Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Matt Archbold: Vote Your Conscience [UPDATED]

Matthew Archbold writes at National Catholic Register:
... 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.

And we’re even being told to “be smart” in who we vote for in the primary because pro-lifers may vote for a candidate who can win a primary but not a general election. Are they kidding? Republicans have had that kind of majority before. How’d that work out?

We’re being told to ignore our conscience during the primaries and choose candidates who we’re told can in the general election. But why the heck shouldn’t I vote my conscience in a primary? If a majority of Republicans vote for a candidate they don’t really like what you’ll likely get is a candidate that nobody likes.

Their way gave us the disastrous Republican majority we had during the last decade. Their way gave us John McCain. I’m tired of their way.

I’m voting my conscience. Stop telling me to be a strategist. I’m just a voter who’s horrified at the number of unborn children being killed. I’m just a voter who worries about the collapsing American family...


[More]
(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

My sentiments exactly.

And we're seeing this a lot lately with people who generally tell us that we shouldn't vote for that pro-abort Democrat under any circumstances suddenly finding no qualms about supporting the pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic Republican Mike Castle over his pro-life opponent in the Delaware GOP primary election for U.S. Senate.

They keep telling us what a flawed candidate the pro-lifer is, but they seem to ignore just how deeply flawed Mike Castle is from a pro-life Catholic perspective.

They keep telling us that the pro-lifer can't win in blue Delaware, but that the pro-abort Mike Castle CAN win, as if just electing someone with an "R" next to his name is all this should be about for pro-life Catholic voters.

One blogger for whom I have a great deal of respect but with whom I couldn't possibly disagree more on this issue has actually gone so far as to argue that voting for Mike Castle - one of the most vocal and most active pro-abort and pro-ESCR Catholics in Congress - over his pro-life opponent will "limit the damage to the pro-life movement".

It all sounds so familiar (see, e.g., Toomey, Pat vs. Specter, Arlen, and the political wranglings of Santorum, Rick to get the latter elected).

Look, I can understand why someone identifying as a Republican might want to support Castle for purposes of achieving power. In order to gain power, you need an "R" next to the name. But I absolutely draw the line and call BS on any attempt to justify voting for one of the most egregious anti-life Catholics in Congress as being "more pro-life" than voting for his ... you know ... ACTUAL pro-life opponent. To try to justify such a vote as "limiting the damage to the pro-life movement" is a rendering of the words so as make them absolutely meaningless.

The chances of a Castle win being THE seat that puts the Senate in GOP hands is VERY speculative, at best. But the chances of Castle being a pro-abortion, left-wing thorn in the side of the Senate GOP (not to mention a scandal to the Catholic faithful as a high-profile, vocal pro-abort Catholic in the pro-life party) is 100%. Castle can do SERIOUS damage to the pro-life cause as the "bipartisan" go-to guy that Democrats will seek out for cover on issues like ESCR, abortion legislation, federal judges, etc.

There is absolutely NO pro-life argument in favor of Mike Castle. Because of his horrific record on the unborn, and because his identification as a Catholic makes his record doubly scandalous, I would NEVER vote for him under ANY circumstances, regardless of the shortcomings of his opponent.

In the end, I'm a socially conservative Catholic voter; I'm NOT a Republican. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing the U.S. Senate seat from Delaware stay Dem rather than having an outspokenly pro-abort, pro-ESCR Catholic sitting in the seat and undermining the pro-lifers within his own party and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Like Matthew Archbold, if I were a voter in the Delaware GOP primary, I'd be voting my conscience.


UPDATE
For those of you who see voting for Castle as part of an overall GOP "strategery" for retaking the Senate, Ed Morrissey puts that strategic gamesmanship into perspective:
... This seat matters strategically in one narrow set of circumstances, and one only: if the GOP picks up a net of exactly nine other seats. If the GOP nets eight or fewer Senate seats besides Delaware, then this election wouldn’t give them control of the Senate anyway. If the GOP picks up ten or more seats without Delaware, then this seat again doesn’t matter much either in terms of controlling the agenda. Netting enough seats to win the Senate is a long shot in any case, probably in the range of a 5-1 against, with or without Delaware...
(emphasis added)

Basically the same thing I said above regarding the speculative nature of the Delaware seat being THE seat that puts the Senate back in GOP hands, only Ed says it better than I did.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mike Castle and the "Deadly Dozen"

Most Un-Self-Aware Quote of the Day

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Labels: , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

At 9/14/2010 10:46 AM, Blogger James H said...

Thanks For the Link as ALways

As I said I think the reality of today is this is a vote for Coons(dem) or Castle (GOP) as to the GOP primary

If Castle wins he becomes Senator. If Castel Loses Coons becomes Senator. It is hard to deny that looking at the polling, this very flawed GOP alternative and oh yes this facts as Delaware.

The last time it voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 1988.

-The last time it voted for a Republican senator was 1994.

-The last time the GOP held the state house was 1972.

-The last time the GOP held the state senate was 1972.

-The last time a Republican won the governor's mansion was 1988. That Republican’s name is Mike Castle.

-Between 1988 and 2000, the Democrats held on average a party registration advantage that ranged between 5 and 9 points. In 2006, the Democratic advantage hit 11 points. In 2008 it hit 12 points. This year, it reached 17 points.

-In 2008, one out of four self-identified Delaware conservatives voted for Barack Obama.

So in reality the Pro Life problem of who to vote for and in efect keep in power is with us today. Today for all practical purposes is General Election Day

Now I know all this talk of power might seem vulgar but as the article I linked talks about that is what we are talking about. A transfer of power and here in my Catholic political view we are talking Mitigation of damage time.

Now you are quite correct that the GOP taking the Senate this cycle will require a bit of luck but it could happen. However the day after the general election the race for 2012 starts where the Obama machine wil be in high gear to gin up turnout. We would be very close to taking the Senate in 2012. That might be crucial

For pro-lifers having the GOP getting control of the comittees is crucial. We area Justice Scalia heart attack away of Liberals getting a hold of the High Court.

No matter what happens as to the PREZ race getting a hold of that Judiciary Committee is CRUCIAL. In fact it could decide a lot in the next 4 to 6 years.

This is why I find the argument that Castle will do more damage to the pro life movement weak. What will cause more damage is if we don;t have the party line vote to take over Judiciary in the Senate.

So that is how I look at this.

In effect today is the not GOP primary. Today is the General election and thus one must apply those Pro-Life Catholic voting principles as it were that.

 
At 9/14/2010 11:03 AM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

The old "do it for the judges" trick. Sorry, I'm not falling for that line ever again. At least not with someone as horrifically anti-life as Mike Castle (seriously, examine the man's record on ESCR - it is simply unjustifiable for a pro-life Catholic to claim to be voting FOR him out of "pro-life" concerns).

Besides, I'm entirely sick of the old "nuts and sluts" routine that the RINO establishment always resorts to in order to get us to vote for those they deem "most electable".

Your argument basically comes down to that it's "pro-life" to vote for the "most electable" Republican, no matter what.

Not buying it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger