The Lesser of Three Evils?

The question is, when there is no single presidential candidate that particularly excites you, for whom should you vote?  Besides the obvious anti-life consequences of electing a Hillary or an Obama, John McCain doesn’t get me too excited.  I think his strongest point would be his foreign policy, but here he is on life issues.  (Here’s Clinton and here’s Obama.  If you can’t protect the most vulnerable, I have my doubts about everything else.)  But say that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama was elected president.  What could either of them do that could not be undone by a future president?  There is only one issue I can think of that would have such far-reaching consequences that it would be worth worrying about extensively, and that is the issue of the Supreme Court.  Even ignoring all their other deficiencies (such as Obama’s 100+ days of experience and Clinton’s socialism), both Clinton and Obama would have pro-death litmus tests for Supreme Court justices, of which there will be at least one, and maybe two, nominated during the next presidential term.  Here is McCain on judicial nominees.

The question is, do you want Obama, Clinton, or McCain making that choice?  Everything else is reversible.  Supreme Court justices serve for life.  Pres. Bush’s lasting legacy will clearly be connected to Iraq, but domestically it is his Supreme Court nominations that will determine what sort of country we have.

Timotheos

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “The Lesser of Three Evils?

  1. You made my point for me. Bush will be remembered for the war, not the Court. Right now, 7 out of 9 of the Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Unless I’m mistaken, abortion is still legal in this country.
    People thought Barack was too blunt by saying folks cling to guns and religion – you are doing just that.
    Think about it. Reagan was elected by the Falwellian sales-pitch that if you vote democrat you’ll be killing babies. What’s changed since then? Abortion is nothing more than a political flag to hijack a certain group of voters.
    In reading just a bit of your blog, you seem to be too intelligent to fall for the scam.

  2. Our problems are much bigger and deeper than anything that can come out of the presidential election, for good or ill. Look at what is going on in your own denomination. Are you really speaking the truth plainly?

  3. If 7 of the current 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and yet abortion is still legal in this country, then it would follow that there should be no concern on the part of pro-choice entities regarding potential court nominations by a McCain presidency, should one come to pass.
    President Reagan was not elected by Fallwellian single-issue fearmongering. Reagan was elected in a backlash against Carter administration economic policies that had produced severely high interest rates, plus Carter administration foreign policy that was perceived as ineffective for the hot topic of the time, the Iranian hostage crisis, along with Reagan’s resonating message about hope and optimism regarding the power of the individual citizen (ironic that the “hope” message is in the other party now).
    What Say You? is correct that abortion is a political flag — in fact it is one that is used and abused by both sides of the issue. But it is incorrect to say that abortion is *nothing more than* a political flag. It is much more than that. It is also an act of moral choice and consequence, for the mother, for the unborn child, and for society. But political abuses and manipulations and litmus tests be damned — taking the life of defenseless, unborn humans is evil. And that is why thoughtful and intelligent Christians oppose it, not because they have fallen prey to political snake oil salesmen.

  4. I didn’t even know you were making a point, so I’m not sure how I made it for you. First, I’m not concerned in this post with Bush and the war. But Bush’s appointees are solid, as far as I can tell. Along with Scalia and Thomas, that’s four strict constructionists. Two new justices may not be able to turn the Court around, but I’m pretty sure that four can.

    While it may have seemed like I was making your point, I think you missed mine. This is not only about abortion, although having a constructionist majority would certainly make things closer if someone brings a challenge to Roe v. Wade. But the Supreme Court is going to decide other important things besides abortion during the tenures of any newly appointed justices.

    Also, I did not bring this up because I’m convinced John McCain will work to outlaw abortion (I have no such illusions). But I’m darn sure that Clinton and Obama would do nothing even to limit the abortion license.

    Whatever was “Falwellian” about Reagan’s “sales-pitch,” he wasn’t far off.

    Tim

  5. “Our problems are much bigger and deeper than anything that can come out of the presidential election, for good or ill. Look at what is going on in your own denomination. Are you really speaking the truth plainly?”

    Just because problems are bigger than can be solved in a single election doesn’t mean that nothing should be done. The question is not whether every problem can be solved by voting for the right person (that’s idolatry), but whether any problem can be solved or any wrong prevented.

    Tim

  6. Sorry, Rog. Ron Paul isn’t winning anything, and I’m not taking the chance that my vote for a non-candidate will help Hillary or Barack get the presidency.

    Tim

  7. The main flaw of your post is that you assume there are only two parties in the American political system. You should vote according to your conscience, not for whom the media says are the automatic front-runners. I am voting for Bob Barr who just won the Libertarian nomination. He is a former-Republican Congressman from Georgia. He is VERY pro-life and very attuned to the Constitution (which does not allow the federal government to wield all the power that McCain, Obama and Clinton would love for it to do).

    Check him out: bobbarr2008.com

    Karl

  8. Karl, last time you were the excited Ron Paul supporter.

    I don’t assume there are only two parties; I do assume that, for now at least, only someone from one of those two parties will win the presidential election.

    Tim

  9. Yes, I was (and am) a Ron Paul supporter… because he supports the Constitution and a limited federal government. After the Republican Convention, Ron Paul will no longer be running for President, so I am going to vote for Bob Barr, who is running for President, and shares many of the same views as Ron Paul.

    And the only reason the two parties continue to dominate is because people choose the “lesser of [two] evils”. There is, however, a much much much lesser evil in Bob Barr (at least when it comes to advocating a Consitutional role for the federal government, and protecting unborn Americans).

    If McCain wins the Presidency it will be the end of the Republican Party as a conservative, limited government party.

    Karl

  10. This argument is not going to go away about whether to vote for the lesser of two evils or to vote one’s conscience. It seems to me, Karl, that if you thought Ron Paul was the best guy for the job, you’d write him in rather than pick the next best guy simply because he’s explicitly running.

    When you get it worked out that a third party candidate will get more than just the votes of the people who are mad at both parties, I’ll consider it. Until then, you’re just taking away votes from the person who may be able to beat the Democrat. And as long as the Democrat goes party-line, 100% against life, I can’t, in good conscience, take a vote away from the person who might beat the Democrat.

    I’m just as likely as anyone to be labeled an “extremist” by the Left, but politics is not played on the margins. It has to be played by compromise, patience, and perhaps some unhappy endings. But that’s the way it is, and anyone unwilling to take small steps rather than blow it because he can’t have everything at once is going to lose big.

    Tim

  11. My issue with McCain is that he is not a conservative, he is not pro-life and he is not a genuine Republican. Just because he has an “R” next to his name on the ballot doesn’t automatically make him the choice that pro-life conservatives must choose.

    I would rather have Obama be elected President than have McCain be the representative for the Republican Party. A McCain win tells the Party that pro-life issues, conservative values, and limited government don’t matter anymore.

    How would a McCain presidency be all that different from a Democrat presidency?

    1) Judges?… Unlikely. McCain voted to confirm anti-life liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Supreme Court Justice in 1993. He even allied himself with Democrats during the hearings of Sam Alito to block Republican attempts to break any Democrat filibuster. This is all in addition to the numerous Clinton judges he helped put in office.

    2) Tax cuts?… Nope. He voted twice against Bush’s tax cuts.

    3) Liberty?… McCain-Feingold. Thanks to McCain those who support the 2nd Amendment and pro-life issues are denied their 1st Amendment right to identify their friends and enemies in TV ads before general elections.

    4) McCain has also moved into the media-accepted cult of global warming. He’s beginning to sound more and more like Gore whenever he gets cornered with the topic.

    5) Illegal Immigration? McCain-Kennedy. Fortunately those in Congress (and the nation) were smart enough to reject this legislative monstracity. But I’m sure it will be back with McCain in the White House. Plus, in his home state of Arizona he led the opposition to Prop 200 which would have required proof of citizenship to vote in elections! (it passed with 56% of the vote).

    I think McCain should continue to be honored for his service in Vietnam and Congress, but I do not want to see him in the White House. You’re right, politics does have to have some unhappy endings… and the unhappy ending with the greatest promise for the future of conservatism in America is for the Republican Party to lose its bid for the White House in 2008. It is always more important to vote for principle rather than Party… and McCain does not match up to the principles of a true conservative.

    Karl

  12. Not voting for any presidential nominee, because they are all unfit or because their political positions are evil, or voting for a person (or major cartoon character) who is unlikely to win is preferable to voting “for the lesser of two evils”.

    The voting process should allow a voter, optionally, to cast either a positive or negative vote against the political candidate of their choice for each elected office. This allows the voter to vote “against the greater of two evils”, rather than voting “for the lesser of two evils” There is a distinction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s