Home > Uncategorized > What if we don’t have the luxury of having a “one issue” election next time?

What if we don’t have the luxury of having a “one issue” election next time?

October 22nd, 2007
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

I was listening to my favorite confessional Lutheran talk-radio show, Issues, etc. driving home and Todd Wilken was talking about the Republican candidates for US President. Rudy Guiliani is out in front of the pack. The thought struck me, "What if I don’t have the luxury of being a "one issue" voter next time?" Guiliani is no more a pro-life candidate than Hilary Clinton would be, or Obama. So, what do pro-life voters do if they have to face the choice of two candidates that have little interest in promoting a pro-life agenda? What would we do if we pro-life voters no longer had a "one issue" ticket facing us?

What then? Your thoughts?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. organshoes
    October 22nd, 2007 at 23:53 | #1

    Really, I think the one issue is Clinton.
    Many just can’t stomach the thought of her election.
    So Giuliani has been thrust to the front of the pack because he might beat her.
    It’s not abortion and life issues in general that will elevate or defeat a candidate this time, or even conservative ideals. It’s the war, the poor management of it, and the steady, awful reporting on it, having so soured Americans, they’re not even sure they want to win it, or that winning matters.
    But they don’t want to lose it either, if it can still be won. So Giuliani at least is strong on that. It’s a dominant issue for many, conservative and liberal, fighting Islamic terrorism via Iraq.
    We don’t stand a chance of winning if Clinton is elected.
    Republicans might squander a lot of moral capital in backing him. The pro-life faction might lose a lot of sway.
    But, the pro-life battle’s been fought for so long, and there’s finally light at the end of the tunnel with a more conservative Supreme Court, so I think lots of people are willing to put pro-life battles on hold, just to beat Hillary Clinton. Even if there’s not much difference between the two of them (though I think there are differences), he’s ‘our liberal’ while she most definitely is not ‘our anything’.
    To paraphrase the Clintons, ‘It’s the Clintons, stupid.’ (Please, take no offense–I’m not calling anyone stupid. Just paraphrasing.)

  2. organshoes
    October 23rd, 2007 at 00:09 | #2

    Abortion might not have existed as an issue in Biblical times, but it certainly has existed as long as there have been pregnant women.
    And murder–life-stealing–has always been just plain wrong.
    The Lord formed us in the womb, and knew us before we were born. We do not make life happen. We can make babies happen, but we’re not the authors of life itself.
    Why would the communion of God’s people–the church–be anything but opposed to it? How would we justify not being opposed to it? If a clear Biblical teaching is what you’re after, where does the Bible offer us choice, in what we are to think about life and lives?

  3. Patrick Kyle
    October 23rd, 2007 at 01:00 | #3

    I think that ‘one issue’ voting has gotten us into the jam we are presently in. The only thing that I think is worse is the ‘vote for the lesser of two evils’ to prevent candidate X from getting in. I believe this is a false dilemma that both parties capitalize on to keep us locked into the politics-as-usual trap. I say vote your conscience and leave all the strategizing to the political spin meisters. If enough people vote third party or for a “second tier” candidate it will really shake up the bi-factional Republicrat party and we may get some real options down the road.
    I really think that Ron Paul is offering something different(read that better) that could really give this election some substance and force the “top tier” candidates to grapple with important issues.

  4. the other David
    October 23rd, 2007 at 02:48 | #4

    I will not vote for Hillary, Obama, Rudy or Mit, a vote is a indication of support and I cannot offer my support to any of them. The conservative radio shows like Sean Hannity say that if you don’t vote for someone like Guiliani if it’s between him and Clinton then you’re basically voting for Hilary. That’s absurd, if I were basically voting for Hilary then I’d actually vote for Hilary, you can’t count a “no vote” as a “vote of support”. Why not say that according to the same logic my “no vote” will be like basically voting for Guiliani? My “no vote” is simply that, a NO vote, by not voting I am saying there is no one I can vote for, it’s not my fault the two parties can’t provide someone I feel as if I can support with my vote. If I vote for something my conciseness is against then I’m actually voting against my conciseness.
    A choice between Hilary and Rudy is like deciding between being hit in the head with a clean hammer or a dirty hammer. I vote for no hammer at all. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, my conscience is NOT Caesars so I will not render it to Caesar by casting a vote of support behind someone I do not support.
    Chris I think you have confused murder with killing, sometimes killing is justified (self defense, war, capital punishment, etc) whereas murder never is. You’re also confusing the physical form of a human-being in the womb with the life within that physical form. Life isn’t a physical form, what science has shown you is how the physical form is created. Science has yet to show you how life is created. There is more to a human life than the mere physical form you see on a sonogram. Your “killing a muslim” analogy is ludicrous, No one is killing a muslim simply because they are an unexpected muslim, however people ARE murdering babies everyday for simply being “unexpected” babies.
    Also, According to your bible study you’ve come to the conclusion that Christ is neither for nor against abortion however you were able to conclude that Jesus would support universal healthcare? Were you able to decipher His views on the flat-tax?

  5. Don Kirchner
    October 23rd, 2007 at 07:00 | #5

    If both candidates are pro-abortion then abortion is, by definition, a non-election issue. Hannity is correct. If one refuses to vote for the conservative one is allowing a liberal agenda too advance.
    A key to supporting Guliani is that he will nominate conservative judges to the Court without a litmus test on the abortion issue. In the end, the result on the abortion issue is not greatly different from electing a pro-life president.
    The religious right and single-isssue voters could well be the spoiler in the election, allowing the liberal agenda to triumph therein.
    Yes, I know that Todd Wilken disagrees with me on this. He and I briefly discussed this on-air before the last election. And many of you do too. Reasonable minds will disagree. But I agree with Hannity on this. It’s not a lesser of two evils situation. It is, by definition, a non-issue.

  6. Don Kirchner
    October 23rd, 2007 at 07:18 | #6

    It’s early. :-) Sorry about the typos. Should be Giuliani, to, etc.

  7. Jay D
    October 23rd, 2007 at 09:08 | #7

    I’m no fan of liberals. I voted against Clinton 42, Gore, and Kerry.
    Having said that, if I take a step back and look at a Hillary/Rudy race, I can’t actually say that Rudy would be better than Hillary, even as a lesser-of-two-evils. I actually think Hilllary is slightly less bad.
    Anyway, go Ron Paul!

  8. Mike Baker
    October 23rd, 2007 at 09:20 | #8

    Issues come and go. Politicians will lie to you and play games to trick you over your favorite issue. What is important is protecting the integrity of the system. Who do you want managing the military? Who do you want overseeing law enforcement? Who do you want setting foreign policy? Who do you want with veto power over the legislature? Who do you want picking Supreme Court justices?
    A vote is not really “support.” That is the term that politicians use on the stump to make them look more popular than they really are. I can’t think of a single politician I ever truly “supported” with my vote. A vote is a choice. Pick A or B. One of them has the potential to be better than the other. Non-participation is not a statement. It is silence that is easily ignored. If you choose not to vote, your principled opinion of non-participation is no different than the dope-smoking hippie who is too lazy to go vote. Politicians will happily continue to ignore you because you bowed out of the system.
    When I was a kid and my dad gave me a choice of spinach or green beans, I didn’t tell him, “…neither because I don’t want my choice to convey that I support green beans.” I had to choose one.
    So I am faced with a hard choice yet again. Spinach or Green Beans… hmm… Well, there is one thing in the front of my mind this election: the growing problem of the dynastic management of our government.
    Bush Vice President ’81-’89
    Bush President ’89-’93
    Clinton President ’93-’01
    Bush President ’01-Present
    …Clinton, again? …really? Is anyone else qualified?
    Should we just cut through the pretense of regular elections and appoint this elite class to permanent power? We have kids of voting age who have spent their entire lives under a Bush-Clinton presidency. We have congressmen and senators who have been in office longer than most of us have been alive. We are breeding a class of ineffective career political families who view their service-oriented vocation as a birthrite. That is something that we, as a populist democratic republic, would do well to move away from.
    Liberty is more important than any single issue. Without liberty, your plebeian opinion does not matter. If you win your issue today, but lose your liberty tomorrow… your issue can be easily overturned by the indefinite authority that you helped to create. Once lost, liberty is nearly impossible to win back.
    I am all for a universal enema ticket. It’s time for everyone to move along.

  9. October 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 | #9

    While I can’t imagine voting for someone with whom I agree on every issue, certain issues loom larger than others.
    I don’t think I could vote for someone pro-choice in good conscience, and it’s about that simple.
    What if there was a viable candidate with whom you agreed on every single fiscal issue, social issue, and otherwise… and your one point of disagreement was that they were going to outlaw Christianity. Could you vote for him or her? I doubt it.
    Some issues matter more than others. I can hold my nose and vote for someone who is weak on immigration, or wrong on taxes, etc.. but for me, the moral stench of the abortion issue is just too hard to get past.
    If the “wrong” candidate gets in because Christian people couldn’t vote for such immorality, and we therefore lose the war on terror, then I will not feel conscience-stricken. But if the “lesser of two evils” keeps us safe from Islam, but expands abortion – I will feel complicit.

  10. Greg
    October 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 | #10

    There will be more than two candidates. The Constitution Party/American Independent Party will run a pro-life candidate. We will have a pro-life choice.

  11. Rev. Scott Hojnacki
    October 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 | #11

    Greg is correct. Most states will have anywhere from five to seven names on the ballot for President. If neither of the two major-party candidates is acceptable because of his (or her) position on abortion (or any other major issue), then learn more about the “other” candidates. You might just find one closer to your own ideals than either of the “major” candidates.
    Cast your vote not out of fear, or for a “lesser evil,” but with a clear conscience.

  12. Brian Westgate
    October 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 | #12

    Even now, we have an option. Dr. Ron Paul of Texas. He’s an OBGYN who has delivered some 4000 babies, and is therefore very pro-life. He is also the taxpayer’s best friend, and wants to end the income tax and bring our soldiers home from wherever they are stationed, be it Iraq, Korea, etc., etc. If he doesn’t get the nomination, the Constitution and Libertarian parties would be fools not to nominate him, and if he does the Republican nomination, those two minor parties would be fools to nominate someone else. Check him out at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/.

  13. Brian Westgate
    October 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 | #13

    I forgot to mention that Dr. Paul wants to get rid of the current imperial presidency, and wants us to strictly follow the Constitution.

  14. Chuck Wiese
    October 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 | #14

    If we go by the gallup polls, no candidate has a chance against Hillary. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the gallup polls are useless and becoming more and more useless as media changes. I think the state straw polls are a better indicator and if you look at those on the Repbulican side Ron Paul is ahead. The first primary election will happen in New Hampshire–a state that Ron Paul gets alot of support from both financially and in the straw polls–I’m pretty confident he’s going to win New Hampshire.
    70% of Americans are sick of the war and Ron Paul is the only viable anti-war candidate. He has a consistent voting record and the only hope against Hillary. Hillary has the advantage of being able to create the illusion that she’s anti-war. She may have voted to threaten Iran and have voted to go into Iraq but the smoke and mirrors lead people to believe that she is anti-war. If Hillary were to be up against Guiliani she could create an appearance of being more anti-war than he is and say that she just has to clean up after the mess that Bush got us into. Running against a real anti-war candidate like Dr. Paul would be more difficult. Ron Paul would also be the most capable of pointing out the follies of Hillary care.
    Out of all the other candidates who wouldn’t be lying under oath when they swear to uphold the constitution?Ron Paul is also the strongest pro-life candidate, he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005 and put out a revised edition in 2007 with hardly any support from his fellow Republicans. Ron Paul is also the strongest constitutionalist. I don’t think the Republican party really cares about abortion that much. It was mostly Republican appointed judges that decided Roe Vs. Wade and just as many babies die every day under Bush as they did under Clinton. Guiliani may “promise” to appoint conservative judges but the judges and others that he promoted as mayor were not conservative. The Republicans support Big Business and the Democrats support Big Labor–that’s what they care about at least when it suits their interest.
    If Guiliani wins the nomination, I’m voting for the Constitution party candidate. I’m not going to actively promote baby killing. About as many babies die from abortion each day as people who died in 9/11. As long as people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils the more evil the lesser will become.

  15. Bror Erickson
    October 23rd, 2007 at 13:03 | #15

    hmmm, pull everyone out where ever they’re stationed? Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me. We tried the retreat back to our borders thing after WWI. We might have avoided WWII if we had been smart and stayed. I would hate to see what would fill the power vacuum if we pulled back to our borders now.

  16. Jay D
    October 23rd, 2007 at 14:58 | #16

    The causes of U.S. involvement in WWII are a bit more complicated than “we retreated within our boarders.” There was a U.S. buildup in the Philippines and an oil embargo against Japan (a true isolationist policy) as a couple of examples.
    Not to mention that WWII was enabled by a bad end to WWI. Who knows what would have happened if we just stayed out of that war like the president campaigned on? “He kept us out of war.” Not entirely dishonest. He kept us out of war so far, but no promise for the future.
    I would hate to see what would fill the power vacuum if we pulled back to our borders now.
    This is basically admitting that America is a world Empire. Recalling U.S. troops to a homeland defensive role would leave a power vacuum in the rest of the world. What would happen? I don’t know. You don’t know. I don’t see any reason it would make America any less safe. What I do know is that running a world Empire has unintended consequenses to homeland security and is expensive and the American people are paying for it in inflation and passing the cost on as debt to the next generation.

  17. Bror Erickson
    October 23rd, 2007 at 15:18 | #17

    Jay D,
    Sure there was more to WWII than us retreating to our borders, but there was us retreating to our borders. I think Pearl Harbor, would be lesson enough that leaving them alone doesn’t mean they will leave us alone.
    I don’t think you are being quite honest when you say, “I don’t know, you don’t know.” We might not know specifics, but we do know that power vacuums aren’t filled peacefully. We Americans might weather it quite well. But then I don’t think it would quite leave us innocent of the blood that would be spilled. And as far as Empires go, I thinkn the American Empire is a better alternative than a Chinese Empire, or a Russian Empire. (As you can see, I don’t have a problem admitting to Empire on the part of the U.S. I just wish we had more responsible administration of it.)

  18. Don Kirchner
    October 23rd, 2007 at 16:12 | #18

    “Cast your vote not out of fear, or for a ‘lesser evil,’ but with a clear conscience.”
    If the two major candidates are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, I will vote for Rudy- with a clear conscience- and recommend to whomever will listen to do the same.

  19. Greg
    October 23rd, 2007 at 17:48 | #19

    Bror- Not too long ago I would have been with you 100%. I thought that a Pax Americana would create the world conditions that would be best suited for the global spread of the Gospel. I was all for an American Empire and global American hegemony. I am now suspecting that this may not be God’s will for two reasons. The first is our aging demographic will not be able to spare the resources either human or financial for far flung military action. Empire works better with a youthful demographic. The second is that our people seem to have no heart for Empire. If you notice the hue and cry over what are realatively light casualities in Iraq. Americans are not willing to make the sacrifices Empire necesitates. If God willed an American Empire wouldn’t he give us a heart for Empire? After years of being a mainstream conservative I am beginning to listen to the paleoconservative case.

  20. October 23rd, 2007 at 18:05 | #20

    I’m sorry, but anyone who supports a third-party candidate in the general election for President has to admit two things:
    1) Your candidate will not be elected; and
    2) You have already lost the pro-life issue.
    Third party candidates do not have the resources or the organization to win a nationwide campaign. While this sounds obvious, it is an elusive concept to too many people: in order to win an election, you need to get the most votes. The reason Democrats and Republicans win 99.999999999999999999% of partisan elections is because they have spent years developing voter lists and “get out the vote” efforts. No third party candidate has the means to make sure their supporters actually show up to the polls and vote on election day.
    If both parties select pro-choice candidates, I don’t have a problem with you voting for a third party candidate (because we’ve already lost on the life issue), but thinking that this candidate can actually win or contributing time, money, or talents on his campaign is recklessly ignorant.
    If both parties pick pro-choice candidates, it would be worth our while to support electable pro-life Congressional candidates. If we’ve already lost the White House to a pro-choice president, why not elect a pro-life Congress that will not give that president any pro-choice legislation to sign into law? Fight for a U.S. Senate that will not support anti-life judicial nominees.
    Finally, the pro-life/pro-choice debate will not be won in the voting booth. Cal Thomas stated correctly that abortion became a political issue because the church failed to speak clearly on the issue decades ago. This debate can only really be won in the hearts and minds of individuals. Convert your neighbors to the pro-life position and make abortion unthinkable in our culture. If society believes that abortion is murder, the government of our democratic republic will eventually reflect this public sentiment.

  21. October 23rd, 2007 at 18:10 | #21

    Bror Erickson,
    It’s good that we are on the same page regarding America’s status as empire. It makes discussing this easier.
    You seem to be making two arguments. America shouldn’t withdraw its military from around the world because:
    1)”leaving them alone doesn’t mean they will leave us alone” and 2) even if they did leave us alone we shouldn’t because maintaining the empire is necessary to try to save this fallen world from itself.
    Let’s get one thing out of the way. Iraq was no threat to America. Iran is no credible military threat to America. We can drop the pretense that invading Iraq and threatening Iran have anything to do with 1).
    I don’t think you are being quite honest when you say, “I don’t know, you don’t know.” We might not know specifics, but we do know that power vacuums aren’t filled peacefully. We Americans might weather it quite well. But then I don’t think it would quite leave us innocent of the blood that would be spilled.
    Really. I don’t know. My fellow man is capable of a lot of things. We were told a lot of scary things would happen if we pulled out of Vietnam, domino effect and so on, and today they are a trading partner.
    I know that sometimes the Empire’s gotta do what the Empire’s gotta do, but if Cæsar’s going to make the mistake of letting me vote on it, this subject is going to vote against foreign entanglements. FWIW.

  22. October 24th, 2007 at 02:26 | #22

    I think people should vote for the candidate they honestly want to vote for, and just do it. People seem to be afraid to do that. Lutherans, ESPECIALLY, should be people who WOULDN’T be afraid to do that.
    Be bold, and vote for who YOU truly want. Don’t worry about polls, or defensive/offensive voting. Or media spin.
    That’s how I feel.

  23. the other David
    October 24th, 2007 at 04:21 | #23

    “If both candidates are pro-abortion then abortion is, by definition, a non-election issue. Hannity is correct. If one refuses to vote for the conservative one is allowing a liberal agenda too advance.”
    If both candidates are pro-abortion how can I justify voting for either one of them? Is it a good thing to vote for anyone who is admittedly pro-abortion? Didn’t Christ remain silent before His accusers? Was His silence an admission or denial of anything?
    Hannity who is more of a republican than he is a conservative, is assuming that Hilary is already in the Presidency and only my vote for Rudy will remove her from the Presidency. By his same logic who is to say that my “no vote” will not instead put Rudy in office? Why is my no vote automatically equated to voting for Hilary and not her male clone with the “R” after his name? The only way you can assume my “no vote” to be in favor of Hilary is if you first presume it to have been originally intended for Rudy, my vote has never been nor will it ever be intended for him or anyone who is pro-abortion so therefore that same logic applies to my not voting for Hilary.
    If a Christian is willing to sway or overlook something so important as aborting a child in order to gain on other social issues then it’s like running down a slippery slope with a pair of scissors. You’re willing to overlook voting for someone who is pro-abortion but you’re not willing to overlook Hilary as President? This means the more important issue is keeping Hilary out, keeping her out is worth voting for someone who supports tax-payer funded child murdering? This is the logic Hannity uses, your vote for Rudy is a vote for abortion. You can’t apply his logic to my non-vote and not also apply it to your vote of support. Your vote would speak louder than my non vote, speaking up is always louder than remaining silent. Hannity would have it be the other way around though, he turns my non support of either into a support of the one. That is not logical at all.
    In the end, if the only choices we are given is between two pro-abortion candidates then I will not vote. I cannot justify casting any support whatsoever in any shape or form behind anyone who is supporting the brutal murder of a baby. Politics never trump innocent life. abortion can never be rendered a non-issue simply because both are pro-abortion, the only thing two pro-abortion candidates renders a non issue is the sanctity of human life.

  24. Amy Surburg
    October 24th, 2007 at 08:11 | #24

    Hannity is concerned about the split of the republican vote, which would give the democrats the election. The election is won by the majority of those who vote. If the democrats have an enthusiastic base that all votes for their candidate and the republicans either don’t vote or split so that they can’t beat the democratic majority, Hilary will win. That is why not voting for Guiliani would give Hilary the presidency. The conservative republicans are falling for the same thing that the conservative Lutherans have done in our Synodical elections – being so stuck on an issue as to not be able to see how to come together. Liberals are good at taking advantage of that and taking over. I agree with Mr. Schroeder. Vote for the lesser of the two evils as president and then focus on the congressional elections so that whoever is president won’t have the opportunity to sign pro-abortion legislation. Not voting or voting for a candidate that you know won’t have enough support will simply allow the liberals to take advantage of the split republican vote.
    As to the war discussion. We might not know what would happen in a power vacuum in the middle east specifically, but we can be sure that the Islamic regime that wins will not be favorable to America or to Christianity. I don’t think that we should knowingly allow a region to build up strength to destroy what we hold dear. Leaving a vacuum in Iraq is leaving the door open for terrorists to gain strength. Islam is a threat to the free world, no matter how its followers may dress it up. If we retreat to our borders, the fight will come to our borders.

  25. Bror Erickson
    October 24th, 2007 at 09:22 | #25

    Greg, Jay D,
    I’ll try to answer you both here.
    I don’t know what America has a heart for. But we have an Empire, and they like the benefits of it. We don’t seem to like the responsibility. We feel guilty about Rawanda, yet we seem to think we should let it happen in Iraq. We are responsible for Iraq.
    Iraq, contrary to the anti-war protestors, who look like they were stored in a closet as is since the late 60s early 70s, is not Vietnam. There is no stabelizing power behind the insurgency. there is no China behind the insurgency. There is Osama, and Iran. neither of whom we want to see in power there. Neither of whom the rest of the region really wants to see in power.
    I’m not all about creating a Pax Romana to spread the Gospel though that is a nice bonus. I’m not so enamoured with our government to think it is altruistic in its dealings. Right now there isn’t much Pax in it anyway. I think we are in many ways the worst suited for governing Empire. Our foreign policy doesn’t think beyond eight years, and most of the time it stops at 4. But I don’t think it is wise to return to an isolationist position. I think it is the least responsible, and most selfish of all our options. It is also the most naive. I won’t vote for someone that naive. You think we are in a bad situation now in Iraq? we would be much worse for pulling all our troops everywhere back to our borders, much worse. So would the rest of the world. And I do care about the rest of the world. I’m a citizen of it.

  26. organshoes
    October 24th, 2007 at 10:31 | #26

    Right, Bror Erickson.
    Remember that old chant, The whole world is watching.
    They are watching, but they’re never impressed with us, whether we’re right or wrong. They expect us to solve everything, but feel free to wag their fingers at us when they don’t like the solution. Either it’s not enough or it’s too much or…who can fathom it?
    And why bother? We’re entitled to our self-interest as a nation, but we’ve also been the most wary of the whole world and our impact on it–of all the nations–in spite of our mistakes.
    The world assigns such evil to our hearts, without ever even considering our laws and rulings on abortion. We’re evil because of the death penalty, or because of our contribution to global warming or because we have hurricanes that kill people and destroy property and our President doesn’t care enough to parachute into the maelstrom and personally fight the ensuing crimes and pestilence, or because we drive large cars around and across the country–at will!–or because we imagine ourselves to be a religious country. They just don’t get us.
    And not only do they not get us, they’ve managed to confuse us about ourselves, among ourselves. We have so many politicians, justices, and pundits who think the rest of the world can and should teach America how to be a better nation, and it’s filtering down to all of us. We don’t know how to be American-without-guilt for being American anymore: prosperous, busy, independent, motivated by personal ambition and personal interests (meaning our families, our homes, our nearest communities). We’re beginning to believe all those nasty things they say about us, that we’re selfish, greedy, and mindlessly aggressive.
    All the things that make us an example to the world–free elections, freedom of religion, readiness to defend ourselves and our friends, democratic government, due process, on and on–it’s all called into question by people who don’t have the same interests and outlook we have. And we’re starting to believe it.
    We remind me of the systematically abused person who starts to believe all the terrible, manipulative things the systematic abuser says: that we deserve what we get because, face it, we’re bad; we screwed up; we had it coming.
    I don’t imagine for a moment that abortion can be seen as a benefit to a country. But I don’t see it as the only thing at stake in *this* election, and to make it the sole factor in deciding how one votes seems to me to be abdicating one’s repsonsibility to the rest of the issues: national security, sovereignty, even liberty.
    Abortion will never go away as an issue. Even if it were outlawed outright, we’d not be able to rest on that as a settled victory. Those who want it free and clear and legal will never rest, no matter what the laws. If they had total free access to abortions, they’d not rest on that either. Then they’d want total access to partial birth abortions and eugenics and ‘death with dignity’ laws. There’s no end to the evil other people want, claiming it as good.
    We’re supposed to be ready to do battle. I don’t see falling on this sword as doing any sort of battle in this great big war against us. I see it more as a Pyrrhic loss–or, another analogy here–the whole big basket of eggs getting smashed, including the unborn egg.
    I wonder if Christians aren’t getting caught up in a What Would Jesus Do moment or mentality, or a How Would Jesus Vote. And I see that as a form of worthless hubris.

  27. Jay D
    October 24th, 2007 at 11:02 | #27

    Bror Erickson,
    I think we are in many ways the worst suited for governing Empire. Our foreign policy doesn’t think beyond eight years, and most of the time it stops at 4. But I don’t think it is wise to return to an isolationist position.
    But… You aren’t making a very good case here. I have nothing to add.
    I think it is the least responsible, and most selfish of all our options. It is also the most naive.
    Maybe, maybe not. But it is American to the core.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Anyway, I think that all evidence points to the fact that America today under neocon foreign policy is most definitely not a stabalizing force in world politics.
    Also, I’m not a citizen of the world. I’m an alien resident.

  28. Chuck Wiese
    October 24th, 2007 at 11:03 | #28

    There are certainly a great number of important issues beyond abortion, but I find it difficult to get beyond abortion. 4000 babies die each day from abortion. Abortion makes 9/11 look like nothing. If a pro-choice candidate gets the Republican nomination he doesn’t have a chance. Do you really want a repeat of Dole Vs. Clinton?

  29. organshoes
    October 24th, 2007 at 11:26 | #29

    But, Chuck Wiese, not voting because of abortion doesn’t help the cause of abortion. It helps your conscience, perhaps, which is no small thing, but it doesn’t help the cause, not the least little bit.
    All issues relate to one another, particularly in this election, because we stand to lose big–on all issues–with a Clinton returned to the White House.
    I’d sooner vote to keep her out, than to vote anyone else in.
    She stinks, royally, as a standard-bearer of anything truly American (ie, small-d democratic). She’s Pandora at the box. She is the danger. To everything. The consequences of a Hillary win are dire.
    Can’t say it any plainer.

  30. Patrick Kyle
    October 24th, 2007 at 12:31 | #30

    We trained Osama bin Laden, we are arming and training Fatah(a recruiting arm of the alAqsa Martyr’s Brigade),Saddam Hussein was one of our allies,receiving money arms and training.Sounds like a successful foreign policy to me. All this foreign meddling we do comes back to bite us in the rear end. Ask white expatriates who used to live on the African continent about how the intervention of various foreign governments during the Cold War affected their quality of life. I don’t really buy this business of having to maintain an empire to ensure our security. Maybe I would lend it more credence if our past interventions actually improved our security and weren’t a massive series of screw ups and instances of “shooting ourselves in the foot.” I think the real naivete’ lays with the idea that this kind of intervention works to our benefit. Furthermore, other than pronouncements its true, no one has laid out any solid evidence that we would be worse off without this kind of intervention.

  31. Chuck Wiese
    October 25th, 2007 at 11:06 | #31

    I’m not saying to not vote. I’m saying to vote for an actual pro-life candidate. I don’t remember any law that says we can only vote for Republicans or Democrats. There have been a number of influential parties throughout American history. Rick Jore of the Constitution Party won a seat in the Montana legislature in 2004. If pro-lifers keep supporting pro-choice Republicans, the party will continue to promote more and more pro-choice Republicans out of hopes that they will be able to beat the other guy. If a third party pro-life candidate gets a large percentage of the vote the Republican party will have to straighten up or disappear.
    I’m not going to put my pocketbook on par with killing babies. What if two people came into your town running for office and they both promised to kill 1 out of every 4 children in your town. Wouldn’t you vote for someone else even if the national media told you that they didn’t have a chance?
    If Guiliani or Clinton win we lose and if it’s Guilani vs. Clinton, Clinton wins anyhow if the polls are correct. So why bother voting for a pro-abortion candidate that can’t win?

  32. Greg
    October 26th, 2007 at 08:25 | #32

    Bror- We may like the benefits of our Empire but we are at the end of the American Empire. Our demographics will not support Empire. The graying of America will strangle our Empire. Aging Americans will place a huge burden on America’s resources. The treasury will be drained to pay retirements and health care. There will simply be no money for Empire. Further, there will be less will to send our young to die in wars if we need them right hear to pay social security taxes.

  33. organshoes
    October 26th, 2007 at 10:13 | #33

    Chuck Wiese:
    You continue to argue with things I never said.
    My pocketbook has never been the issue. But, not counting one’s money and how it’s spent by others than myself (such as the government) is not irrelevant to any part of this discussion. There’s enough immorality to go around, before considering abortion, to cause my worry over how the money I’ve relinquished through taxes is spent, and what that money’s sent out to accomplish. I’d like to see government let go of lots of things it’s got its grip on, like education, nanny-state programs about food and lifestyle, support of un- or anti-democratic regimes, federal money to private organizations (like Planned Parenthood, for instance).
    We may yet get a pro-life candidate. Rudy doesn’t have the nomination locked up. Haven’t even had a primary election and the press isn’t yet in full battle mode, to destroy whomever Republicans nominate.
    But it’s naive to presume any nominee besides a Republican or Democrat will win, and maybe reckless to vote on one issue alone, without consideration of how those issues are inter-related.
    The title of this post uses a very appropriate word: ‘luxury’. We can’t afford the luxury of a one-issue election. Period. We can’t afford to be so naive (call it brave or principled if you want), to continue thinking that abortion stands alone as a presidential issue, when the next President will inherit an aging Supreme Court and lots of federal vacancies, and maybe will be a President prepared to appoint judges and justices more disposed to conservative jurisprudence.
    To vote (or not vote) on the basis of a pro-life candidate only is to consign us to Hell-in-a-handbasket, as if we knew that’s where we were pre-destined and we might as well get busy getting there.
    It’s pretty smug thinking, in my book.

  34. Chuck Wiese
    October 26th, 2007 at 11:14 | #34

    I agree that it is naive to think that anyone but a Republican or Democrat would win a national presidential election at this point, but given the influence of people such as Dobson and Pat Robertson I also believe it is naive to think that a pro-choice Republican could win especially with Dobson’s threat to support a third party candidate. Even Hannity admits that if Dobson supports a third party candidate the polls show that Clinton will win by a landslide.
    My point was not to say that if you support such and such third party pro-life candidate he will win. My point was that if Christians support a third party candidate it will be better for them in long run. The Republicans will have to either wake up or will cease to exist or perhaps the third party will lose but still manage to get more votes than the Republicans. Keep in mind that at various times during Clinton vs. Bush vs. Perot, Perot was beating them both in polls. Also keep in mind that for much of the primaries Clinton only had about 4% of the vote in the polls.

  35. organshoes
    October 26th, 2007 at 14:20 | #35

    Keep in mind as well, Chuck Wiese, that Perot probably cost Bush 41 reelection and that Clinton did indeed win.
    The only polls that matter after all are the ones on election day.
    But if you think 4-8 years of another Clinton presidency will be good for Repulbicans in the long run, and good for the abortion issue at all, and that we’ll all learn invaluable lessons we’ll never forget (and I don’t doubt *that* for an instant), then go third (translate ‘losing’) party all the way.
    Meanwhile, what’s a few more liberal justices and judges? What’s a few more setbacks on the terrorism front?
    Wars are won battle by battle, and not by indulging the luxuries of single-issue soldiers.
    Don’t think for one instant that any abortion advocate would give up his or her fight, if abortion were outlawed today, or even if it were legalized across the board. If parental notification were to be abolished, and late-term abortions universally legalized, they’d find another effrontery to assail us with, because evil intentions never cease. Do you not think they’d like to return to federal subsidizing of abortions, or have our government subsidize third-world abortions, or have sex-ed in pre-school paid for with tax money and administered by people who think they know a lot more about what you children should learn that you do?
    The single issue of pro-life is not a luxury I’m willing to sacrifice, but a luxury I simply may not have, and I have to face that.
    But, if Giuliani is nominated, I’ll take on a different single issue: not having Hillary Clinton as President. The single issue needs to be Hillary Clinton: her as President, appointing judges, justices, and cabinet officials, and proposing legislation that imposes itself onto everything I–and you–believe.

  36. October 26th, 2007 at 18:15 | #36

    Perot probably cost Bush 41 reelection and that Clinton did indeed win.
    People voted for Perot because they wanted to. If people really, really wanted Mr. “Read-my-lips”, there would have been no market for Perot voters. Bush 41 cost Bush 41 the election.
    If reducing people’s options to two is good, why isn’t reducing their options by one more even better?

  37. Chuck Wiese
    October 27th, 2007 at 12:37 | #37

    I don’t believe the oft repeated line that Perot cost Bush the election is actually true. Various polls showed that people who voted for Perot were pretty evenly divided from the Democrat and Republican party and pretty evenly divided between Bush or Clinton being their second choice. The only exception would probably have been Ohio which would have probably given its electoral votes to Bush–still leaving Clinton with a substantial 349 to 189 majority in the electoral collage.
    I think basically the same thing will happen if Guiliani wins the Republican nomination–only perhaps an even bigger landslide will occur. People are more fed up with Bush Jr. than they were with Bush Sr. To top it all off I live in Michigan. I live on the West side which tends to vote Republican but the state as a whole votes Democratic. So why would I want to waste my vote on a Republian (translate losing party) who doesn’t represent my views? Guilani clearly supports tax-payer funded abortions and even calls it a constitutional right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8
    Guiliani may say he would appoint conservative judges but what does his record show? Bush Sr. said he wouldn’t raise taxes and Bush Jr. said he would keep us out of foreign entanglements. Out of the 75 judges that Guilani appointed to New York’s lower courts–Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1.
    One website says:
    “One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular. A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology. Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.”

Comments are closed.