Like Button

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Asking Questions

It was a dream. Or perhaps not. A daydream? Maybe. I stood in front of God and He was asking questions.

"So, Stan, I see you voted for Mitt Romney in 2012."

"Yes, Lord."

"Did you know that he supported the Brady Bill and other gun control issues?"

"Well, yes, but I don't know that that's a big factor."

"Were you aware that he refused to sign a no-tax increase pledge as governor, but signed it as presidential candidate?"

"Well, okay, but no one is perfect."

"Were you aware that Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world to allow gay marriage when Mitt Romney was governor?"

"Uh, well, no. I missed that. But he is opposed to it!"

"Did you know that he has originally said that humans are causing global warming and now changed his tune?"

"Well, maybe, but everyone changes their mind."

"Were you aware that he was not opposed to abortion?"

"Well, now, Lord, he was in favor of overturning Roe v Wade."

"Yes, in order to leave it up to the states."

"Yes ..."

"So it's not okay for the federal government to approve killing babies, but it's okay for states?"

"Umm ... no, but ..."

"So, if killing babies wasn't your priority, what was?"

"Oh, Lord, you know that Obama was a threat. If he stayed in office, he would do damage to the economy, damage to the country, damage to society. It would have been very bad."

"So ... killing babies wasn't your priority, but a happier country and healthier economy was?"

"Umm ..."
________

I don't know. I'd personally have a hard time standing in front of my Lord and telling him that. Do I really have it in me?

I know, the scenario was limited. "Obama's threat to the nation isn't merely economic. He is connected to Marxists and terrorists. He tends overtly toward socialism." I know. And he is the most pro-abortion president we've ever seen. So it isn't simply about "damage to the economy" and "a happier country". On the other hand, I have a few questions. First, how much real damage can one president do? We have a government built on checks and balances. A dictator or a monarch could do a lot. But a president is limited. Second, how much real damage will he do? Obama, for instance, promised before he was elected that the very first thing he would do when he became president was to sign FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, making baby killing in the womb a national law rather than merely legal. He didn't. A lot of what he promised (threatened, if you're of a mind to think it so) to do he hasn't. A lot of what he has tried to do has been blocked. How much can he actually do? Finally, where is God in all of this? Is He just along for the ride, hoping that the president we elect doesn't do irreparable damage and push the country so far out that God can't fix it?

And, still, I don't know what I'll do when it comes to voting in November.

24 comments:

Dan said...

We will all have to withdraw from the electoral process eventually, that is when faced with choices between that are only economic and not moral. But this is how I think this will probably go.

Eventually the Republican party will break into two parties. This will happen sooner if Obama wins. The conservatives will probably end up forming their own party. The Democrats will easily hold their coalition together because nothing unites a coalition of this making like anti-Christ and anti-life sentiment. The new Republican party will then become allies with Democrats on moral issues, and allies with Republicans on fiscal issues, providing that they are not drastic enough to meet our current circumstance. Our real problems therefore, morality, will become unfettered.

That Romney is the Republican nominee, and Obama has easily solidified more than a third of the population's support, even with the mask of the Democrat Party clearly removed, means that the country that you and I grew up in is probably gone for good. If Obama wins he will probably get his wish of being in the drivers seat when the whole thing, economically, goes over the cliff because there's nothing that causes chaos like masses that have nothing to loose; all the more when they are hungry, entitlement minded and amoral. If Romney wins, and I will vote for him, this may all be delayed... maybe.

I will vote for him for these reasons.

I have young children.
I don't want to see them starved or shot.
No vote at all is a vote for a way more radical anti-Christ agenda than Romney.

Am I voting for evil? I don't know. Technically I suppose the case could be made that every time I've ever voted I was voting for evil here East of Eden. Do I trust that he means what he says about some of his social stands? I honestly don't know. People change. But politicians lie. Either way, voting or not voting, the way I see it, the result has the potential to be the same. I'm reminded of Jesus telling, was it John's mother, that you don't know what you ask. I think that not voting is similar. I hope you've considered what you are doing.

Dan said...

My computer was going dead so I didn't proof read that last comment. I hope its decipherable.

Marshall Art said...

"So it's not okay for the federal government to approve killing babies, but it's okay for states?"

God would not ask this question unless He's a Democrat looking to mess with your mind before the election. The idea that Roe was a bad SCOTUS ruling was largely for taking the decision away from the states. It isn't a matter of whether it's OK for the federal gov't or not. It was never a federal matter to begin with, unless it was to state the truth, that abortion kills human beings whose right to life is already Constitutionally protected. That point was never addressed.

One must separate what Romney did as governor for the state he governed and his potential duties as president of the entire nation. These are two distinctly different jobs and his obligations differ as well. Considering that the alternative brings about, without question, presidential support for the wrong side of all moral issues...indeed, confirms them...then to withhold one's vote is akin to supporting the worst of the two. Without a doubt.

Personally, I do not think a president or state's governor is obliged to act on behalf of the public's every whim, whether that reflects only a majority or a unanimous opinion, especially where veto overrides are possible. A leader of character is obliged to act in a noble manner at all times, even in opposition to the will of the people. Romney speaks as if he has learned this since his governor days and with the pick of Ryan as his running mate, I believe it is very much worth it to assume he means what he says.

Very few believe Obama's stance on SSM really "evolved", but rather was a totally political move, both when he said he opposed it and as he now supports it. I don't believe he cares one way or the other. I do not get the impression that Romney is really of the same mold as a politician, though I could be wrong. I used to think him a flip-flopper, but now I think he really has given these issues more thought, and that his past moves were based on the notion that he had to act according to the will of the people, as opposed to acting on a true belief in what is best.

The bottom line here is that no action on our parts is indeed action on behalf of the lesser of two evils. We cannot "not" take part as staying home helps the worse of the two. Though Romney was not my choice in the primaries, he is head and shoulders the better pick and without a doubt a clear step in the right direction. This is the point on which I firmly believe God would judge us. Jesus isn't on the ballot. Perfection is not possible in any candidate. All of your questions from God can be rightly defended with "Obama's far worse".

We need to move in the right direction with every election. After Romney, we have to do it again, and hopefully his time in office will herald a move toward better and better choices.

Stan said...

Dan, I am considering what I'm doing ... or will do. That's why the post ... and questions (rather than statements). My question, though. Is there a line? Is there someplace that Romney (currently -- or whatever candidate isn't as bad as the other) would go that Christians of good conscience would have to say, "No, no, I can't vote for him either."? Or will it always be the lesser of two evils?

Stan said...

Marshall Art: "God would not ask this question unless He's a Democrat looking to mess with your mind before the election."

I'm confused. So the only reason to ask about killing babies is if your a Democrat trying to confuse things? Or are you just saying that God is not deeply concerned about the federal government killing babies? Or what?

It is, then, your considered opinion that this Romney is the real Romney and what went on before is past, not a matter of consideration?

And I would ask you the same question that I asked Dan. Is there a line too far? Is there someplace that Romney (currently -- or whatever candidate isn't as bad as the other) would go that Christians of good conscience would have to say, "No, no, I can't vote for him either."? Or will it always be the lesser of two evils? Is conscience clean as long as we vote for the one that kills less babies than the other?

(And, seriously, why in the world do people keep telling me there is no perfect candidate? Has there ever been? Why would I think there had? Is asking for a candidate that is opposed to murder asking too much? Seriously! I'm not looking for a perfect candidate.)

Marshall Art said...

"I'm confused. So the only reason to ask about killing babies is if your a Democrat trying to confuse things? Or are you just saying that God is not deeply concerned about the federal government killing babies? Or what?"

I'm saying that God would not ask that question in light of the choice we face. One choice firmly supports abortion for just about any reason ("just about?"), and the other is merely stating that the federal gov't, or more precisely, the Supreme Court, does not have the authority for deciding the issue on behalf of the entire nation. Even conceding the the issue will still be a problem, returning that authority to where it belongs (or, more precisely, officially acknowledging that it belonged there all along), will mean the there will be those parts of the country, those states, that will restrict the practice more so than others. This is a move toward the proper direction on the issue. Some states will recognize the inherent right of the child to live and this mood has the potential of "infecting" the entire nation. Now, because of Roe, there exists a sense that there is no moral implication. Overturning Roe begins that process. If all that happens as a result of a Romney presidency is that Roe is overturned, then that sets the stage for further restrictive action and hopefully somewhere down the line, a total ban on elective abortion. An Obama election pushes that back at least another four years.

On this issue, we must look at only what a president is constitutionally allowed to do. To what extent Romney can affect a change regarding Roe, I'm not exactly certain. But he is making a statement and as president it will affect the attitude of the nation to some extent. This can be seen in different areas as well, but the fact that a president's actions and words can influence public opinion is not without some basis.

As to what line is impossible to cross, that depends on the makeup of Congress and the Supremes as well as on the presidential candidate himself. All of our candidates must pass muster on these issues and if we never consider the moral issues of the day, then we are lost. I think we now have a growing number of support in Congress on these issues, and I hope that it continues to grow. The polls show a greater percentage of people being pro-life, which should make a difference in future elections.

Thus, in reference to my statement, God's question would not view the issue in a vaccuum, as if there is NO worse choice we can make. My intention is that voting for Romney begins to push the nation in a more pro-life direction than it seems to be now. Regardless of just how much he can influence change in this area, his comments regarding overturning Roe are appropriate for his intentions regarding the presidency. So, are we voting for a guy who is cool with killing babies? I don't think so. And his intentions suggest there should be less of it. This is politics. Nothing happens overnight.

As to perfect candidates, it is only that we basically have only two choices and to not vote means whomever you believe is worse is now supported by you by virtue of the less evil not getting your vote. There will always be something that we would prefer be different about the guy who gets our vote. My preference is that my candidate never conflicts with Scripture, or does so less than the other guy. If everyone did at least this, if not actually paid attention and supported only the most moral candidate, we'll be as well off as possible AND be doing what we can for His sake.

Dan said...

Well I can say with all confidence that it will always be the lesser of two evils. Is there a line? My line is "life". Romney reminds me of Obama saying he was AGAINST SSM. And unlike other people who said the exact same thing, no one seemed to even notice. The question therefore I must answer is, does Romney really mean it? Has he changed? People do. Am I being like a brain numb Democrat who needs to hear his candidate SAY something so I can vote for him with a clear conscience? There is a difference I think. Obama took a gamble by casting off his charade of being against SSM. He bet that his supporters wouldn't care, and I think he was right, they don't care in any significant numbers. However, Romney has a more difficult task. If he he is not telling the truth he need not TELL the pro life vote, unlike our Democrat counterparts, we'll know.

Stan said...

To both Marshall and Dan:

I'm fascinated by the line of "lesser of two evils" and not much more. Marshall seems to indicate that if Candidate A is a mass murderer and Candidate B favors a genocide, he'd choose Candidate A because he kills less. I know that's not the case, but ...

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to how much difference a president can make on his own. Romney has said he would like to overturn Roe v Wade. I do not believe a president has that capability. Obama has promised to create jobs. With the fractional exception of government jobs, I do not believe he has that capability. So many candidates this season (as in all seasons) are promising to go in and "fix Washington". I'm sorry to tell them this ... but it can't be done.

Oh and as for appointees, it was a Bush appointee that pushed the SCOTUS to allow for Obamacare. I'm not at all sure how helpful conservative presidents are when it comes to appointees.

And in order to be clear, Romney is not pro-life. He just wants to give the choice of killing babies to the States.

Finally, this notion that everyone is saying that "Not to vote for Romney is to vote for Obama", why?? Why is it not equally true that "Not to vote for Obama is to vote for Romney"? No one ever says that and I don't understand the logic. (This last bit was rhetorical and really needs no answer.)

As for me, while I've been mostly dwelling in the "I'm not at all sure I can vote for either candidate with a good conscience" camp, I think I'm forced to come out of it. Frank Turk of Pyromaniacs wrote a compelling piece on it and I'm leaning toward Romney against all my fears, my squirming, my conscience and all. But that doesn't mean I like it and I'm still not sure that "I voted for the guy who wanted to kill less than the other guy" will work for me in God's court.

Dan said...

First the very nature of politics is lessor of two evils. Remember, the politician MUST bring 51 percent into his camp. Can you think of any president or politician, ever, that was 100% you man?

If you don't care what happens, or if you're convinced that there is no difference, then a no vote equals a no vote. If you're an abortionist, and you want a guy that at least has abortion rights in his campaign platform, then no vote would equal a vote for Romney, only in a sense, and in a close election, because your vote would have otherwise gone to Obama. Of course in reality, not voting is not voting, it just helps the person that is more antagonistic to your view of the world, get elected. I remember Nader running a green party and helping Bush win in 2000. Those votes for Nader, had they been for Gore, quite possibly would have turned the election. Have you heard from Nader since? Naa. That's because the press, as you might imagine, was quite peeved about that. But anyway, I digress.

Presidents don't do nothing when it comes to economics and social issues. That said, I think people ascribe more power and recognition/blame than they deserve. (I would argue that this is not as true with Obama because he's thrown that whole separation of powers thing to the wind) As you know, the difference a president can make on social issues is by his court appointees. With that in mind it makes me ask: was Bush fooled by Roberts? I don't know. He wanted to appoint some really good judges but was thwarted by partisan politics. But the court, in a pragmatic sense, IS where these things are decided. Even though I'm convinced that Roberts will end up being a so-called "moderate", at least for awhile, (moderates tend to drift left) this doesn't negate the possibility that Romney's appointees will be worse. I can almost in fact guarantee it. But they will still be much better, at least I hope, and at least for a while, than Obama's. If they're not, well then, it was a wash as it turns out isn't it? It's like door one or two, you must choose for to not choose is to die. How can you go wrong by picking the one that looks on the outside, more appealing... again, from a pragmatic sense.

If you're interested I can make an argument for "give it to the states". My guess is however is that you already know my argument.

Marshall Art said...

Stan,

Quite frankly I don't understand why you believe that God would not approve of a vote for whichever candidate murders less. The point, at least in my mind, would be that I want to see fewer murders, if I can't get them eliminated altogether. Your concern suggests that God does not really judge our hearts. Not voting for either gives hope for the possibility that the more murderous candidate will win by virtue of the fact that one fewer vote for the less murderous is tallied. For this reason I disagree that not voting is merely not voting. It is more akin to a sin of omission.

Once again, voting for the guy who murders less is the right vote and the vote one must make if the idea is to move toward no murder. If that is the goal, then fewer murders is a good thing when compared to more of them. Fewer murders means you're complicit in saving those not murdered. If your intention is to eliminate murder, then God would indeed consider that you have served that purpose by voting for less of them. Not voting is to allow the most murders take place.

And in order to be clear, this is from Romney's website:

"

I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench."


Seems to me that he is covering the issue from more than one angle...as a personal belief regarding the act itself as well as the manner in which the law was decided. The only real question is whether or not we can trust what he says. That question exists for all candidates.

As to the effect any president has on law, he can indeed influence legislation by the strength of his personality and ability to argue and persuade. But it first begins with what he says while campaigning. What he's saying now moves things in the right direction. Obama is moving us the wrong way and we already know that.

Stan said...

I see your viewpoint, Marshall. I just can't fathom it. There is apparently no line. To me there is a point at which obedience to or participation in an authority that so denigrates God's law as to make it pure nonsense is itself immoral. But, obviously my viewpoint doesn't make sense to you, either, so we're even.

Marshall Art said...

But it does make sense. I just reject it. Voting for the least offensive candidate only denigrates God's law if the intent is to support that which God prohibits. In this case, as I said, I'm working toward supporting what pleases God in the only way possible as regards presidential elections. My participation is line with what pleases Him by doing so. Not voting is to stand back and allow what displeases him to go on. I am complicit in what displeases Him by doing nothing to affect change if I do not vote at all, regardless of the extent to which my lone vote can actually affect any change.

What's more, if we believe that the Constitution should be followed in this country, then Romney's ability to affect change is limited by the Constitution since it doesn't give him the power to do much of anything about the issue aside from influencing and persuading lawmakers to reverse the law. Many believe the best way to affect change in incrementally. Overturning Roe in order to return authority governing the issue to the states is a good first step from a legal standpoint. Changing hearts and minds is a different battle.

So as to any line regarding this issue, I believe the line is quite clear based on his stated belief. But I do admit that I would struggle over my vote if both candidates were in agreement on abortion, but the GOP choice was otherwise sufficiently conservative. As long as the party seems to maintain a pro-life stance, I am hopeful that I will never have to consider a pro-abortion Republican or conservative. The other guy would have to be really, really bad on all the other issues and I'd still have a problem.

I think in the end it is a question of whether or not this one issue is more important than any other that it must take precedence in our considerations. It would be a whole lot easier if abortion wasn't currently legal.

David said...

I think the difficulty for me is the fear of becoming too pragmatic. As a nation, we are pragmatists. It has greatly influenced the American church, specifically the mega churches. "This is what works, so this is what we'll do" without regard for whether it is right or wrong necessarily. Yes, voting for Romney MIGHT mean steps toward putting abortion laws in the hands of the state rather than the fed, but that won't stop abortion.

"Well Lord, I helped them to kill a few less babies." Seems a bit weak. While technically killing less babies is better than killing more, killing babies is still happening, and neither presidential hopeful will stop it.

Stan said...

Voting based on pragmatism is a problem for me, too. A similar, related problem for me is contributing to the "creep". The Republican Party of 2012 holds similar values to the Democratic Party of 1950. Everyone has shifted left from 1950 to today. So ... who is holding the values of 1950? They're mostly lost. And if I vote for a "lesser evil", will I be aiding in that creeping of values by approving one I don't approve?

Marshall Art said...

I think I see a problem here. Is voting all we do? Do we vote and just ignore everything and go back to living our lives? I say no. Voting is one act of many in the life of a believer and once the vote is cast, monitoring the winner and seeking out better candidates for the future, making our opinions known throughout the years between elections, and living conspicuously as Christians, boldly promoting the Christian lifestyle....it's all part of the same deal. All of this serves to shift things in the proper direction. What's more, should someone ask for whom you cast your vote, you can not only tell them it was Romney, but you can tell them why you thought doing so was the best choice...that it serves to move us in a pro-life direction and then go on to explain why that's a good thing and what must be done to move it even further.

For David,

""Well Lord, I helped them to kill a few less babies." Seems a bit weak."

It is as you state it. But again, I doubt the Lord would hold you responsible for failing to stop all abortions. It ain't like He'd expect you to be the one to ends it all. All He would expect would be that when given the choice, you made one that resulted in a better situation. When I vote for a pro-life candidate, even one like Romney, I'm not voting to kill any babies. I've saved some by virtue of confounding those who would seek to allow unrestricted abortions. Every step taken in the pro-life direction is a step toward a day for which I pray will come soon; that all will see the act for what it is and be horrified at the very notion that the United States of America allows such things to go on.

Stan said...

It is my firm conviction that we are not responsible to stop all abortions ... or any other sin. No rational person would think so. It isn't within our abilities to do so.

I'm not at all sure that decentralizing abortion permission to the States would result in decreased abortion. Some might ban it. Others might expand it.

However, none of this is about the political question. On that, I am again not convinced at all that Romney is "in the right direction". We aren't getting "better candidates for the future" because Americans at large don't want "better candidates". And the changes required to disgust America over abortion or redefine marriage to mean what it should mean or the like are not matters solved at the voting booth.

Marshall Art said...

Again, it is not a matter of whether or not ANY issue is solved at the voting booth. As regards the social issues, those that concern the Christian, it is merely another step in the "right" direction. This means only that when given the opportunity to make one's voice heard, when given the opportunity to do something for God, we make a choice, take an action, do whatever is within our power to move things in His direction, even if the step is incredibly incremental.

If we are not responsible for stopping all abortions, then what's with the question from God? Are we responsible for gun control, or gay rights or any of the other things you mentioned? Regardless of the answer, we are still left with one president who has demonstrated that he supports all, or most, of what we oppose and it can be argued, what God opposes. The other guy claims otherwise. A non-vote means that you aren't so worried about the devil we know and are willing to suffer another four years of whatever goofiness he has in mind. Yeah, I'm not thrilled with my choices here, either. But it isn't a coin toss by any stretch of the imagination.

Stan said...

Ah, you see? That's where we differ, at least in this case. A vote for Romney for me is not "a step in the right direction." It is only "in the right direction" in the sense that it is not more of the current president.

But let me see if I understand you. Is it your view that Marshall Art's call from God is to stop all abortions? Or is it your understanding that I thought that was my call? Not in the least!

I wrote something way back in 2007 about the issue of abortion and its political importance. But beyond that, can I face God with a clear conscience and say, "Yes, God, I stood and I supported that baby killer!" You can. I'm not sure I can.

Marshall Art said...

But the problem is you accuse him of being a baby killer because what he proposes is less than the complete elimination of abortion, which, except for rape, incest and the life of the mother, he supports or at least, would prefer. I can face God and say, "Yes, Lord, I supported people that worked toward reducing and/or eliminating the practice of killing babies." which is a far more accurate statement to make about Romney, unless you can provide evidence that he favors killing babies at all. Indeed, I doubt he favors aborting babies that were the result of rape or incest, but to get to a point far closer to the best result, he, like many, are willing to allow for those possibilities that comprise such a tiny percentage of all abortions. Even more so, I doubt he favors abortion even when a woman's life is endangered by her pregnancy, but that is an appropriate time to allow a woman to choose.

As to my call from God...yes...it the same as everyone's, which is to stop all murders completely. We are called to do what we can when we have the opportunity to act toward that end, regardless of whether or not we can effect change. It is part of the same call to be as Christ-like in our daily lives as possible. If you were to be asked by a total stranger whether or not you support abortion, your answer may influence that person away from the practice. There. You've acted to stop all abortions. That was the right move. That was the Godly move.

It's not the size of the act, or the quality of its impact. It's the act itself that counts. Each act in the right direction, each person acting in the right direction results in influencing others toward that direction, which will get us as close as humanly possible to the best outcome. It's part of why I blog and visit blogs and what I do when I have the opportunity to speak my mind in person. It's what I hope to accomplish by how and to whom I donate time and/or money. And it's what I do when I vote. If I don't vote, I am complicit in the worse outcome by doing nothing to push the better.

My intention is to influence where I can, how I can and when I can toward a more Godly world, or country, or state, or community or bunch of friends and choosing the lesser of two evils must eventually mean choosing from between two who aren't really evil at all, since the worse of evils is never winning. That's the game plan and that can't displease God.

Marshall Art said...

I just read your link to the 2007 post. You've gotten better in your ability to create analogies. That one sucked. A drunk candidate is not the same thing. "Drunk" isn't a plank in a candidate's platform. Theoretically, a complete idiot could support everything you support and if you knew him to be a complete idiot, you'd be right to deny him the presidency, just as you'd be right to deny a known drunk.

But to deny a better choice the job over one issue, when other issues on which he is correct might be as damaging (if not outright sinful) to the nation as the one in question would mean that you are complicit in creating a bad situation of a different sort than the one issue has already created. I am absolutely pissed that this nation is so cavalier about the issue of abortion, despite polls indicating a change of heart. I cannot get over the fact that Roe took place well before the issue of whether or not a fetus, or human zygote, is a person was ever even discussed.

But I can't allow all the other downsides of another four years of Obama to take place because Romney can't get all abortions outlawed. Don't forget that Oskar Schindler didn't save all the Jews. If anyone REALLY cares about saving the unborn, they will take what they can get until they can get what they want. Try this out:

God: "So you didn't vote?"

Stan: "No. Romney only wanted to turn the abortion decision to the states and I didn't know if that would mean less abortions in total."

God: "So you decided to take the chance that the guy who wants no restrictions at all on abortion wins? You don't think that insures the most possible abortions, but you think I'd be cool with that?"

Stan said...

I don't know that I'm any better at analogies. Like so many times before, this one apparently missed ... again. The point of the analogy was "If the guy is right on all the 'issues' but has a fundamental, serious moral character flaw, is he right for the job?" The point of the post was "If a presidential candidate is not interested in protecting the most vulnerable of his people, is he the candidate we should elect? If a candidate is not concerned about the value of life, is he the candidate for me?"

But I'm not hoping to elect a pastor and I'm not looking for the leadership of a church. I'm not expecting a perfect candidate and I'm not anticipating an election that will save the country. I do not believe either that Obama can end the country (as long as there is the checks and balances that a Republican Congress can provide) or that Romney will lead it in the right direction. The former may lead it in a really wrong direction and the latter in a fairly wrong direction, but neither in a fatal or right direction.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote. How do we go about telling the government and the public that we need another option, that we need another direction, that we need better choices? The American Revolution took place from the perspective of "No taxation without representation." I haven't had representation in Washington for most my life. How do we go about getting that? By continuing to hold our noses and vote the "anybody but" candidates? Yes, that appears to be the strategy.

Marshall Art said...

The problem is your conviction that Romney is not concerned about the value of life, and apparently due to his promise to overturn Roe and return the authority over abortion to the states. But it's always been about who represents you the most. One who represents Stan perfectly could win over a majority. But that candidate might also another Alan Keyes who gets no votes BUT yours (not that you supported him, necessarily...I have no idea about that).

We can tell the gov't and the public what we desire by constant involvement with both to the extent that we each are able. I do not donate to the GOP any longer, but I will to a specific candidate who does match up to my ideals best. I continue to argue for what I believe is righteous and true whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. This is how we get to our goal (in part, anyway) and so is holding our noses if the choices remaining require it. How often do we write to our congressman and senators, either nationally or locally? They listen to those who take the time to call or write directly because those are the people who tell them anything. We are all wheels and we need to be squeaking like crazy rather than quietly rolling along believing no one represents us.

Even though I don't donate to most party organizations, I do respond to their surveys so that I can add my voice to those who think in a similar manner.

Stan said...

No candidate represents Stan perfectly. Nor could such a candidate, if he existed, get elected. I'd just like a little representation.

I will be voting in this coming election. It's my duty. I'm not at all sure that voting for a third party is of any value and, perhaps, more harmful than not voting. Still, I cannot bring myself to believe that voting for Obama is taking our country in a good direction, nor can I believe that Romney is much better. I don't think that Romney got the nomination because he's the best candidate, the most suited to the party, the finest example of Republican beliefs. I think he got the nomination because he was the most electable. Therein lies my problem. I wanted a better candidate, one less offensive. I don't have that option. So I can vote us into a bad direction or a worse direction, and that's called "pragmatic" and "recommended".

Marshall Art said...

I agree with what you see as shortcomings of having Romney as the GOP candidate. I did not vote for him in the primaries, which is our last chance of having our say in such matters. Now, we have to deal with the cards dealt and that still comes up Romney as the best choice available. Will he take us in a bad direction? I don't think so, though he might not take us to the Promised Land, as it were. But we'll be in the neighborhood for sure. We won't even be on the same planet with a Romney loss, which is the exact same thing as an Obama win.