It was a Super Weekend, but now I do not have enough time to review the candidates who are in tomorrow's Super Tuesday primary. It took me most of Super Saturday to recover from Super Friday Night. Then Super Sunday I lolled about all morning, went for a run, then it was game time before I knew it. Actually, that's a typical weekend for me.
Regardless, now I am without time to fully review even the remaining top 4 candidates. Instead, maybe I can parse a few important issues and compare the candidates that way.
I am not a one-issue voter. There is no particular topic that would prohibit me from voting for a person because of their position. I am more interested in the total leadership that would be provided. The best indicators I have for the kind of leadership I want for the country are indicators of the person's core beliefs about their fellow Men and Women, their Compassion. The twist, or difficulty, is demonstrating this Compassion within the rule of law, the Constitution. And, of course, with common sense.
Issues that would concern me then would be the poor, the sick, the security of people, equality of race and opportunity, and our role in the world with these same issues. An issue that directly confronts both Compassion and the Constitution is the issue of taking a life. If you thought I meant abortion, you are half right. You and I cannot know when life begins, but we both know for certain that the person on death row is alive, is a life. I, for one, feel no authority to take another person's life in that situation. I can find no compelling reason in revenge or retribution or prevention, not even in the most heinous situations. If I believe that people can change and that Yahweh is pursuing everyone, how can I be responsible for taking away Saddam Hussein's chance of redemption? Sadly, there is no viable candidate who will stand for life and oppose the death penalty. Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney all support the death penalty in at least some situations. Of them, Obama has done the most to at least reduce the death penalty while he was in the Illinois state senate. Obama worked hard to pass legislation in Illinois requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and other limited reform of the death penalty court procedures. Ron Paul opposes the death penalty. Huckabee, who is practically running on Jesus' back even supports the death penalty (not sure who he thinks Jesus would execute, but I digress).
A similar issue, of course, is abortion. As I said earlier, I believe we cannot know when life begins. However, if I value life, would I not rather err on the side of caution? Would I not protect a potential life instead of disregarding the chances that this life exists? Before I get too pious, though, I still have to answer "how far will I err on the side of protecting life?" If a fertilized egg "could" be life, will I oppose its destruction? Many contraceptives work by preventing an egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Is that abortion? What if the known life is in danger and ending the possible life will save the known life? Fortunately, I do not have to get that deep in reviewing the candidates' positions.
The legal definition of abortion is terminating a nonviable fetus (choosing the touchstone of viability rather than life). In the first 3 months of pregnancy, this can be done basically at will. During months 4 through 6, states are allowed to put restrictions on the termination but cannot prohibit it. After 6 months, the fetus is considered viable and is treated nearly like a person. Clinton is the strongest proponent of abortion rights, even criticizing the ban on partial-birth abortions that was supported by many in both parties. It seems apparent to me that she would support any abortion rights the Supreme Court would possibly grant. Obama talks pretty well about the issue, seeming to appreciate the value of life and the difficulty that "a fetus is not just an appendage, it's potential life" (his words). However, his voting record clearly casts a vote for appendage, not life.
McCain has a solid record of voting on the side of life in this area. He has allowed for exceptions related to a woman's health, rape and incest. Romney says he believes these things now, but it will be up to you to determine whether you believe him as he has not had opportunity to demonstrate his new beliefs. I do not understand the exception for rape and incest, from a logical point of view. Once you have made the call that it is a life, if there is no harm to another life at stake, I cannot see the evaluation of the circumstances of the birth. Huckabee and Ron Paul have voting records and documented positions that solidly err on the side of protecing the potential of life.
One quick add-on to the abortion issue is a candidate's view on abortion also illuminates their view of the Constitution. Almost always, a candidate that believes abortion should be protected believes the Constitution requires protection of abortion. I will spare the lengthy Constitutional discussion, but I have studied this extensively and I am in firm belief that no protection of abortion exists in the Constitution. Conversely, ending the growth of something not a life is not prohibited by the Constitution. Which brings you back to defining what is a life, but my point in this paragraph is the person's view of the Constitution. I am disappointed when lawyers like Clinton or Obama argue that the Constitution contains this right. I believe they are mistaken but I also believe they do not "need" abortion rights to exist in the Constitution to protect abortion rights.
Last bit of discussion from me on these 2 issues of life: Every one of these candidates except Ron Paul hold an inconsistent view on life. The abortion opponents believe it is okay to kill a known life. The ones that want to protect as much as possible the known guilty life, are willing to err in killing inoccent life. I find both contradictions logically inconsistent and cruel.
I could go into much more discussion on this frustrating inconsistencies, but I have clearly gone on too long already. If I was a one-issue voter, it appears Ron Paul would be my candidate. Alas, his Compassion has been severely marred by some terribly racist, homophobic and otherwise bigoted newsletters he published. I read several of these for myself, and he certainly lost any chance of my vote through them.
I guess I will not have time to discuss with you any other issues before my vote. At this writing, McCain leads my state polls with a 4 to 8 percent margin, depending on the poll. Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat. It would appear that my vote would matter more on the Democratic ballot. I will decide for certain tomorrow, stay tuned...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
4 comments:
Interesting comments. I get tired of one issue voters. "Don't care what X says about anything else as long as s/he is in agreement with me on this topic." That to me is an illogical position to take. If a person agrees with you on 95% of your beliefs and another person agrees with only 5% of your beliefs are you really willing to vote for that person because it just so happens that the 5% they agree with is "the issue." This position has been taken by the Missouri Right to Life and Missouri Baptist Convention with respect to Governor Blunt and GHW Bush (there is an article from the Pathway from about 2 years ago where the MBC basically said that GHW Bush lost Missouri in 1992 because MBC told its folks to stay home from the polls because there was a disagreement about abortion. I guess they were pretty excited by 8 years of a democratic president that was adverse to them on 95% of the issues. I digress.)
Additionally, this election cycle has a lot of interest to me because this is the first one since I have clarified and honed several of my own beliefs such that I can now know firmly where I stand.
Agreed. I think my political leanings now are far more in concert with what I have always claimed to believe. I just have a different perspective, I suppose.
Thanks for the comments, I'll try to update my blog soon. Illness has swept the household and kept me from discussing Super Tuesday.
Speaking of people who won't vote for someone they view as a pro choice candidate, I think we could look at the last 7 years as a study. George W. was a life candidate in this area (though not on the death penalty). Are abortions that much different now than 7 years ago? I would like to see numbers and other relevant information. Bush even had a Republican Congress for 6 years. The big accomplishment to their credit in this area is severely restricting partial-birth abortion. That is great, I'll say that. But the core issues behind valuing a life are not found in Federal or State legislatures. Plus we have the whole issue of "pro lifers" completely undercutting their life message by supporting the death penalty or not valuing those lives once born (health care, education, living wage, etc). That is the next step in my discussion, hopefully I'll get it down soon.
Hey, I just realized that you're blogging again. Keep it up, I enjoy reading. I have to say though that this years election is confusing to say the least.
Post a Comment