Reading Frank Pastore's article about how pro-lifers might vote helped me see a mistake I believe some pro-lifers are making, especially those who are considering a third party vote. Frank uses the analogy of the end of a football game with seconds left on the clock. Do you go for the field goal to tie or the touchdown to win? Do pro-lifers want to maintain the status quo or make more progress with the next president? But this is a false dilemma because there are not only two alternative. The missing possibility I think some pro-lifers are not admitted is losing.
A pro-life candidate gives us the touchdown option. But given the possible scenario of the two main parties having pro-choice nominees, the touchdown is off the table. Pro-lifers can only choose between tying with a field goal or losing the game. A third party candidate doesn't offer the chance for a touchdown as.
It would be much better if one of the main candidates is pro-life and offers the winning option. Go for the touchdown, of course. But if our alternatives are lose or draw, I'd prefer to go for the field goal and stay in the game. Stay on the field rather than stand on the sidelines and watch a pro-choicer nominate the next Supreme Court justice.
When your kicker is wearing the other team's colors you can expect him to miss. This leaves pro-lifers with choosing between losing and losing.
Looks like the touchdown is back on the table. It's time for the Hail Mary.
Posted by: Jake Austin | October 08, 2007 at 01:53 PM
>>"A third party candidate doesn't offer the chance for a touchdown"
Exactly. The third party candidate is like handing the ball to the other team.
Posted by: Kevin W | October 08, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Jake,
Most hail mary's get intercepted, especially if your QB doesn't have an arm belonging to Payton Manning. So who, exactly, has the arm to reasonably get us 6?
If Rudy wins, pro-lifers play defense and give up some yardage, but not all. If Hillary wins, she mows us over with a Dem Congress to boot.
I'd rather kick the field goal
Posted by: Stu | October 08, 2007 at 03:32 PM
Melinda,
I'm fairly new to this blog, but I have deeply appreciated many of your posts. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with you on this issue.
Frank's analogy is much too simplistic to be helpful in discussing this dilemma. What is the field goal: a victory by a pro-choice Republican, or a deepened understanding and acknowledgment of the consistency of pro-life conviction? Either side could use such an analogy. And how does this analogy factor in the concern of the marginalization of the pro-life segment of the Republican party?
Remember, the Dems used to have a lot of pro-life voters too. How did they lose their party?
It's ironic that you end with a call to not "stand on the sidelines and watch a pro-choicer nominate the next Supreme Court justice." But that is precisely the outcome that you are guaranteeing if we follow your counsel.
Looking at this election as a type of football game is part of the problem, imo. As I wrote in response to the previous article: We need to get past the myopia of merely looking at the immediate election and look to the next twenty. I'm willing to sacrifice a dubious victory in a battle to win an authentic victory in the war.
Posted by: Curt | October 08, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Maybe instead of franticly looking at this as a football game with seconds on the clock, we should consider this a long-term chess game. Not that I don't love football(!), but this is more a question of which pieces we're willing to sacrifice to eventually win the game. Obviously, we differ on which sacrifice is best. But the chess player that sacrifices too much for too little gain will not last long.
Actually, the football analogy could be a good one. But we need to change it to much earlier in the game. This election is simply not the whole game. Not by a long shot.
Let's get our teams straight. This is not Republicans vs. Democrats. It is (in this case) pro-life vs. pro-choice. Do we throw the ball to a receiver from the other side, hoping that he's sincere when he says that it really wouldn't be that bad if we win after all?
That's not the way I play football!
Posted by: Curt | October 08, 2007 at 04:10 PM
I guess this is really scaring the good folks at STR as this is the umteenth post on this topic in a few days.
Not that national security or the sanity of a candidate is important or anything but to continue the sports analogies perhaps keeping ones eye on the ball is more important . The "ball", of course, isn't this or that issue but the overall welfare of the United States.
The nation could probably survive Mitt and Thompson could possible bore even our enemies to death but to consider a nut-ball like Rudy on basis of some realpolitik calculus could go seriously south on you if he turns out to be worse than your present boy.
One thing we should all agree on is the importance of competence in appointments (find common ground, Alan). Recall that the crime reduction in NYC was largely the result of Bratton, a man Rudy fired because he got too much press attention. Or we have his mobbed-up pal, Bernard Kerek, who he touted for head of Homeland Security even though he screwed up his post in Iraq and seems to be an all around crook.
So go ahead and support a mean-spirited little man who chose to put his city's emergency command center in the middle of his city's number one terrorist target (we do want our presidents to have good judgement, don't we) and who dragged his feet in co-ordinating communications abilities between the police and the fire departments for over eight years, leading to the deaths of quite a few firemen.
Oh, and did I mention he wanted to suspend elections in New York after 911 so he could stay on as mayor? There was a time when a power grab like that would have been a red flag to conservatives but I show my age. Winning is everything isn't it?
Posted by: alan aronson | October 08, 2007 at 06:15 PM
Rather than oversimplifying complicated issues such as a national election and abortion into a football analogy, why don't we pick up our Pocket Constitutions and look at how our government is actually constructed? One of the largest problems in American politics is that most people tend to look at the election of the President like choosing a Messiah. It's as if electing the right man will save us all and electing the wrong man will ruin us all. The President, in the grand scheme of things, is only the executive. We have a Congress, composed of two houses, that is supposed to be making the laws and regulating the budget. Congressional elections go practically unnoticed. Rather than spending our energy fighting over one particular office, why don't we pay more attention (and prayer-closet time) to getting pro-life Congressmen elected? It doesn't matter who sits in the Oval Office if more than half of Congress is in the back pocket of Planned Parenthood and other similar groups.
Posted by: Eric S. Mueller | October 09, 2007 at 04:06 AM
One problem I see with prolifers who would be willing to support a pro-choice Republican candidate for President is that electing a pro-choice Republican virtually guarantees us 8 years of a pro-choice presidency.
If Giuliani wins the GOP nomination and is elected in 2008 - he'll most likely be the nominee in 2012 and I think we all know what the chances are of the democrats nominating a prolife candidate.
What's better a guaranteed 8 years of a pro-choice presidency (with the possibility that 4 of those years are decent for prolifers because Giuliani might veto some pro-choice legislation and nominate decent Supreme Court justices) or a guaranteed 4 years of a pro-choice presidency (with a pro-choice president who'll try to reverse prolife gains, nominate pro-choice justices, etc.) but a chance at getting a prolife president in 2012?
So I think the football scenario which would be more accurate (though still far from perfect) if Giuliani was nominated would be more like this:
It's 4th and goal from the 35 yard line and we're down by 4 points. Our chances of scoring a touchdown (electing a prolife third party candidate) are very slim. We have a the option of trying to use a field goal kicker (Giuliani) who isn't very good. If he actually makes the long field goal (vetoes pro-choice legislation and nominates decent individuals to the supreme court) - we'll have to use him again (for another four years) to make another field goal. Or we can punt (allow pro-choice Democratic to be president for 4 years) and hope to stop the opponent's offense and then score a touchdown on our next drive (2012).
Posted by: Jivin J | October 09, 2007 at 06:17 AM
"It's time for the Hail Mary."
Hold on, are you referencing Beckwith now?
The football analogy is appropriate given this is about real life ability between the two teams playing, and third party teams aren't even in the game. Different field, different city and if you aren't playing to win (like Alan Keyes) then it's a different sport.
I'll know a candidate is a moron if he agrees to run as the 3rd party candidate. That could be ALan Keys, ROn Paul, I know Gary Bauer has a brain in his head so he would never stab the unborn in the back to promote his own career.
Posted by: doug t | October 09, 2007 at 06:30 AM
Life and death issue is not a game...unless we would like to go back to the Roman Colosseum. Have we such short memories?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | October 09, 2007 at 09:24 AM
Hi Curt,
You wrote: "It's ironic that you end with a call to not 'stand on the sidelines and watch a pro-choicer nominate the next Supreme Court justice.' But that is precisely the outcome that you are guaranteeing if we follow your counsel."
That is not true. If you listen to Giuliani, he is committed to putting in judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution, and since there is no basis for abortion there, his nominees will be more "pro-life" than "pro-choice."
Don't forget, by the way, that the first Pres. Bush gave us Justice Souter, who has turned out to be one of the biggest abortion supporters on the bench.
Posted by: Paul A | October 09, 2007 at 01:07 PM
Hi Paul,
First, unless Giuliani has had a serious change of position, he remains pro-choice. So, to say that it is untrue that he would be a "pro-choicer nominat[ing] the next Supreme Court justice" is . . . . . .. untrue. :) Do you dispute that Giuliani is pro-choice?
Now, he has made statements that he would nominate someone who would strictly interpret the Constitution. But, as I have said in another place, if he doesn't stand firmly with us now on this fundamental issue, I don't trust him to weather the fallout when it starts to cost him politically. Why should he? If he doesn't stand with us now, why should he suffer for us later?
We can say that we'll hold him accountable, but if we've just acquiesced in his election, who will take us seriously?
Regarding, Souter, you're making a point that I made earlier. Seven of the current Supreme Court justices have come from Republican presidents. If even pro-life Presidents have blown it in this area, why should we put our trust in a self-professed pro-choice candidate? Why will he go to the mat for us, when it has been so difficult for even Bush to get pro-life justices through Congress?
Giuliani just does not inspire much confidence in many of us. Definitely not enough for us to concede our convictions.
Posted by: Curt | October 09, 2007 at 01:41 PM
"We can say that we'll hold him accountable, but if we've just acquiesced in his election, who will take us seriously?"
The same clowns who take you seriously for voting for a 3rd party tangent?
I don't really need to debate this with you guys anymore so I'm pulling out. You're already going to make Rudy win alone (if he's the nomination, we can all still get behind Romney right? Or did he fart in the 8th grade and Dobson is going to burn him at the stake too?) so we'll call your vote as wasted. Dobson and all of the Pro-Lifers-in-theory are going to fight hillary by not voting for the only opponent she cares about...the GOP nominee.
So take your ball and go home. Every one of you psuedo pro lifers are going to make us work twice as hard to get Rudy elected against Hillary. Thanks for making the unborn's walk just a little bit harder. But who do you need to apologize to when you're doing the lord's work?
Posted by: doug t | October 10, 2007 at 02:15 PM
In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues.
A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. The promise to appoint strict constuctionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate.
Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation.
I don't care which party it is, but we currently have one party with planks that support our positions. The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections.
If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.
Only God knows if Hilary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckaby. I would almost go so far as to say if Huckaby (just using him as an example) is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late.
I expect moral leadership from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that.
God help us.
Posted by: Harold Henderson | October 10, 2007 at 08:26 PM
... through the egg on face, Huckabee, not Huckaby. When he's president, I'm sure we'll all spell it right.
The point of my post is not to turn this into a Mike Huckabee campaign spot, but you may want to take a look at Janet Folger's post here - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58045.
Posted by: Harold Henderson | October 11, 2007 at 04:26 AM
Hi Curt-
"Do you dispute that Giuliani is pro-choice?"
No, I dispute that he would guide his choice of SC nominee by this one issue, since it would be hard to find a constructionist justice that would support abortion "rights," since there is no such thing in the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Paul A | October 11, 2007 at 11:23 AM
"If even pro-life Presidents have blown it in this area, why should we put our trust in a self-professed pro-choice candidate?"
Because history has shown that even if you get a Pres. that claims to be "pro-life", you won't get a conservative/constructionist justice. So you will have handed the country over to ultra-pro-choice Hillary, all in an effort to get something that won't give you good justices anyway.
Posted by: Paul A | October 11, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Harold wrote: "I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues."
If you vote third-party, you are supporting Hillary. Vote your conscience in the primary, try to get the candidate that best supports your views there. After that you have two options: vote for your party or against it (note I didn't say vote GOP or Dem). A vote for a conservative third party is a vote for the Dems.
Posted by: Paul A | October 11, 2007 at 11:31 AM
"A vote for a conservative third party is a vote for the Dems."
No it's not. It's a vote for a conservative third party. It seems to me that it's thinking like this that continually makes a third party option non-viable. Because everyone is concerned with electability instead of principle (in essence concerning yourself more with utility than with principle), it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that only the two major parties ever get into office. I'm not saying this is the necessarily the case here, but the Bible is filled with plenty of examples of God leading people into losing situations only to save the day himself. Could this be a similar case here? But that's enough on the psychology of politics.
My main point is that won't the judge of the universe do right with this election regardless? We can't wreck his plans and there's nothing we can do to accomplish them outside of his providence. Our mandate is to study what God has to say, and then to vote according to our conscience he's given us. No matter what your vote, third-party or Democrat or Republican, we shouldn't second-guess that. Everything that will be will be.
Posted by: N | October 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Is it not a greater good to ensure that the lesser of two evils occurs rather than to allow the greater evil?
I.e., is it not better concerning the unborn for pro-lifers to ensure Giuliani gets the job rather than to allow Clinton in? We're talking about practical measures to help protect life, not the ideal case scenario.
Posted by: Sage S | October 11, 2007 at 02:32 PM
N wrote: "My main point is that won't the judge of the universe do right with this election regardless? We can't wreck his plans and there's nothing we can do to accomplish them outside of his providence."
Yes, all will happen according to God's divine plan, but that doesn't mean our actions aren't necessary. I could follow your same argument and say we should stay home, or vote Democrat, or start my own abortion clinic. We are still obligated to do what is best for our country even though God's sovereignity covers it all.
Again, if you believe it is best for our country to vote third party, then you have a moral obligation to do so. Don't confuse the issue by shoehorning in the issue of sovereignity. I just don't see how any reasonable person can argue that a third party is a viable alternative, given history.
Posted by: Paul A | October 12, 2007 at 11:59 AM
N wrote:
"Because everyone is concerned with electability instead of principle"
It's not either/or it's and/also. Electability is a principle. You can't vote principle without also considering electability.
"the Bible is filled with plenty of examples of God leading people into losing situations only to save the day himself. Could this be a similar case here?"
Is not our God sovereign? Why can't he lead us into the losing situation of electing a pro choice Rudy only to transform his heart into a rampant pro lifer? Your God's bigness stops at the boarder of your political preferences.
Posted by: doug t | October 12, 2007 at 04:42 PM
"Is not our God sovereign? Why can't he lead us into the losing situation of electing a pro choice Rudy only to transform his heart into a rampant pro lifer? Your God's bigness stops at the boarder of your political preferences."
I have some land for sale in Florida.
Posted by: alan aronson | October 12, 2007 at 05:37 PM
"I have some land for sale in Florida."
The land is called "third party candidate" and Dobson just bought it.
Posted by: doug t | October 15, 2007 at 07:08 AM