Should pro-lifers ignore social issues in this upcoming election?
Some GOP officials like Governors Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour are urging pro-lifers and traditional marriage advocates to take a seat on the bench and hush their mouths so the Republican Party can focus on economic issues.
A smart political play? Maybe. But here’s the thing. I’m not smart, OK? I’m no great political strategist. I’m not James Carville or Karl Rove. I’m just a voter and I’m done trying to be smart. I mean it. I’m done. I’m done playing the angles and reading the polls. I’m voting my conscience. Every time. And it drives me crazy to hear people telling me to vote with my head and not my heart. It drives me crazy to be told to “be smart.” Smart gave Republicans Arlen Specter. Smart gave Republicans Olympia Snowe.
Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>
September 14, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Gov. Haley Barbour goes well too far in making the point that the best issue Republicans have going into the November elections is the state of the economy and the severe missteps of this administration and Congress in growing the deficit and the national debt exponentially, setting us up for failure, on a substantially more unsustainable path than the one we were already on before Democrats took control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government. He forgets, among others, the issue of health care, in what was attempted and what actually passed, which is both an economic and cultural issue, touching on tax and spend as well as its lack of subsidiarity and constitutionality. And alongside that is the issue of taxpayer funded abortion – which the public opposes in majorities of over 60% of the electorate; far beyond the level of support Republicans enjoy.
Gov. Barbour also seems to forget how time and again, even when Republicans held a majority in both houses of Congress, in the Senate especially, the conservative agenda was repeatedly thwarted by members of his own party, to the left of center.
From my perspective, what Gov. Barbour needs to be about and perhaps should have been more about when he chaired the RNC, is making sure the people have qualified, quality candidates who are both fiscally and socially conservative, consistent with what the Republican party is supposed to stand for and when we don't have such candidates running in a given election, the party should be apologetic and seek corrective action instead of urging the people to hold their collective noses and vote for them anyway.
I think a lot of what the Tea party movement is all about is "lead, follow, or get out of the way" and where active citizens are not finding conservative leadership, and where the establishment won't follow or get out of the way, more often, we're seeing them kindly removed from elective office – which is a very good thing.
Principles are setting candidates apart and people want that. One of the biggest complaints about the Washington power structure is that "they're all the same – there's no difference" and that's very true about some politicians, but not all.
I'm a systems engineer – a computer guy – and there's a concept I learned back in 7th grade when I first started basic programming that applies here. The principle states that a computer, operating normally, will process inputs the same way every time with a perfect outcome based on its programming. In other words, it will do exactly what you tell it to do… though you might not like the results. The concept is called GIGO, which stands for garbage in, garbage out: bad programming yields bad results.
The last thing we need is to put more garbage in government or in the Republican party. In the primaries and in the general election, vote your conscience!
Pax et bonum
September 14, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I'm with you, Mr. Archbold.
September 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I'm sorely disappointed in Mitch Daniels.
September 14, 2010 at 2:38 pm
In MD, I voted in my first primary today for an underdog named Brian Murphy. He's pro-life. Even if it is just a primary, it has become important because the Republicans are starting to sell out the unborn by supporting abortion. The meme is focus on the economy and have a "truce" on abortion issues. Truce and abortion nuetrality are ways to say they won't fight abortion laws. I suspect Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US, bought these poor souls to be able to continue their business. With Obamacare in place, there's a lot of money to be made or lost specially with the school girls and tax funded abortions. I've done my part and my wife is voting tonight. The polls are open until 8.
Smart. That's a good one.
September 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
It bothers me that we're told to vote based on how good a politician is at getting other people's votes. Why should I support a candidate just because they're good at managing polls? If I don't like them, I shouldn't vote for them. If they can't get enough people to support them without simply pointing to how good they are at getting people to support them, they're probably not that smart after all.
September 14, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Great point.
September 14, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Wasn't it the serpent who pioneered this approach in the Garden?
September 14, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Love it, Anonymous 10:49.
September 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm
This all sounds very noble and good, and I agree. However, I can't see how you can promote the concept of doing the right thing by voting one's conscience, and continue to only vote for one of the two major parties in our corrupt two-party system, or the lesser of two evils. If we want to talk about voting based on our conscience rather than voting "smart", then we have to admit that in many, if not most cases (at least with presidential elections), the best, most honorable candidate is from neither major party and is in fact third-party (such as with '08 with McCain who you mentioned and who was promoted here in '08 as the best choice). We can't have it both ways by talking about voting our conscience but then vote for the lesser of two evils. If we want to avoid being "smart" "strategists" (as you say), then we won't simply pick the lesser of two evils because we think the best, third-party guy can't win.