Normally, if I respond to comments, I do so in the comments. But so many of you wrote that I decided to write a few thoughts here instead.
More than one of you protested that voting for Democrats is immoral. I have wrestled with the moral values stuff for years and have concluded that neither party is more or less moral than the other. It seems to me just as immoral to leave babies and children to suffer a living death or to actually die after they're born because their mothers have no social supports, live in poverty, use drugs, and beat them as it is to kill an unborn baby. It is just as immoral to commit adultery or purgery or use God's name in vain or covet your neighbor's possessions as it is to be a homosexual. And why is it that so many pro-lifers are pro-death when it comes to the death penalty? It is horrifying to read over and over of people who have been released from death row after more advanced science exonerates them.
Others point to the spending habits of Democrats. One line really jumped out at me in Heather's comment: "Obama would put us all in the poor-house to save third world countries." She did write that she is very unhappy with Republicans, so I do not know her position on the Iraq war. But most of the Republicans I know around here support that war, which has put us in the poor-house to save a third world country (something Obama voted against).
You can't have it both ways, justifying your own messianic campaign to save one country while vilifying others for their pet messianic projects! The Republicans, led by Bush, are the ones who led us into a war with Iraq that has cost us trillions of dollars that we don't have -- we and our children will be paying that back. I can't even comprehend that much money. How much good could we have done here at home by investing in schools, bridges, services for unwed mothers and the disabled? That doesn't even factor in the cost in human life -- in casualties, physical injuries, and mental anguish -- in our armed forces.
I read about the other smaller parties, and none of them are good fits for me. I do not believe that the Founding Fathers meant for us to take as literal unchanging truth the words of the Constitution. I believe they tried to write something with principles that could be applied to any age and situation, not with specific details and regimens and prescriptions to be used no matter what. So I cannot support the Constitution Party.
I am not Libertarian either. I believe that people are sinners, selfish, and greedy. By nature, they will always do the wrong thing. They will not take care of their poor, their sick, their disabled... on their own. Libertarian views assume goodness at the heart of man: that people will all automatically and without coercion fund their schools, parks, police, fire houses, charities, city services, armed forces, and more. I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how people really are. We need authority to make us to do the good that needs to be done. We need government.
That leaves me with the main two parties again. I agree with many of you -- neither is a slam-dunk. Not even close. That is why I am still undecided about the presidential election. McCain's choice of vice-president will tell me a lot.
I am also reading the words of both candidates for president (The Audacity of Hope by Barak Obama and Unfinished Business: Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Beyond--Defusing the Dangers That Threaten America's Security by John McCain and Harlan Ullman. These are uncensored by journalists or tv editors or talk show hosts (all of whom have to make extreme statements to keep their ratings) -- no sound bites, no exaggeration or overstatement, no pulling out of context. I want to see for myself -- not taking someone else's word for it -- what their ideas and thought processes really are. I encourage you to do the same. THEN make your choice.
