So says Barack Obama, in the third and final presidential debate, speaking about the importance of the Supreme Court nominations to be made by the next administration.
"Pro-life pro-Obama"-ites: Are you listening?
Disaffected third-party quixotic voters: Are you listening?
How far back will an Obama administration set us? How long until we get this close again?
Obama’s rhetoric on this matter reflects either intentional misrepresentation or utter ignorance—Roe no longer contains the controlling precedent for abortion jurisprudence in this country. Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood v. Casey do. This is why Obama blathering about “health” is so nonsensical, as McCain pointed out.
Whatever validity this point may or may not have, it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. At the very least, Roe is a convenient shorthand for “controlling precedent for abortion jurisprudence,” and that is indeed what is potentially at stake.
Catholic Natural.
Voters have to understand the seriousness of this issue and therefore the seriousness of the potential Supreme Court appointments. Pro-Life Obama supporters should look closely at the abortion statistics and its connection to all issues as a basic human right before they vote for Obama.
What good would any possible benefits from an Obama administration be if we continue to allow the killing of the most vulnerable, and FOCA removes whatever restrictions are left? Can it be anything but a short term benefit? If those who have authority and who we should respect can allow the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable, what sort of affect does that have on respect for authority, for our leaders, and for one another? If the most innocent and helpless can be killed, the less innocent who need less help are more easily robbed and cheated by anyone who can get away with it for their own personal gain.
When the foundation crumbles, all else falls with it.
“Disaffected third-party quixotic voters”? Who could you possibly be talking about. (Hint: answer is in the URL.)
If Obama is elected, and signs the FOCA bill, and if the Dems also finally get through their thought crimes bill, it will not be possible to legally oppose abortion in this country. It will be a ‘hate crime’ against a ‘fundamental right’
Picketing an abortion clinic would be considered the same as forbidding black children from going to school.
The same thing will be the case with the abomination of homosexuality.
With national health care, “quality of life” (lebens unswerten leben) arguments will be used, probably following CDC guidelines to deny health care to people over 80, and care for chronic illness for anyone over 65. Terry Schiavo will be only the first of eventually millions.
Doctors nurses and pharmacists will be forced by law to perform abortions or perscribe deadly ‘medicines’ or lose their careers, and face fines or imprisonment.
Is it worth all of that to have a little wealth redistribution that will be taken away from the poor by the resulting higher prices?
my commentary: Obama lied during the debate to hide his extreme pro-abortion record.
http://abortobama.com/blog/?p=122
Barack Obama is bad on life period.
McCain is generally pro-life although not perfect.
John McCain is an honorable man.
Barack Obama is a messianic con man.
No Catholic should vote for Obama
What makes me so mad, so really mad, is that if we had had a really “educated” Catholic elite in this country, Obama would have never been a candidate. If Catholics and Evangelicals would simply wake up (sadly, more on the Catholic side) and realize that social justice begins with the word, “social,” they might see that in order to even have social justice, one must, first, preserve a society.
That being said, what sorts of insane arguments are the Catholic elite putting forth to rationalize their position on abortion?
Population control? We know how that turns out – no population, no control.
Planned parenthood? Anyone who thinks that parenthood is ever planned doesn’t deserve to be a parent. Parenthood is accepted; parenthood is love made responsible; parenthood is the death of selfishness, but it is never planned, save by God. These sorts of people, then, don’t want to be parents, they secretly want to be God.
Embarrassment? Who hasn’t sinned and been embarrassed? Get over it. The end of embarrassment is the acceptance of mercy.
Desperation? When the son of man comes, will he find any faith? Poor desperate people need support. The elite don’t want to be reminded of their own need.
Behind all of these rationalizations is a self-made faith, not a faith in God. I am afraid that this is what Obama is pushing.
I am really discouraged at this point. Mark my words, if Obama is elected the United States will cease within fifty years. If McCain is elected, it will suffer, greatly, but it might just survive for a hundred. How prophetic is this? If what I say is true (if anyone reading this is around in fifty years), my prize money will be distributed among the poor – buy a chicken sandwich for a homeless person (if there are still chickens around or homeless people) – or as close as you can get to a chicken sandwich. Obama is right – things are in the balance. he is just wrong about what.
The Chicken
Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. The neo-conservatives should have amended the constitution when they had the chance back in the beginning of the Bush administration. I guess millions of children being killed in the United States took a backseat to terrorist attacks. One can never place a specific value on each life, or decide which lives are more or less worth saving. But based on the quantity of children that are killed by abortion compared to the number of people killed by terrorism, the choice seems simple to me.
Does anyone else think its ironic that the ‘Christian, Conservative’ party is pro-life on a very moral basis, and yet they’re also okay with the taking of the lives of others? The bible is clear when comes to an individual being wronged, the response is always the same. ‘Justice’ is something that we on earth need not concern ourselves with dolling out, as it is the Creators place to give and take away.
Anonymous,
Please use a handle when posting your specious talking points, so that other users can correctly address the appropriate rebuttals to you. Thank you.
A deafening round of applause to TMC!
Dear [blank]
Why your “we” doesn’t seem to include the abortion cheerleaders? Your “we” really means “only you, not us“. It doesn’t look like respectful reasoning…
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice; they will be satisfied.”
Who said that? Oh, yeah…the Creator, Himself.
As for amending the Constitution: For an amendment to be ratified, it must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives, as well as 3/4 of the state legislatures. If [blank] can show some evidence that those kind of majorities existed six or seven years ago, I might take him seriously.
Read this article:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/RobertGeorge/2008/10/15/obamas_abortion_extremism
It is the best I’ve seen at exposing the full depths of Obama’s extremism, and refuting the “pro-life” morons who endorse Obama despite his pro-abortion record.
McCain, despite his performance last night, is unelectable. That’s why I voted for Chuck Baldwin when early voting opened in Illinois on Monday. Obama will most certainly be our next president and we in the pro-life camp have our work cut out for us!
David L.,
Well, if pro-life voters vote for Chuck Baldwin or other fringe candidates, then I agree with you that Obama will most certainly be our next President.
Only Scalia & Thomas have announced publicly their willingness to reverse Roe/Casey. As for Alito & Roberts, they have carefully avoided telling us how they would rule on that issue. People are just assuming that, because they were appointed by Bush, they will reverse Roe/Casey. But people made the assumptions about O’Connor, Souter, and nost notably Kennedy. And none of them have been willing to join Scalia & Thomas. If you think there are more than two votes to reverse Roe/Casey currently on the court, please identify the evidence which you think proves that anyone other than Scalia and Thomas will vote to reverse. It should go without saying that speculation by third parties as to how someone will vote has little, if any, probative value.
David L –
Gee…thanks. It is your vote and it is your right to cast it for whomever you choose. Having said that, let me also remind you that we need to be accountable for our vote. Your vote, and the votes of others who decide to vote for unelectable fringe kooks, is most assuredly a vote for Barack Obama. Please do not gripe or complain if (may God forbit it a thousand times) Obama is elected.
If Obama wins this election, our chances of more dead children and further economic recession are all but guaranteed.
I suggest Amity Schlaes’ book “The Forgotten Man” to spell our exactly how Democrat policies will turn this recession into something much greater.
Well, McCain supported Ginsberg. Then he said he wouldn’t have chosen Ginsberg. Then in this last debate, he said he thought her a good choice.
McCain also did not deny that he would choose pro-abortion judges.
He lost my vote. I won’t be going for Obama, either.
Third party, or maybe I’ll just not vote on “President”. There are some other issues up that I’m interested in anyway.
Sorry. Last comment was mine.
Not so. The issue is not politics or personal trust, but judicial philosophy. Advocates of judicial restraint, of originalism or strict constructionism, should oppose the naked judicial power grab represented by the activist Roe court. Could we be wrong? Yes, but we don’t have any other way of opposing judicial activism, as previously discussed.
I don’t care about a judge’s politics. Only their judicial philosophy. Give me nine pro-choice Supreme Court justices who believe that abortion rights should be federally protected, but also believe it is the court’s role to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench, and I’ll be happy.
Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. The neo-conservatives should have amended the constitution when they had the chance back in the beginning of the Bush administration.
They don’t need to amend the constitution. They could have passed a law overturning Roe and then taking away jurisdiction for all federal courts to decide issues on abortion. They never did this. They didn’t even TRY.
They also could have passed the Right to Life Act. They didn’t even try. http://www.righttolifeact.org/
“Neo conservative” is identical to leftists talking conservative values, but not doing.
Obama is so pro-abortion, he is also pro-infanticide. He is the David Duke of Abortion.
I am voting for Obama.
Why?
Because it is my right to vote for him as a citizen of this country.
I am soo tired of soo many people trying to say and think for how I feel or should feel with this matter. I know Abortion is wrong, however,four more years of what is going on right now crazy. If we dont improve the economy and the lives of the people and give those women an alternatives to abortion, then we will force more women to make a choice that no could be happy with.
R.
Reggie,
the problem with that analysis is that there doesn’t seem to be a correlation between abortion rates and the status of the economy.
And if you think “redistribute the wealth” Obama is going to improve the economy more than McCain, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
This strikes me as nonsense. It is almost certainly unconstitutional, and would certainly have been found to be so by the Court. The pro-life movement — and the constitutional cause — could only have been hurt by such a dodgy power grab.
Why do people keep saying that women do not have alternatives to abortion? This is baffling to me. And it is a lie. If one does a little homework before writing or voting they may find there are many alternatives to abortion and the vast majority come from pro-life groups. Also a truly pro-life country would be less likely to kill innocents abroad.
SDG –
Please show me where Roberts and/or Alito have advocated a judicial philosophy that requires them to reverse Roe/Casey and have agreed to that interpretation of their philosophy. Justice Breyer, a firm proponent of Roe/Casey, also advocates “judicial restraint” just in different circumstances. See, for example, his dissent in Bush v. Gore:
“I fear that in order to bring this agonizingly long election process to a definitive conclusion, we have not adequately attended to that necessary “check upon our own exercise of power,” “our own sense of self-restraint.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 79 (1936) (Stone, J., dissenting). Justice Brandeis once said of the Court, “The most important thing we do is not doing.” Bickel, supra, at 71. What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”
The point here is that it is very difficult to predict how a judge will rule in a particular case from his/her general statements about “judicial restraint” or “strict constructionism.” And neither Alito nor Roberts have committed themselves to the type of “originalism” advocated by Thomas and Scalia. In fact, in their nomination hearings, they generally gave vague insubstantial answers to those questions that don’t tell us much about how they would decide any particular case. Again, if you disagree, show me where they’ve defined their judicial philosophy in words that Breyer or Ginsburg would never use because I’ve been looking for those quotes since they were nominated and have yet to see them.
“I don’t care about a judge’s politics. Only their judicial philosophy. Give me nine pro-choice Supreme Court justices who believe that abortion rights should be federally protected, but also believe it is the court’s role to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench, and I’ll be happy.”
Well, I do care about the judge’s politics, if that politics includes him or her being pro-choice. On the face of it, I have trouble trusting the legal philosophy of anyone who would advocate government sanction for killing babies. And I have trouble with a president who is “personally opposed to Roe vs. Wade”, who “personally thinks abortion is bad” but won’t necessarily choose judges who agree on that issue.
By my prudential discernment, considering the five non-negotiable issues, I think I’ll vote for a third party. I favor probably Chuck Baldwin.
Hey SDG,
e-mail me, will ya?
“And I have trouble with a president who is “personally opposed to Roe vs. Wade”, who “personally thinks abortion is bad” but won’t necessarily choose judges who agree on that issue.”
At the end of the comment, McCain said something about “I would appoint those who are qualified, but those who think that roe was right aren’t qualified.”
Nevertheless, I was troubled by part of McCain’s answer.
First, He said that “I wouldn’t have a litmus test. I would appoint those who are qualified.” Secondly, he pointed to his votes for Ginsberg and Souter as choosing ‘qualifications’ over ideology.
I know that McCain has promised a “strict constructionists” litmus test, which would require one to be in the mold of Alito and Thomas (which is another way of saying he would have a Roe v Wade litmus test). However, given his past votes, and given that the Senate may continue to be controlled by liberals who would sell their souls before confirming a Pro-life justice, is it possible that McCain would falter, like Reagan with Judge Bork, and choose another Kennedy?
I hope not. I know that Palin would fight against that. I know that we could repeat the past (Harriet Myers), and prevent McCain from making a bad decision.
What are your thoughts, SDG?
An Election Prayer to Mary
O most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care. Most Holy Mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection. Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the great worth of human life and to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom.
Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion and threaten the sanctity of family life. Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God’s law is the foundation on which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the True Source of our cherished rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. O Merciful Mother, give us the courage to reject the culture of death and the strength to build a new Culture of Life.
Trusting in your most powerful intercession, we pray,
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, we fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To thee do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful.
O Mother of the Word Incarnate,despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us.
Amen
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I very-much like that prayer, Inocencio.
Sometimes bitterness overwhelms me. I need to focus more on Christ, the author of this world, and the One who has the ultimate power over our society.
Chuck Baldwin is not a fringe candidate. He represents my core values, which I why I voted for him. The Republicans have had ample time to over turn Roe. They have done nothing. It is time to consider new political opportunities. I’m glad I voted for Baldwin. Those of you who are staying with McCain, you are wasting your vote on someone who is basically mentally unbalanced!
I’m no Scripture scholar or theologian, and I don’t want to be overreacting, but COULD Obama be the Antichrist? The little I do know gives me pause…
If nothing else, remember Hitler and Chávez were originally elected into a position of power.
David L.,
Republicans, per say, can’t do anything to overturn Roe. Justices can. There is an almost 4/5 liberal leaning of the court. One more constructionist judge, and the reason would be brought back to the court.
Right now, there are only two pro-abortion justices who were appointed by pro-life Republicans: Souter and Kennedy.
Judge Souter was sold by his friend, Warren Rudman, to H. W. Bush as a judicial conservative. We found out the truth later. Kennedy has been a mixed bag, though he indisputably leans to the left on many issues.
There are four pro-life (Catholic, BTW) justices on the court, and all have been appointed by Republicans.
John McCain has said that he will appoint ‘strict constructionists’ to the court. Barack Obama’s view are in the title of this blog post.
This election will determine who decides which direction the court will go: toward death, or toward life.
Economic motives account for a small percentage of abortions.
I think what St. Paul wrote to Timothy is applicable to this day:
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4, NASB).
Even many in the Church, Christ’s holy bride, seek after men like Sen. Obama, who tickles their ears with rhetoric, but whose voting record reveals his truly anti-Christ character.
And so the Lord Jesus asked, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth” (Luke 18:8).
Rich Maffeo
http://www.richmaffeobooks.com
Neal, he doesn’t have to be ‘the’ to be ‘an’, and St. John warned us that there would be many of the latter.
No McCain is bad for a country because he supports our continued presence in Iraq, he won’t negotiate with Iran which is actually the most moderate of Islamic powers, and seeks to provoke the Russians over Georgia. He is no more pro-life than Obama. You are deluding yourself by supporting this moral trainwreck. If you are honestly pro-life you will do as I have already done, through Early Voting, and will support Chuck Baldwin.
This is offensive as well as misguided. I haven’t even said that the likes of Kmiec and company aren’t “honestly pro-life.” There is a difference between saying that someone else holds practical conclusions you consider mistaken or even indefensible and saying that they are not “honestly pro-life.”
In addition, in contrast to Kmiec’s indefensible views, many good pro-life bishops have strongly implied support for voting for McCain. Please do not impugn the good faith of pro-life Christians you disagree with.
There is no moral equivalence between the extrinsic moral issues you cite and the intrinsic evil of abortion. To suggest that taking positions you consider seriously wrong on issues like Iraq and Iran is equivalent to the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent babies a year, and that McCain is therefore “no more pro-life” than Obama, is indefensible, contrary to Catholic moral theology and contrary to the courageous ongoing teaching of America’s bishops.
FWIW, Baldwin appears to be a bit of a kook. For example, he apparently goes in for conspiracy theories about the coming One World Government.
My latest post lays the foundations for the moral implications of voting for McCain rather than a quixotic third-party candidate.
SDG,
I see your point, but I disagree with your Part 3 argument (first paragraph of Part 4). I don’t think either Obama or McCain is going to change anything about abortion to make the situation better. I see them as morally equivalent choices to vote for. I think both are permissible for Catholics to support. But in my judgment, neither are wise choices.
So I go for the third party.
Even if it were true that McCain wouldn’t make the situation better (which I think is not true), it is quite certain that Obama will make it worse. Consider FOCA. Consider the Mexico City policy and foreign aid for abortion. Consider abortion and Obama’s heath care plans. Consider untold legal cases in the future decided by Obama appointees. They are not morally equivalent choices.
Read this article and then tell me that Obama won’t be any different than McCain:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
“Even if it were true that McCain wouldn’t make the situation better (which I think is not true), it is quite certain that Obama will make it worse. Consider FOCA. Consider the Mexico City policy and foreign aid for abortion. Consider abortion and Obama’s heath care plans. Consider untold legal cases in the future decided by Obama appointees. They are not morally equivalent choices.”
If McCain would choose judges like Ginsberg (who wants Roe vs. Wade overturned so that a stronger case can be made for abortion rights), McCain will cause enough harm on his own.
I can understand why people vote for Obama, and I don’t consider them less moral, or worse Catholics for it. I also see why people vote for McCain. I just don’t necessarily see McCain as the lesser of two evils anymore.
This strikes me as nonsense. It is almost certainly unconstitutional, and would certainly have been found to be so by the Court. The pro-life movement — and the constitutional cause — could only have been hurt by such a dodgy power grab.
No, it’s not unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to define the original jurisdiction of the federal courts, and since the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction in matters such as abortion, if the federal courts are deprived of original jurisdiction over abortion as Congress has the authority to do, then no abortion case could ever make it to the Supreme Court (it’s all right there in Article III Section 2). And if the federal courts were open to finding that hypothetical instance of congressional limitation of their jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, Congress could limit their jurisdiction to prevent the case from ever being heard at the federal level.
However, I think you’re right that it would be harmful to the constitutional cause, and would likely provoke a constitutional crisis. Furthermore, I’m not sure, under stare decesis, if it would be wise for Congress to remove abortion decisions from the federal courts’ purview before Roe is overturned, as it would seem to practically make it impossible for Roe ever to be overturned. I don’t know how it would work to limiting the jurisdiction and then outlaw abortion, thus abolishing Roe. Maybe an expert in constitutional law (which nobody could ever accuse me of being) could weigh in. But there’s no question Congress has the authority to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts that it alone has the power to establish.
I just don’t necessarily see McCain as the lesser of two evils anymore.
He certainly is. Politics is a crapshoot, but still it’s a choice between someone we know will cause great harm and someone we can’t be sure about. Or we can stay home or (which is practically the same thing) vote third party, which amounts to standing aside and letting Obama take the reins of power. If you need a clothespin before you can go into the booth and vote for McPain-Ailin’, I’ve got extra ones besides the one I’ll be wearing.
The problem I have with the words “certain” and “obvious” is that those who disagree often either become “stupid” or “evil”. True and right don’t need to be obvious.
And I don’t see not voting for the lesser of two evils as supporting either. I see it as not supporting either.
I think that voting for McCain is more prudentially justifiable than voting for Obama. But I can’t bring myself to vote for either.
And I don’t see not voting for the lesser of two evils as supporting either. I see it as not supporting either.
No, it’s not supporting either: it’s just not doing anything effective against the greater evil.
Baldwin is not a kook. Baldwin defends American sovereignty something Bush II undermined and McCain will continue to do!
If you are honestly pro-life you will vote for Baldwin and not McCain who is mentally unbalanced, see the latest edition of the “American Conservative”, and will forget about pro-life issues were he to be elected President just as soon as he takes office. I cannot see how any thinking person can support John McCain!
If you are honestly pro-life you will vote for Baldwin and not McCain
Or you might vote for McCain.
who is mentally unbalanced
A little advice: Baldwin supporters describing Sen. McCain as mentally unbalanced is not the way to convince people that Baldwin is not a kook.
If McCain is mentally unbalanced, how has he managed to function as a senator for so long? You think someone would have noticed before now that he has serious psychological problems.
I cannot see how any thinking person can support John McCain!
Which proves nothing. I cannot see Russia from my backyard, but that doesn’t mean Russia doesn’t exist.
Now, I can tell you one reason I’m not voting for Baldwin: he’s running on the Libertarian ticket, and I would only be able to vote Libertarian if the only alternative were the election of Barack Obama or someone like him. Libertarianism is an erroneous political philosophy and harmful to society, and one should try not to do anything to support or encourage it if possible.
“If you are honestly pro-life”
Twice. Thanks a lot. At least I just offered my opinion. I didn’t say that you were doing wrong.
Those who advocate taking away the courts’ jurisdiction are right that it’s constitutional. But SDG is right that it wouldn’t work. The reason is simple. Congress can’t take away the jurisdiction of the STATE courts, which are all empowered to hear cases under the federal Constitution– but none of which, of course, can overturn a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. So all this plan would do would be to freeze Roe in place, leaving state courts the duty of striking down any state or federal laws that cut against it.
Jordanes,
John McCain’s explosive and irrational temper is a matter of public record and if you cared to investigate it you would know that. It is also a matter of public record that the Libertarian party candidate is Barr, not Baldwin. Baldwin is running on the Constitution party ticket. A little fact checking would go a long way.
I could have sworn I posted something on Balwin’s kookiness, but I don’t see it now.
Baldwin has flirted with 9/11 Truth conspiracy theories, saying, “I don’t know whether there was any kind of an inside apparatus involved in this or not … If there’s duplicity involved in some kind of conspiracy, then let’s find out who it is and prosecute whoever’s involved.”
Where the Catholic Church places the greatest emphasis on the life issues as the foundation of justice and human rights, Baldwin (perhaps influenced by apocalyptic theories?) sees the greatest threat as the global “New World Order” and emphasizes “national sovereignty” as the crucial battlefield. He also considers the “three greatest threats” to America as “feminism, multiculturalism, and globalism,” and regards “Corporate America” as “America’s greatest threat.” (How to reconcile all these “greatest threats? Presumably, to coopt some philosophical categories, Corporate America is the biggest threat in a material sense (i.e., the actual enemy); feminism, multiculturalism, and globalism are the biggest threat in a formal sense (the enemy ideology); and globalism or loss of national sovereigty is the biggest threat in a final sense (the end to which the enemy will reduce us).)
To wit:
John McCain’s explosive and irrational temper is a matter of public record and if you cared to investigate it you would know that.
I know about his explosive and irrational temper (is there an explosive and rational temper?). That doesn’t make him mentally unbalanced or a psychopath, and anyone who makes such claims just has to be smiled and nodded at. They have nothing serious to contribute to the discussion.
It is also a matter of public record that the Libertarian party candidate is Barr, not Baldwin. Baldwin is running on the Constitution party ticket. A little fact checking would go a long way.
Whoops. Thanks. I did know that a few days ago, but it’s hard to keep all these unimportant third-party non-entities straight, especially when they have similar names. Duh. The Constitution Party would make a nice replacement for the Republicans, if they can ever become established as a serious political entity. As of now, they’re good for little more than giving conservatives a symbolic but practically ineffective protest vote.
“No, it’s not supporting either: it’s just not doing anything effective against the greater evil.”
Third party voting indeed may do something very useful against the greater evil. If done by enough republicans, it may cause a loss to the greater evil severe enough that the lesser evil, now not substantially different in my mind, might not be such a lesser evil in the future.
Operant Conditioning.
If done by enough republicans, it may cause a loss to the greater evil severe enough that the lesser evil, now not substantially different in my mind, might not be such a lesser evil in the future
On the contrary, if too many Republicans vote for one of the third-party candidates this year, the greater evil’s victory is assured. It’s already likely as it is — with too many going third-party, it will be certain defeat for the cause of human life this election.
Another right wing nut job hath speaketh!
Organic Grog
Name-calling, the sign of incredible intellectual prowess!
I’m rustling up a full-time prayer vigil for the lives of the unborn and disabled in the USA: three hours a week, with as many around the clock as possible. I’m picking Friday nights from 9-midnight PST for now, but it could change.