For those of you who haven’t seen it, check out Mike Huckabee’s phone call from God at the last Republican National Convention. Wonderful to know which party has the divine mandate - and that God has apparently abandoned the “still small voice” but in favor of Alltel. I’m not very strongly opinionated yet as far as who I’d like to see in the White House, but this sort of thing reminds me of why I can never in good conscience jump on the “put a Christian in the Oval Office” bandwagon.
And in that political vein, I’ve lately been left wondering whether its more ethical to vote for the poor candidate I think could do the best job, or not vote at all. Isn’t voting for the lesser of two evils still a vote for the wrong side?
Maybe I’ll just write in Jesus… or John Knox (our next President should be able to weild a claymore 
).
Comments
This entry was posted 2 years, 2 months ago on Saturday, December 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm and is filed under things not to mention in polite conversation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I think the question comes down to whether or not you’re trying to think pragmatically or idealistically. If you’re going to be idealistic and say that a candidate has to be both generally anti-war and pro-life to get your vote, then I think opting out is the only option in this election.
But, I also wonder if being pro-life necessarily makes one the most qualified to address the abortion issue. I’ve argued this before, but I think if we want to do anything about the number of babies being aborted every year, we need to address the more basic economic and family problems that often lead to abortion.
Perhaps a pro-choice candidate with a populist platform (a John Edwards for example) is in better position to combat the abortion issue than a pro-life candidate who will do virtually nothing to improve the situation for the poor? (Put another way, has having a pro-life president who ignores the poor in office the past 8 years accomplished anything in terms of reducing the number of abortions? I checked this link (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html) and noticed that there was actually a greater decrease under the Clinton administration than the Bush, although it only shows the first three years of the Bush administration.
I guess it comes down to how you answer this question: Is it better to have a president who says “no abortions, period” or a president who says that “abortion should be safe, legal, and extremely rare”?
One other thought- If you’re going to write someone in, let’s make it Luther. If anyone would lower the drinking age, it’d be him :D.
You could always vote for Ron Paul.