “hope and change”.  In fact the TEA Party has rolled up some impressive victories and Scott Walker won a recall with more margin than his original election.

So, whatever the organic outcome of a Romney administration, it will buy time for those who want to put conservatives in congress, in state government, who want to chip away at the liberal rot and disease that has infected this country and threatens the fabric created by our Founders.

Someone noted the movie 2016 Obama’s America.  That’s a good start to learn where the trajectory is.  Then listen to Richard Trumpka, listen to CAIR, listen to our State Department cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Look at the seive our southern border is for Hezbellah and Iranian islamic radicals.  Oh, and don’t forget George Soros and the dozens of front organizations working on his behalf to “transform” America.

The Romney administration gives some time and a chance to fight back against those forces which care less for our freedom and certainly nothing for our religion.  And maybe once we make a dent in the liberal scourge in this country, we can then take on the Republican Party establishment and send them into retirement and let the up and coming true conservatives take the tiller.

Or, we can say it makes no difference, they’re all the same, and bask in the smug warmth of fatalism.  And then scream a blue streak when things all go to crap.

Capt. Father Warren, really?

You don’t recognize that the reason why Obama and hordes of raving loony dems were swept into office was because 1) the country was appalled at the way Bush and the Republican Party handled many economic/fiscal decisions the last three years of his final term, and 2) the Republican Party didn’t nominate even close to a conservative, and 3) conservatives by the masses didn’t vote for him, and 4) even moderates and establishment Republicans didn’t bother to campaign or show enthusiasm, so demoralized were they by the final Bush decisions and the dreadful choice of McCain?

If you don’t recognize that then I can see why you’re fine with Romney.

RE: “As opposed to 2008, not all the electorate is asleep or hypnotized by “hope and change”.”

A good chunk of the reason why the country—including some Republicans who comment right here at SF—were hypnotized was because they were so disgusted with the Republican Party’s horrific votes and actions.

RE: “In fact the TEA Party has rolled up some impressive victories and Scott Walker won a recall with more margin than his original election.”

And still—not important enough for the Republican Party to make a difference in how they have led: Boehner, McConnell, Romney—a perfect triad and perfectly awful leadership, votes, and actions over the past almost four awful years, well-chronicled in all of their horror at blogs like Red State and many more.

RE: ” . . . it will buy time for those who want to put conservatives in congress . . . “

And I’ll be voting for those conservatives.  But I’ll be hanged before I vote for horse manure while you guys all tell me it’s really a horse I’m voting for. It’s not, and I’m not.  Especially horse manure that will most likely lead to a demolition of the Republican Party as a party fit for conservatives.  And boy, I’m sure not looking forward to the caterwauling when conservatives troop away en masse in 2016 or 2020.

RE: “Someone noted the movie 2016 Obama’s America.  That’s a good start to learn where the trajectory is.”

Sigh.

Yet again—another commenter who thinks that the reason why some make the decisions they make is because they’re just ignorant.  I’m well aware—and was aware back in 2007—just what Obama’s ideology was, and what the ideology is of the vast majority of the leaders of the party of the Democrats. There have been no surprises—none whatsoever for me—in his policies, rhetoric, or actions.

Just to throw another cup of gasoline into the fire, one of our biggest problems is that our Congress has turned from a representative democracy into an aristocracy.  Certainly, in my state, getting elected to Congress basically means you can be there the rest of your life if you choose.  So responsiveness to real concerns is basically nill.  Our folks only are heard from when there is an election, and then they trot out the typical if you re-elect me I will give you all these new goodies ads.  Otherwise they don’t do anything other than vote the party line, which is mostly about giving themselves and their interest groups backing them more power.

Being able to see into the future must be an interesting way to go through life, Sarah.  Somehow you know, without any empirical evidence of any kind, that Mitt Romney, a man who chose a staunch pro-lifer as his running mate, will govern to the left of Mr. Bush so you’re willing to risk increasing the reelection chances of a man who has already demonstrated that he governs somewhere in the neighborhood of Hugo Sanchez. 

Any Supreme Court openings Mr. Obama receives will tilt the Court irretrievably to the left(see the man’s last two) and probably put any progress on abortion out of reach for at least one hundred years if not forever.  But at least you’ll have a clear conscience so there’s that.  For my part, I prefer to wait to condemn people for sins until they actually commit them.  But if you’re happy going the other day, that’s fine.

By your standard, Matt, anyone living in the United States prior to 1860 who bought clothing made out of cotton “participated” in slavery.  Sometimes there are simply no perfectly moral options.  Take Hiroshima/Nagasaki.  We both agree that to deliberately target innocent civilians in war time is a sin.  But what were Truman’s options?  As far as I can tell, he had four:

(1) Drop the bomb, killing innocent civilians
(2) Invade Japan, causing the deaths of millions of innocent civilians.
(3) Erect a permanent blockade of Japan, causing, if no surrender was forthcoming, the slow deaths of innocent civilians.
(4) Giving up and going home, thus rendering the deaths of the tens of thousands of Americans who died in the Pacific Theater utterly meaningless and communicating to the Japanese that their aggression was cost-free and that the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese butchered in places like Nanking or Koreans sold into slavery were meaningless as well.

Besides, if you somehow put a pro-life absolutist in the White House next year, the idea that something is going to somehow magically be done about abortion any time soon is absurd.  Most of the Congress is either hostile or where Governor Romney is.  Then there are the courts and, quite frankly, the bulk of the American people.

In an ideal world, we could pick a president like that and it would matter.  But we’re not living in an ideal world.  So better Governor Romney than a moral degenerate like Barack Obama who has demonstrated again and again that he is closer to Katherine Ragsdale than to Pope Benedict XVI.

I’m well aware—and was aware back in 2007—just what Obama’s ideology was, and what the ideology is of the vast majority of the leaders of the party of the
Democrats

Sarah, I know you were aware, as was I, and let’s say 1,000,000 others just for sake of argument.  But after 3 years of rampant, in your face liberalism, I am hoping far more are aware.  And between now and election I hope even more become aware; and in becoming aware I hope they will turn out in vast numbers to vote for Romney AND Ryan [we seem to leave that part out] so they can make up for you and Matt and we can get the extra time to push the conservative momentum throughout the land.

And if I’m all wrong, don’t wait til 2020 to say so; you know us old farts, we may not last that long.

RE: “Being able to see into the future must be an interesting way to go through life, Sarah.”

Yeh . . . goodness me, I just can’t imagine anybody predicting the future around here!  Who on earth on this thread would evah evah do such a dastardly deed!?

Heh.

RE: “Somehow you know, without any empirical evidence of any kind . . . “

Uh . . . he had an entire term as governor, so no, you and I don’t agree on the definition of “empirical evidence” for all that “predicting the future” stuff that you say is just so dreadful and strange. 

Supremely ironic coming from the prognosticator himself!

RE: “Any Supreme Court openings Mr. Obama receives will tilt the Court irretrievably to the left(see the man’s last two) and probably put any progress on abortion out of reach for at least one hundred years if not forever.”

See above. 

RE: “I hope they will turn out in vast numbers to vote for Romney AND Ryan [we seem to leave that part out] so they can make up for you and Matt and we can get the extra time to push the conservative momentum throughout the land.”

Well they may do so, Capt. Father Warren—and then *I* will have the opportunity to watch the Republican Party truck on down the path that they’ve been heading down, and I’ll have to endure all the wails and caterwaulings once it finally splits as they wonder and marvel how on earth such a thing could have happened.

RE:  “I’m well aware—and was aware back in 2007..”

I suspected as much.  Not much gets by you.  For those of us who don’t have your gifts, the information is noteworthy.  A day late if not a dollar short, as it were. 

Meanwhile, the Constitution Party seems to be the closest to me, idealogically, and I have as you know, hitching my wager a bit at a time to them.  I am concerned that they may be too focused on national elections or rather, election;  and too concerned with having a few reasons that have ocnvinced CP’rs, rather than many additional reasons that would appeal to a larger voting base.  Reasons which would provide more leverege. 

The last major CP official was a state rep from Montana.  His term ran out a few years ago.  And there was something about a governor’s race in Colorado that was a respectable loss for the CP.  Not much out of them for a few years now.  It may be that local liberty groups have hitched their wagon onto Tea Party candidates. 

Meanwhile, the chairman of my own state’s CP is as far as I can see, “it.”  Ironically, we’re doing better than Kentucky, whose party is screaming for 5,000 signatures by September 4 (they’re still collecting signatures???).  In another neighboring state (PA), the GOP has threatened to sue the Libertarians and the CP if they put up their candidates.  In PA, if you lose a lawsuit like that, you’re out 100G’s at least.  The CP blinked but the Libertarians did not, bless them. 

Meanwhile, I have started to caterwahl a different tune to the CP’rs.  Their election for 2012 is already in the can.  It’s done.  They need to focus on the 2014 elections.  I’m told that there has to be a big flurry of activity (by that, I think they mean, guilt trips and other assorited ‘reasons’ that won’t convince people who aren’t already die-hard CP’rs to vote that way) for this election, at which point they’ll apparently go into hybernation for two years, followed by another flurry of activity where they try to convince conservatives to run for minor offices when we know that they’l lose those elections. 

I like them.  But you know what?  They need time.  And defeats.  And most importantly, victories. 

They’re not ready to lead, today.  And that’s the way of things.

From the far side of the world:

You have three choices:
- Vote Obama
- Vote Romney
- Vote someone who won’t win
- Don’t vote

The correct question is not idealist, but pragmatic - what is the outcome of your decision.

Options 3 & 4 above are identical as for who will lead, though 3 might make a difference in terms of making a statement.

Sarah’s position, as I understand it, is that both candidates would represent a long-term disaster, so it’s better to make a statement, wait for everything to crash and burn, and pick up the pieces.  I don’t agree with the position, but it is consistent.

Matt, on the other hand, seems to be saying that that since both Obama and Romney tolerate abortion - though at massively different scales - then it’s better to vote for neither.  This effectively claims that the difference between 16 mil deaths and 16k deaths is less than the difference between 16k deaths and none.  Further, the practical result of voting neither may be that you are voting 16mil.  Are you really happy to allow everyone else to choose whether we have 16mil deaths or 16k while you try to muster the necessary support for 0 (which won’t happen this electoral cycle), or would it be better to at least mitigate the evil in the meantime?  The only coherent argument I can see here is Sarah’s - that supporting Romney in the short term will sabotage any reasonable hope of long term improvement (I personally don’t buy it, but it’s coherent).

This is an election. No one in their right mind believes that a vote for a candidate necessarily endorses everything the candidate stands for.  Vote for the candidate that will lead to the better outcome, even if “better” is as weak as “is most likely to allow my view to be even aired in public”.  To vote “neither” is actually saying “I think there is no fundamental difference, so I’m happy to let everyone else make the decision” - effectively, you’re endorsing whatever the majority of everyone else decides.

Making my primary issue anti-abortion, I voted for George W. Bush, twice.

Anyone remember what Bush did to push back abortion?

Anyone remember what Romney did in Massachusetts to push back abortion?

A lot is said during a campaign. 

How much is actually accomplished after a campaign is another matter.

In the end, on the Republican side, anyone know how Ayn Rand felt about abortion? (AN EMBRYO HAS NO RIGHTS.)

Your “evidence” doesn’t hold up.  Romney was the governor of a very liberal state so he ran as the sort of conservative you’d prefer, he’d never have gotten elected in the first place.  Besides, we Christians believe in repentance or are supposed to.  Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that Romney’s changed his mind?  After all, Jesse Jackson and Al Gore used to be pro-life.

You can have the last word if you want it since you’re a lady and stuff.  But just to show you how much I’ve enjoyed this exchange, here’s a little schadenfreude to get you through to your weekend.  Courtesy of Mr. Naughton’s fine Internet establishment comes word of where the Episcopal Church pension fund is invested.  Enjoy.

So, are we permitted as Christians to simply not vote?  Who to vote for?  Option “c” does not exist for me.  In my state it is illegal to write in a candidate. It is all electronic and clicking boxes - there is no writing in.  There are some third parties but no conservative party like in NY.  There is pro abortion libertarian. I am not sure but I am quite doubtful at this point that I am even legally permitted to vote for someone pro life.  I either don’t vote for that particular office, or vote pro abortion or hope that one of the third parties is pro life but what if none of them are and there is no pro life third party candidate and no write in option.  What to do?  Just vote for other offices and leave president blank?

RE: “Your “evidence” doesn’t hold up.  Romney was the governor of a very liberal state . . . “

Well you can choose to *interpret* the evidence as you wish. But evidence there is, and aplenty, for anybody to come to conclusions about him. Of course, I’ve skipped over all of his recent stuff from the past several years, like his chortling in both Israel and in the US in the past month about the wonders of his central planning, collectivized healthcare scheme for Massachusetts which has been an unmitigated disaster: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29304

RE: “Besides, we Christians believe in repentance or are supposed to.”

See above—first there needs to be repentance.

RE: “Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that Romney’s changed his mind?”

Oh no—not at all out of the realm of possibility. In fact, judging by the past five years it is not only possible, but highly likely that Romney has changed his mind about the same issues 5, 6, 7 times.

RE: “You can have the last word if you want it since you’re a lady and stuff.”

Now see—I think this could be called “an advance to the rear” so to speak, which can sometimes be the better part of wisdom!  ; > )

RE: “here’s a little schadenfreude to get you through to your weekend.  Courtesy of Mr. Naughton’s fine Internet establishment comes word of where the Episcopal Church pension fund is invested.  Enjoy.”

Oh my oh my oh my.

I *do* love schadenfreude!  What a nice little nugget this is.

“Heads will roll and lips will pucker.”

You are redeemed, Chris Johnson.

Just think.  If Mitt Romney squeaks out an election and turns out to be the next Ronald Reagan, you and I will both be happy.  I would like nothing better than for my beliefs about the high probability of his own-goaling us all [and then spiking the football afterwards too, like our current Republican leaders do practically every single week] to be wrong. And you could have lots of vindication and nyah nyahing too.

And we would both be content.

Andrew W,

Just to be accurate regarding my position:

1. You must have missed that my position with regard to abortions is the same as Sarah’s with regard to conservatism. Should we elect a weak candidate on abortion we are setting ourselves up for a long term loss because it will be seen as increasingly not necessary for the GOP candidate to toe the party line on abortion and eventually it will be seen as not necessary for the party line to be what it is. If we can win the presidency without all that abortion stuff, the blue-bloods will say, lets remove it.

2.  a “vote” as an act of governing whereby citizens participate by supporting the policies of one man or another…it is not just “voting against” one guy. It is also voting for another. We will be held accountable for the way we govern.

3. You may think it is no big deal to participate in the governing of a man who will sanction the deaths of 16000 because it is not participating in the governing of a man who will sanction the killing of 1.6 million. I think that is a kind of utilitarian morality that has no place in the Christian worldview. We do not murder or participate in murder or support or facilitate murder.

It is funny also the way that the “nobody’s perfect” argument keeps being foisted onto this thread…as if I’m looking for Jesus to be our President. It’s funny (in a sick way) because it demonstrates how far we’ve already sunk (see point one above). No one is asking for perfection…I’m just asking for a candidate who will not sanction baby dismemberment on a mass scale. Somehow wishing for a non-babaric candidate has become “looking for perfection”.

Thank you, Matt+ and Sarah, you guys have given me something to think about.  I admit that initially I wasn’t going to vote for Romney.  Then, I was swayed by the Ryan pick.  Now I’m on the fence.

I am a bit curious though.  A few weeks ago, you (Matt+) were wrestling with the dilemma with whether Christians could vote for members of a cult.  You came out as a ‘yes,’ on that and seemed (?) intent on voting for Romney.  And while I was not at that point going to vote for Romney, I went ahead and pointed out to a couple of people joining that discussion, that LifeSite News was endorsing him as a pro-life candidate. 

I guess it seems a bit not in the correct order?  First, the dilemma is whether or not we can vote for the non-Christian for an office that has traditionally spoken to the conscience of our nation (read:  it’s prophetic);  then the dilemma is whether or not he’s 100.0 percent against abortion.  If abortion is a bigger deal, shouldn’t the abortion question be settled before moving on to the question of whether we can vote for a false prophet? 

...just sayin…

As usual, Matt has not planned his posts carefully!!!

[scuttling away]

I’m sure your reasoning will give warm fuzzies to the 99% that would otherwise have been spared because you decided to vote in such a way that the advocates of killing all 1.6 million win.

The bottom line on abortion is that even if Romney wins and appoints 2 or 3 Supremes that make Row v. Wade moot, absent an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, the regulation of abortion returns to the states.  It’s a far flung chance that the court would toss out abortion as illegal in all cases, then they might rule certain contraceptives would as well if they follow the science back to where fertilized embryos are denied a chance to implant because of the method used.  But even then it’s a crap-shoot if the guys who get to the SCOTUS follow their previous jurisprudence or go all Souter or Roberts on us.

It matters less so much what they say as the practical implications of what they’ll do.

You can write in “Rick Santorum” all day long, but even if he won the presidency by some strange quirk of fate, he’d be limited in what he could do personally to change abortion policy from the oval office.

Hi Bill2

“I’m sure your reasoning will give warm fuzzies to the 99% that would otherwise have been spared because you decided to vote in such a way that the advocates of killing all 1.6 million win.”

Right because we’re all a bunch of pragmatists and must make decisions that though will result in the murder of innocent children will save more innocent children. I doubt very seriously that were you standing in a field with two men and one pointed to a group of a hundred toddlers and said, if you support me I’ll take give my machete to a butcher to kill the lot of them and the other man said, oh, don’t worry, if you support me I’ll only let my butcher murder one of them…you’d see this in terms of pragmatics. We are not to sacrifice the one to save the many. That is not our task or our calling as governors. We are to protect and preserve all innocent life. We are not to give our sanction or support to murder for any reason whatsoever even if not doing so will mean more people are murdered. It seems you’ve all bought into the worst form of utilitarian morality and it’s quite sad.

Imagine if all Christians refused to vote for any candidate that did not fully opposed the murder of children?

What would happen?

Both parties would fall all over themselves to demonstrate their pro-life creds.

But because we’ve become willing accomplices they know they can get away with murderous policies and count on our support.

“The bottom line on abortion is that even if Romney wins and appoints 2 or 3 Supremes that make Row v. Wade moot, absent an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, the regulation of abortion returns to the states.  It’s a far flung chance that the court would toss out abortion as illegal in all cases, then they might rule certain contraceptives would as well if they follow the science back to where fertilized embryos are denied a chance to implant because of the method used.  But even then it’s a crap-shoot if the guys who get to the SCOTUS follow their previous jurisprudence or go all Souter or Roberts on us.”

And so?

“It matters less so much what they say as the practical implications of what they’ll do.”

yes, and that matters why?

“You can write in “Rick Santorum” all day long, but even if he won the presidency by some strange quirk of fate, he’d be limited in what he could do personally to change abortion policy from the oval office.”

True, but again, we are not utilitarian pragmatists. We are Christians who are given the grace and privelege of governing ourselves in this nation. Government is charged by God to protect life, not trade it away on some barbarous compromise 1600 murders for 1.6 million…

“Who Would St. Paul Vote For?” Suppose Rome had gone democratic and decided to elect the Emperor by ballot of citizens. Who would St. Paul vote for?
1.  Nero
2.  Spartacus (OK, his 1st century AD successor)
3.  Luke the Physician
4.  No one – Paul would be a conscientious objector

Here’s another question. Should Paul have appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11), given that Caesar claimed divine status. Was Paul not endorsing idolatry?

Finally, when Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), he was referring to taxes, but of course taxes went to fund the emperor cult, the Roman army, slavery, and crucifixions. Could this saying be applied not just to taxes, but to votes?

Hi Stephen,

1. There is no law requiring citizens to vote. There are laws requiring citizens to pay taxes.

2. To not vote for the GOP or the Dems doesn’t necessarily mean “not voting”

3. I believe the law allowing Roman citizens to appeal to Caesar was not one created by Nero. I believe its roots are in the Republic where Roman citizens were given various legal rights of appeal that were not afforded to non-Romans. If so making use of this law conveys no sense of participation in the worship of Nero.

4. Voting is a participation in governance. We do not know how Paul would have voted but I doubt he would vote for someone who promised to sanction the murder of babies - on any level.

Hi Christopher Johnston:

“By your standard, Matt, anyone living in the United States prior to 1860 who bought clothing made out of cotton “participated” in slavery.”

No but anyone voting for a pro-slavery politician certainly did.

“Sometimes there are simply no perfectly moral options.”

It depends on what you mean by “perfectly moral”. The NT indicates that there is always, in every situation, an avenue to act without sinning.

“Take Hiroshima/Nagasaki.  We both agree that to deliberately target innocent civilians in war time is a sin…”

There was probably a fifth option, target the H-bomb on a military rather than civilian target. Certainly civilians would have been killed but it would not have been deliberate. This option was not exercised.

Abortion, by any standard, is the deliberate killing of a child. To vote for a man who will sanction it is, I believe, not just “imperfect” but morally indefensible. Most on this thread have appealed to the ethics of John Stuart Mill rather than the New Testament.

Given President Obama’s vigorous support for abortion, voting for Romney can be an entirely legitimate act if it represents an attempt to limit damage.  The principles are spelled out by Pope John Paul II in paragraph 73 of his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”:

“...A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on.  Such cases are not infrequent….In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.  This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

I would argue this clearly applies by analogy to the voting booth.  I can legitimately vote for Romney in order to limit the damage yet to be done in a second Obama term, even though I am totally opposed to abortion.

Schindler is a hero to many Jews - and I think is Honored by the state of Israel - not because he saved all from the gas chambers, but because he saved those he could. Absolutely it would have been much better to have saved more. Do you think what he did was morally indefensible? You seem to be allowing/presenting a case where maybe there is a chance to go from killing 1.6 million to killing 16000. I guess my question is - for this election - Do you think there is a chance that is the case?

When it comes down to it, Matt, your vote isn’t going to count anyway.  As I recall, you’re in New York, which is going to go Obama in November regardless of what you do with your ballot.  If you’ve got a 100% anti-abortion choice, pick him/her.

One question no one seems to want to address is this: is there another evil that Romney could usher in, besides his (very clear) indifference to abortion?

I’m voting for Romney without any hesitation.

I am thankful we do not live in a theocracy, because I am sure it would be one that I could not live under.  Democracy is a flawed, imperfect, process; as Churchill said, “it’s the worst form of government except all others that have been tried.” 

If you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, you should vote for someone most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices that are more likely to uphold state restrictions and for a party most likely to make positive legislative changes.  The only exception would be if you believe, as some do here, that it “needs to get worse before it gets better”, in other words, that a partial victory now will prevent a more complete victory later.  I just don’t share that judgment. 

Nor do I think it advances the pro-life political agenda to create a litmus test for a candidate based on whether he or she is willing to advocate for a national ban on abortion for a rape or incest victims.  I know that Matt’s comments are based on his strong convictions; and he is making them in a forum to discuss the issues among people of faith.  But public comments by others (particularly men), including Rep. Akin’s implication that rape victims don’t get pregnant, hurt the pro-life political agenda.  It creates a backlash among the population, including Christians. It’s unwise.

Gov. Romney is well qualified to address our current economic challenges, which we must address to maintain the freedom needed to affect social change in our society.  Is he perfect? No. Has he changed his positions? Yes.  Does his church proclaim The Truth? No. But I defy you to find one President with the right answers in each of those categories. 

By all accounts, President Reagan was a believer, but he was a divorced man who rarely darkened a door to a church, in or out of office, and after his shooting his wife apparently influenced his calender as President by consulting an astrologer. Yet I voted for Reagan over President Carter at re-election time, despite of having worked in Carter’s first campaign and knowing that he was a committed Christian who studied the Bible every day and had lived a consistently moral life.  I still believe it was the right decision. 

The real check on the “dictatorship of the majority” is not in our governmental structure (separation of powers; states rights, etc.) but in our pre-democratic institutions, including the family and the church.  That’s where the church can have the most influence, from the bottom up, not in a vain effort to find the perfect President to affect change from the top down.  We should vote for the person most likely to push the country in the right direction, all things considered, and then concentrate our efforts on spreading the Gospel within our communities.

Distinctions without differences, Matt.  If, prior to 1860, you bought and wore a product made from southern cotton, a slave was involved in your transaction.  And for a good chunk of his life, my dad worked at a “military target.”  And he had no more influence on American military policy than you or I do.  Innocent people die even if you destroy only “military targets.”

But I’m finished being a pedantic bore.  For now.  Anyhoo, If you, Anne, the kids or Sarah ever makes it into town and gives me enough lead time, dinner and the first few rounds are on me.

The national debt is now roughly $16,000,000,000,000 with no cutbacks in clear view. The GDP of the U.S. is now roughly $16,000,000,000,000. Were it not for the fact that GDP includes U.S. government spending, we could pay off the total debt by just using all of one year’s U.S. GDP. Stated another way, the entire productive output of the U.S. plus the total government spending of the U.S. is not sufficient to retire the debt. Given that fact I see no set of foreseeable circumstances under which we can avoid a financial crisis. Given the state of the Eurozone countries (roughly comparable to our own financially troubled state), what will most likely be called by future historians “the Great Depression of the 21st Century” seems a sure bet (assuming you would be able to find a bookmaker willing to cover such a wager). The only questions are what will trigger the collapse and when will that triggering event occur. I think Sarah’s expectations are the more accurate of any of those put forth above, absent divine intervention, and taking into account the temporal uncertainties involved in any attempt to forecast a likely date for the trigger.

In a sense, I may be among the more fortunate, in that if the trigger takes a few decades to arrive, I may be spared by my age from having to live through the catastrophe.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

It is a clear choice for me.  I have been mad at the republicans for a long time and changed my party affiliation to independent.  I support only those candidates individually that are strong supporters of the constitution and are pro life. 

If I did not firmly believe that another term for this current administration would kill another two to three million babiesa, I might take an all or none approach myself.  I keep wondering if the people who saved Jews or slaves had taken the all or none approach how would any have been saved.  Either way holding the elected’s feet to the fire will be important to keep from falling into the abyss.

You may think it is no big deal to participate in the governing of a man who will sanction the deaths of 16000 because it is not participating in the governing of a man who will sanction the killing of 1.6 million. I think that is a kind of utilitarian morality that has no place in the Christian worldview. We do not murder or participate in murder or support or facilitate murder.

While we’re being accurate about positions, perhaps you could show me where I even hinted that the deliberate death of 16k persons was no big deal.

Let’s assume that the estimates above are facts (I have no particular reason to doubt them):
- If we vote for candidate A, 1.6 mil will die.
- If we vote for candidate B, 16k will die.
- If we vote for neither candidate, or a token 3rd party candidate, then it makes scenario A more likely.

Are you really willing to sacrifice those 1.6 mil (less 16k) on a scorched earth strategy?

If this were not a zero sum game, I’d say voting neither was exactly the right choice.  But it’s a zero sum game, and sometimes the only way to be against a greater abomination is to temporarily side with a lesser one, with distaste and at arms length.

Or perhaps it’s time to raise the stakes? If you think a sustained lobbying coalition would convince the GOP to revisit its abortion stance, then go for it.

Woah, woah, woah, #56, you repeated a lot of false left-wing propaganda about Reagan here:

By all accounts, President Reagan was a believer, but he was a divorced man who rarely darkened a door to a church, in or out of office, and after his shooting his wife apparently influenced his calender as President by consulting an astrologer. Yet I voted for Reagan over President Carter at re-election time, despite of having worked in Carter’s first campaign and knowing that he was a committed Christian who studied the Bible every day and had lived a consistently moral life.  I still believe it was the right decision.

1.  Yes, Reagan was divorced, but you have to remember his first wife left HIM and filed for divorce, he was not for the divorce.  There was never any allegation that Reagan was unfaithful or had anything to do with ending the marriage.  Wyman just got tired of him, a pattern she would repeat throughout her life.  As you know, a spouse who has been abandoned is allowed to remarry in the New Testament.

2.  Reagan was not someone who “rarely darkened the door of a church.”  He was a long-time Presbyterian. a regular churchgoer much of his life, and a faithful weekly attender and member at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in L.A.  He did not go to church publicly while in office because he was concerned about how the security requirements would negatively impact the church he was attending (and having been seriously wounded in an assassination attempt early in his administration, and constantly being threatened with such throughout his term, he obviously had valid concerns).  Nevertheless, even though Reagan rarely went to church publicly while in office (Google indicates 9 times in the first three years, I’m pretty sure he still went more than Obama has gone.)  The leftists have always tried to make this non-issue and issue.  Reagan said at the time, in typical Reagan fashion, when the hypocritical Democrats were going at it: 

Speaking to reporters Friday just before he left the White House to spend the weekend at the Presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., Mr. Reagan was asked about criticism from Democrats that he gives religious speeches and pushes strongly for a constitutional amendment on school prayer, but does not attend church regularly.

‘‘Yes, I have noticed that they have been talking about that,’’ he said. Mr. Reagan, who has gone to church services about nine times since he was inaugurated more than three years ago.

‘‘I have not bothered to check on their attendance. But I think they must be well aware of why I have not been attending, and frankly, I miss it very much. But I represent too much of a threat to too many other people for me to be able to go to church.’’    http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/11/us/campaign-notes-infrequent-church-visits-explained-by-reagan.html

3.  Reagan worshiped privately with others at Camp David when he could.  At the time he was president there was no formal worship facility.  Reagan supported efforts to build a formal chapel at Camp David (eventually Evergreen Chapel), was the first donor towards its construction, and was a member of the board of the nonprofit that solicited funds for its construction.  (Remember that under “separation of church and state”) there could be no governmental support for such a project.

3.  There has never been anything to support that Ronald Reagan ever had anything to do with astrology.  The Left has cooked up stories about this for decades, however, because of his wife’s interest in astrology after the assassination attempt.  It’s one of their themes.