Okay the title is a bit cheeky but bare with me. Dan Phillips, who is generally right on, just told me I am sinning by not voting for Mitt Romney. That is a strong claim I will be posting the relevant portion of his article on why voting 3 party is a vote for Obama and as such the worst sin since Judas betrayed Jesus inline with original formatting. My rebut wont take nearly as long as his article:
I start with the most popular, and yet sadly most foolish and Biblically absurdargument: "lesser of two evils." It never ceases to astonish me that any Christians say this. Don't they have Bibles? They're supposed to. Don't their Bibles have Romans 3:23 and7:14-25 and James 3:2a in them? Do those versesmean anything anymore? Child, every vote for a mere son of Adam is a vote for the lesser of two evils. There are no exceptions! It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is at best a redeemed and finite sinner. He is limitedintellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis. You must never make this argument.
2.) You are correct, Barry will move in the opposite direction that you desire. "Mitch" will move back and forth but you are incorrect in thinking that the net gain will outweigh the net loss. "Mitch" is identical to Barry on all of two or three issues and is actually worse than him on a few. "Trevor" for the sake of argument will go nowhere he will get crushed, and in 4 years we have not progressed. So keeping the status qua where it is, call it 0 > -10 with "Barry" or -7 with "Mitch." Plus on the off chance that "Trevor" does score he is the only candidate with the ability and desire to put positive points on the board, if we continue with your football analogy. Furthermore this assumes that the third party players are morons that haven't done this before however if I take the records of the President, the former governor of Massachusetts and the former governor of New Mexico and compare their records I am voting for the governor from New Mexico 100% of the time if those are my only options, and I "must" vote.
Next, when I grew up a little, I wrapped my mind around the fact that politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. Barry absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Mitch will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Trevor? He claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Trevor does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Trevor must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A)every player on the field will be trying to take Trevor down; and (B)no player on the field will run defense for Trevor; and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at Trevor So in the end, he will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.
3.) The GOP was originally a third party. Furthermore if we look at what Perot did in 92 we have to say that voting third party is about making a difference and not just walking lockstep with the party we think favors life more. The Perot debacle caused the two "major" parties to think and interact with those issues regardless of their desire to or not, and look at what happened! Clinton, a Democrat, balanced the budget. The Next portion is just a restatement of 2 so I will not interact with it again.
In fact, all third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of non-comatose people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2) rational people. Look, here's your cup of coffee; now listen: You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and they can't win! Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. You know American civics at all? You know what that means? That means: Nobody will present their legislation.Nobody will craft their bills. Nobody will argue for them. Nobody will in either house of Congress will vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.
4.) Granting the truth of your opening statement in this point how would that make a third party candidate any different than a GOP or DNC candidate? Second it is false that the candidates differ on abortion, "Mitt" only flip flopped recently to score political points if we look at his record, the fruit by which you judge a politician, there is really no difference between him and Obama on this issue until 2007 when we was going to make a bid for the GOP nod. He is no more against abortion than he is against war. Which is not at all. Paul Ryan has his own problems but even were "Mitt" elected there is nothing in his power that can advance the cause of live without the consent of congress so a vote for president does far less for the cause of abortion than the vote for your congressman/woman and senator, who are often times from third parties. For Mitt to advance the cause of life he would have to, and I do thank you for supplying the terms, be a "dictator or tyrant."
All third-party candidates are immature, and/or they are fools, and/or they are liars. Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities.First: these poseurs know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporters' money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are, to speak mildly, not admirable qualities. The second (and only other) possibility is that they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support. Let's be specific. In this election, third-party fakes know that the two possible candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term, he will appoint viciously pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life. Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But, recklessly and egomaniacally, third-party peacocks mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate (Mitt Romney), and turn it into at best an empty gesture — which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion — which they (supposedly) abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion side. Brilliant. Idiots.
5.) I'm a grownup? Really? That's your argument? If you really believe there is a substantial difference between "Barry" and "Mitt" perhaps you need to go back and look at the records of each man. But please go on and tell me how you're going to make a difference with your statistically insignificant vote in a winner take all state that will 100% of the time go to the DNC? Who is being childish now? Continue to elect the same people and assume something is going to change. That's a brilliant plan. Seriously if you think Mitt is pro-life for any reason other than your vote or will actually do something to advance the cause of the unborn you must not have a very good memory. He made a similar "conversion" when running for office in Massachusetts. Also as I stated before Perot's 18% of the vote caused Democrats, the openly Keynesian, openly in love with deficit spending, Democratic President balanced the budget. Now imagine if a truly pro-life Austrian libertarian ran in a similar manner and got 18% of the vote what would happen to the GOP, especially if he was running against a soft (which is the best one can say for Mitt) pro-lifer. The party would grow in a real way or show it is no longer fit for support and be dissolved.
I'm a grownup. I want to make a difference, not a gesture (i.e. "sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert — which we like and want to encourage, right? — and he picked an even more ardently and winsomely pro-life running-mate. The other, Barack Obama, never met an unborn child he wouldn't just as soon see dead, and that even in the most gruesome way imaginable. Obama thinks spreading abortion is the most important thing he can do. As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I abominate Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as simple as that. I've read hundreds of words from third-partyers. While I share many of their goals, I really think it's all about them, and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience." Me? I'll feel better if I keep that monstrous, pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."
6.) If I recall correctly the most recent big SCOTUS case was decided in favor of the liberal agenda by a man appointed by Bush. It is unlikely "Mitt" will do any better, especially with a democratic senate. Finally a vote for someone is just that a vote for someone and against everyone else. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote against Barack Obama and a vote against Mitt Romney. As such it can indeed be a vote against abortion, or even a truly pro-life vote since both the Republican and Democratic Candidates want continue to wage pointless wars at home and abroad that do nothing but consume dollars and American lives while making the rest of the world hate us because we are killing their sons, daughters, friends, and family. Mitt Romeny is not pro-live, not by long shot.
As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. As has been richly documented, Obama is the most viciously merciless and doctrinaire President candidate in history, when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have squeaked by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 900 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama continue to load the SC and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And, to be blunt, if you do not vote for Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.
My response to his "I have no respect for the "just don't vote" position whatever" portion of the article will come at a later date.