Conservative Evangelical tempted by Obama

It is staggering that anyone who calls himself pro-life could even remotely consider voting for Obama.

quote: "It is staggering that anyone who calls himself pro-life could even remotely consider voting for Obama."

What if the Republicans run Guiliani? In that case, there might be a pro-life case for voting for Obama. Namely, that the GOP needs to be punished for running a pro-abortion candidate.
I'd argue that it is better to lose to a Democrat who is at least a decent guy like Obama (Bill and Hillary are sleazy) than to have a pro-abortion Republican party leader and president. Of course, if Guiliani is the candidate, it might be better to sit out the election or vote third party than vote Obama too.

rr

Doug explains my personal feelings quite well. Let me break it down:

Obama vs. Romney: holding my nose for Romney
Obama vs. McCain: McCain
Obama vs. Giuliani: Obama
Obama vs. Huckabee: Huckabee
Clinton vs. anyone but Giuliani: anyone
Clinton vs. Giuliani: third-party, probably Libertarian

Of course, if Ron Paul's name is anywhere on the ballot, I'd vote for him.

"True, since the GOP has been so staggeringly successful at getting abortion banned."

rr, the last 2 appointees, Roberts and Alito, and the balance is shifted.

RC

Giuliani has at least agreed to only appoint strict constructionist judges. In theory, at worst abortion would go back to the states, whcih is probably where it should have been since Harry Blackmun wrote Roe in 1973.

Obama would undoubtedly appoint judges who would continue to fashion emanations and penumbras of privacy out of thin air in order to allow and expand the right to abortion.

Simply if abortion is the big issue on which you decide your vote, Obama is objectively far more likely to expand and enshrine the "right to choose" than Giuliani. And as I've written here over and over, the idea that ANYONE is going to ban abortion upon election is not dealing with reality.

"To put it as nicely as I can, I consider people who believe that entire segments of the human population are worthy of extermination, and who proudly champion their records of real support for this extermination as a reason to vote for them above others, to be unfit to lead our country."

So I assume your faith prevented you from voting for Bush, who was responsible--as a public official--for more executions of prisoners than any person in American history. He has also started and overseen an unjust war that has resulted in the deaths of at least 50,000 Iraqis and at least 3,000 Americans.

If you believe in life as strongly as you say and it guides your voting, there is absolutely no way you could have voted for him.

Because if you are a pro-life voter who will never vote for someone who supports abortion, than it would be incomprehensible to support a candidate who oversaw the execution of prisoners and led an unjust war. Because as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, ignoring the church's teaching on life--which includes unjust war and capital punishment--as a leader and who allows the taking of life through the apparatus of government would be more morally incomprehensible.

Wow, great post! I agree with so much of the post it actually scares me. While I doubt I would actually pull the lever for Obama, I a like him. Every time I hear him speak, I am ready to go out and campaign for him. I used to like Romney until Hugh Hewitt has gone off the reservation. I have listened to Hugh ever since he did the local morning show on KRLA. I listened to his 2004 & 2006 election results show. He has always been a little too optimistic on his analysis. But I wanted to listen to someone who was too positive than negative for my party (2004 went well, 2006, not so much). But Hugh's never ending shilling for Romney has made me literally sick. I quit listening to his radio program and I have to be careful reading anything at Townhall.com. You can tell whoever is doing well versus Romney because Hugh will post every possible attack on that candidate, whether true or not. I have since refused to vote for Romney, mainly due to Hugh. Nice to see I am not the only person disgusted at Hugh. He should be removed from the air until the primaries are over.

I thank you for the post, as it validates the issues I have had with the GOP field this year. I guess I support either Thompson or McCain. Other than that, I'm all ears.

Well, the crack-up of the 'pro-life' side that started in August 2005 is apparently slowly working its way to the bedrock.

I could no more vote for someone who believes that the unborn human has no rights at all and is the completely disposable property of her mother

In that logic, your position in turn imples that the woman is, then, property of the fetus. She can do nothing, yet the fetus is permitted to treat her as disposable, to kill her under some circumstances (e.g. ectopic pregnancy).

I believe that human life is sacred from conception until natural death; my Church teaches this, and binds me to its teachings; my immortal soul is worth more than any election, as is the soul of every human being.

I think you've absolutized the teaching. The result as stated here sounds like an idolatry.

I've mentioned similar concerns to a friend before as well. While I don't agree with Obama's policy directions (what I know of them) I at least get the sense that he might be honest (though it is more a gut feeling than evidence at this moment) and if a democrat were to be elected as pres. I would rather have him than Hilary because at least I think there is a better chance of getting the truth from him, I hope.

But I doubt I could pull the level for him. I don't think I could pull the level for Rudy either. If it is between Rudy and another, I'm at a loss what to do, probably either not vote or go with a third candidate out of principle. I'm with Erin on the abortion question. That plays a big part in my decision.

Huck is at the top of my list currently. If it were Romney or McCain, I would have problems with both, but would review and give them more opportunity to impress me. Romney comes across as more of the same and McCain's support of certain things, like the campaign finance reform which did more to limit the constitution than it did inappropriate campaign money makes me worry how devoted he is to upholding that constitution.

And, unlike Rod, I'm all for the Fair Tax. It wouldn't be a miracle pill, and it would be difficult to get passed and through, but I think it would revolutionize taxes, free up capital for investment, reduce what we are paying overall in product and taxes combined, and get more money for the government because fewer would be able to skirt the system. Plus, its a proven system in states like Texas whose budget is fed by that (no income tax) and does pretty well most years. But, I know its a long shot to get enacted. Still, that's a positive check mark for Huck from me.

So, this is an odd year, and I could find myself not voting Reb. for pres. for the first time because of it. (I'm 47) We'll see.

Jillian, why would stating that the unborn child is not the property of the mother to be killed at the mother's word mean that the mother is therefore the property of the child? When slaves ceased to be the property of their masters, did the masters then become the property of the slaves?

The lives of both mother and child are sacred and worthy of protection. Seeing pregnancy as some kind of Marxist power struggle between mother and child may be your world view but it certainly isn't mine, nor is it the view of most mothers I know.

As far as "absolutizing the teaching," what my Church teaches is that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and that it is always gravely sinful directly and intentionally to take the life of an innocent human being. Acts which either indirectly or unintentionally take the life of an innocent do not violate this principle, which is why legitimate self-defense, for instance, is permitted even if it must involve lethal force. But abortion by definition is the direct and intentional killing of an unborn human life, and therefore always gravely morally wrong.

Now, just to be clear, in the event that only two candidates are running for public office, both of whom are in favor of the legal killing of unborn humans and both of whom have done what they could in prior offices to make sure that public money and public support for the legal killing of unborn humans increases, a Catholic may, still,
in good conscience, vote for the one he believes will do less harm in this area. My personal standards don't allow me to support a pro-abortion candidate in this way because I find what they stand for and work for so utterly morally reprehensible that I wish no association whatsoever with their successes, even if voting for a third-party candidate as a protest vote is the only other option; however, I stress that these are my personal standards, not the latitude permitted by the Church to those facing this unfortunately all-too-common dilemma.

Marian,

I think my wife will be greatly amused to learn that I am a sexist, considering that we've been members of an egalitarian group, Christians for Biblical Equality, for the whole of our marriage.

Just today I was speaking with a friend -- a woman who plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and in the general -- who agrees that Hillary's voice is grating. I'm not proud of having problems with Hillary's voice, but I was being honest that it's part of my discomfort with her -- along with the heavy baggage of her husband's two terms in office, which I also mentioned.

I would not have the same struggle if, say, Susan Collins, Diane Feinstein, Mary Landrieu or Blanche Lincoln were running for president.

When I first heard Obama I was impressed -- by his voice, his rhetoric, his style, the enthusiasm he creates.
Living in Iowa, I have heard him gazillion of times by now.
I am no longer impressed.
His rhetoric is empty. It is overwhelmingly "change." I find Obama boring.
Remember W talked about doing things bipartisanly in Washington as he had been doing in Texas? Realities in Washington are not one man's making or unmaking.
Obama is liberal across the line, socially and fiscally. All politicians are bipartisan and a uniter as long as they have the majority, or the minority caves in.
I am a conservative, but certainly not married to the GOP.
I am not thrilled about any of the Republican candidates, because I don't agree with any of them on all the points I believe are very important for the country.
Nevertheless, with Obama I disagree on practically all those points.
If the choice would be between Hillary and Obama, I would prefer Obama. I am happy, though, that the choice will be between somebody I disagree with on practically all major points and one with whom I dis disagree on some points. A choice between nothing and something.
I wish I had better options, but as practically always, it will be a matter of holding my nose.

"Single-issue, litmus test voting is anathema to me."

Would you have said this were you an abolitionist in the 1850's?

"Daniel, since you are clearly ignorant about Catholic Church teaching on both the death penalty and unjust war, I'll give you time to research it, which will help you understand what I do believe."

I am not ignorant about Catholic Church teaching. In fact, I was just reading the US Bishop's recent voting guidance which states we are not expected to vote for a candidate just because of their stands on extrinsic evils--like abortion or racism--when there are other concerns about the politician's other positions that conflict with Catholic teaching.

“Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”

LaBlanc realizes you can't go into the voting booth and just pull the lever of the most pro-life candidate. That approach has gotten many conservatives into the problems they have now: supporting pro-life candidates who are horrible on every other issue. Warmongering pro-life candidates who harm the poor and pander to racists, who affirm torture and unjust exeuctions carried out by the government should not get the votes of people of faith just because they say they are pro-life.

His e-mail doesn't make any sense to me.
He is basically just aying he likes Obama's personality and charisma.
That's emotion triumphing over reason. But I guess that's normal for evangelicals. (Duck.)

Andrew, for the most part I agree with you. But I don't see how this allows us to vote for, either directly or by default, a rabidly anti-life candidate.

One thing I haven't seen much discussion of: What kind of nominees to the Supreme Court would a President McCain make?

I'm a McCain supporter because I believe he'd be the most effective war-time leader. (I'm not sure what LeBlanc sees in McCain, if he rejects the current war.) But although McCain has an admirable pro-life voting record, I have this idea in the back of my mind (haven't confirmed this) that he's good buddies with Warren Rudmann, the pro-choice Republican who helped get David Souter on the bench. I don't want a repeat of that.

Guiliani has at least *said* he'd nominate strict constructionists. What would McCain do? What should I, as a pro-lifer, hope for? I don't want McCain to make promises designed to comfort and reassure me. I simply want to know his judicial philosophy, so I can either cement my support for his candidacy, or take a step back and try to keep myself open to other options.

Andrew, I'm aware the GOP has used us in many ways, but your words, "Widespread legal abortion is never going away in the United States. Not ever" are words of defeat and despair, and, it seems to me, inaccurate. Some thoughts:

(1) What if everyone folded in such a manner in the face of grave evil? What if the American and British abolitionists had maintained such an attitude? What if Ghandi had up and said, "Screw it! I'm tired! We just have to deal with colonialism." What if the leaders of the Civil Rights movement gave up and said, "Well, I guess it'll just be segregation forever." We're tired. We're worn. But his issue calls for heroism and endurance on our part.

(2) Now that I'm a little older -- not much, just my 30s -- I realize more and more that cultural change happens very fast. It's less than 20 years ago the Berlin Wall fell. About 80 years ago alcohol(!) was illegal in this country. About the same time smoking was becoming a sign of women's liberation, but no tobacco is public health enemy no. 1 (and rightly so in my book). Homosexuality was once considered unnatural, sinful, injurious to health, but after just a couple decades anyone who espouses such views is dismissed as a nutjob. All that is to say is that cultural changes do not proceed along trajectories: there are ebbs and flows, fits and starts.

(3) Young people are much more open to the anti-abortion message than the prior generation. I suspect ultrasound technology has a lot to do with that, as well as the shrill, uncompromising, goose-stepping attitudes of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement. Consider also the success of such movies as Juno, Bella, Knocked Up, etc., whose tones are subtly pro-life, whose tenor rejects the f**king-without-consequences-abortion-as-birth-control mentality.

(4) All it takes is one Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs Wade. That obviously won't end abortion, but we are theoretically rather close.

There. Is. Absolutely. No. Danger. To. America. Posed. By. Theocracy.

People who use the word "theocrats" to describe religious conservative Republicans are as silly as right-wing hysterics who call liberal Democrats "socialists." No actual Republican candidate proposes running the government by the decree of church authorities.

No danger posed by theocracy? Says who? Go live in Iran if you hunger for theocracy. And learn punctuation.

If you're having trouble with reason, look at the people who are supporting Barack. MA governor Deval Patrick is such a close supporter that he comes to defend Barack in the 'Spin Room' after debates. John Kerry!!! just threw his support to Barack.

He speaks powerfully to Hope. But hope for what??? Racial equality is an admirable goal. But I think that's NOT his only goal and his ideas about raising taxes and expanding the social welfare state are being glossed over.

Scrape off the gloss and see the policy. He has the air of an MLK/RFK. But without the true religion behind it. Just the hyped emotional shell.

The bankrupt policies of the GOP, the lies getting us into a needless War, the sinful judgments and finger pointing of the christianists, the general incompetence & cronyism, the Constitutional lapses on torture and habeas corpus and domestic spying (oh my!), the refusal to face any accountability, worldwide condemnation, the anti-science ignorance, the soft bigotry of bigots and homophobes - all this isn't enough for you to stop supporting Republicans, BUT, you like the way Obama speaks and hate Hillary's school-marmishishness...and you don't even see how silly you sound - that is TRULY the modern GOP. Frankly, the Progressives don't need humans that ignorant on their side. We like the stupids just where they are (firmly inside the leaking GOP tent) so they can continue their self-inflicted wounding of the Conservative movement. Please continue supporting everything Bush & the GOP wants you to, don't stop now, it's working out so very well.

In re "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" (both weasel-words), let's cut to the chase:

The Pro-Lifers

Of fine-sounding talk they’ve no dearth.
I would probably find greater worth
In their clamor v. Roe
If they started to show
Some reverence for life after birth.

jrosen -- bad limerick, worse logic.

Russ Carter, why do libs of your ilk always reduce everything to "party"? Can't you hear all the complaints from conservatives about the GOP? Sheesh.

Also, last time I checked, the USBC voting guidance isn't 'official Catholic teaching.' The US Bishops are widely known for their propensity to thumb their noses at the Vatican, so if I were a Catholic I'd take their statements with a grain of salt. Even so, what they're saying in no way gives permission to Catholics to vote for candidates who support extrinsic evils.

If you read the entire statement by the U.S. Bishops, it's quite good. Fr. Neuhaus, for example, has effusively praised it.

Daniel's excerpt creates the misleading impression that the bishops endorse casually voting for pro-abortion politicians when, in fact, they do not, and their teaching cannot be reduced to a soundbite. There is a distinction between intrinsic moral evils (such as support for abortion) and issues of moral importance that require prudential judgment (such as how best to provide health care, combat racism, create conditions for full employment, conduct foreign policy, etc.). A Catholic has an obligation -- on which his or her eternal salvation depends -- to properly form his or her conscience in making voting decisions.

By the way, even though the preponderance of Catholic Just War thinkers hold that the invasion of Iraq was unjust, the U.S. Bishops recently acknowledged (as the Vatican has long indicated) that consideration of what the U.S. should do in Iraq now is a different moral question.

"Our Catholic teaching on war and peace offers hard questions, not easy answers. Our nation must now focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention."

One may believe (as I do) that we had no business going into Iraq without necessarily believing that we should immediately withdraw.

Simon, you are correct re: the USBC statement. I meant something like what you said, but you said it far better.

"Decades of work, to maybe stop 1000-5000 deaths a year if it all works out perfectly."

If the abolitionists in the 1850s thought this way, we'd still have slavery. It took Wilberforce and his crew 80 YEARS to get rid of slavery in England.

"Daniel's excerpt creates the misleading impression that the bishops endorse casually voting for pro-abortion politicians when, in fact, they do not, and their teaching cannot be reduced to a soundbite."

Oh, I'd agree with that. But I would add that the Bishops also provided an opportunity to vote for candidates who may be pro-choice--as long as the voter is pro-life--once all the other social teaching factors are considered. Thus, voting for someone so offensive to the church as Bush just because he's pro-life is not necessarily a position consistent with the church's teaching.

Rod (and CCers in general):

You are incredibly, and disturbingly, tolerant of mental health jokes on this blog (cf. Rob G., 12:37 p.m. today and mik on "Is Huckabee Conservative?", 3:38 a.m., 1/5). The sick joke (on all levels) from nearly a week ago still has not been excised from the comboxes, despite what I understand to be a DIRECT REQUEST from Beliefnet's central staff.

I mean, do we have a Scientologist invasion here or something? (We all know Mitt Romney's favorite book is "Battlefield Earth," but I didn't think he had too many fans on CC ...)

Work up 1/1,000th of the concern for those alive with mental illness as those in the womb at risk of being aborted (or deep-fried Communion hosts), and I might not be tempted to believe jrosen's limerick about pro-lifers (which itself is based on Barney Frank's acid observation, "Conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth").

Larry, I apologize if what I said struck you as insensitive. My mother and grandmother both died from complications of Alzheimer's, and a very close friend of mine is severely bipolar, so I've seen it close up and first hand.

Having said that, however, are we at the point where if someone says something insane we can't call it such? Or is the reference to the person you object to, rather than what he/she said? Frankly, if someone says something crazy, I think we should be able to call it so. But I could be wrong as far as the blog rules go. If Rod wants to strike what I said above, I'll understand, and won't repeat the offense.

Rob, I'm obviously not Rod, but in the general sense of Beliefnet standards it's not the point you made, it's how you made it.

Doug illustrates a general trend in online discussions (I'm thinkin' I should call it the Evans corollary to Manning's Law, grin): people who post well composed and balanced slices of their inner dialogues invariably find themselves defending that portion of their writing that people see by attempting in vain to quote that portion of their writing that people ignore.

Word of the millenium, good people: gestalt. See the total picture. Context is all. In the meantime, I keep hearing the voice of another Rod, Serling, giving a voice-over commentary somewhere in the background... "... and they wonder why some people just prefer to remain anonymous..."

Thank you, Rod.

But for the record, the insults in question went far further than the generic uses of "crazy" and "insane." (I'm tolerant of those -- as I'm the first to admit, politics ain't beanbag.)

Instead, they cited psychiatric medications (in one case, by brand name) to stigmatize people.

That's beyond the pale. And we both know it.

Rob G.
If the abolitionists in the 1850s thought this way, we'd still have slavery. It took Wilberforce and his crew 80 YEARS to get rid of slavery in England.

80 years? Wha? Wilberforce got involved with abolitionists in 1787. Slavery was abolished in the British empire in 1833. That's 46 years in my book.

But slavery wasn't abolished because people in the legislature worked for it to be. It was abolished because of changing social mores, as evidenced that almost every Western country got rid of it around that time. (Except the US, where it had come to occupy a unique position. Without changing social mores in the south, it took another 30 years and a civil war to dislodge.)

But I'm sick and tired of having to shoot down stupid slavery analogies. Starting around 1750 or so, Western civilization tended away from slavery. After a certain point in time, the only people who supported slavery were those that benefited from it, a very small fraction of the population. (Although in the southern US, they were the landowners and hence had considerable power.)

However, starting in 1970 or so, Western civilization tended towards abortion. At this point in time, the people who supported outlawing abortion are a very small fraction of the population.

Pretending they are the same thing and there's some sort of groundswell is delusional. If anything, the analogies politically and socially run the other way, where legalizing abortion, politically, is snowballing from country to country, just like abolishing slavery did. (Of course, the entire analogy is actually just pretty dumb in either direction.)

You can stand there and argue morally the analogy runs the same way, but that won't ever gain you anything socially, and societal positions determine political ones.

If you were to travel back in time to 1800, well after social mores had started to change, and propose abolishing slavery, abolitionists would just laugh at you. Sure, they proposed that every once in a while, more to keep it on everyone's mind than anything else, but their actual work was changing the hearts and minds of people.

They didn't just support people willy-nilly who claimed to be anti-slavery, and nothing else, as the pro-life movement in this country appears to have done for the last 30 years. The reason for this is, of course, that the pro-life movement is (or, at least, was.) operated almost entirely to get Republicans elected, not to actually change the laws, as evidenced by the fact does nothing that would actually help stop abortions.

"...their actual work was changing the hearts and minds of people."

Absolutely. And this is something that the pro-life movement folks should never forget. And while this doesn't mean we give up on the legislative aspects, neither should we think that they are the answer.

Your point about cultural moves away from slavery and towards abortion is immaterial when it comes to the morality of the thing. If abortion is morally wrong it doesn't ultimately matter if only 1/10th of 1% of the people believe it to be so. I reject the notion that any move of culture in a given direction is automatically "progress." Cultures have also, on occasion, been known to decay. So really the fact that "starting in 1970 or so, Western civilization tended towards abortion" means nothing on the moral level.

Your point about cultural moves away from slavery and towards abortion is immaterial when it comes to the morality of the thing. If abortion is morally wrong it doesn't ultimately matter if only 1/10th of 1% of the people believe it to be so. I reject the notion that any move of culture in a given direction is automatically "progress." Cultures have also, on occasion, been known to decay. So really the fact that "starting in 1970 or so, Western civilization tended towards abortion" means nothing on the moral level.

I didn't say it did. But our government reflects the will of the people, at least in a somewhat loose and haphazard fashion, as long as business interests don't interfere. And hence it is...I'm going to have to go with 'stupid'...stupid to attempt to change the law to something the people do not want. It cannot happen. It will not happen. If it did happen, it would very quickly be changed back.

I actually don't mind people being 'stupid', politically. We need people trying to do the impossible to even get it into people's head.

What we don't need is a large group of people that will constantly give cover and vote for a group of people as long as they say the right words. No matter what sort of harmful asinine things they do. Like continue to screw with the middle east, or funnel government money into their pockets, or manage the economy for the benefit of large corporations and not human beings.

And just completely ignore the fact that if you win right now, you lose. It's actually sort of ironic, but Roe v, Wade gives you a central point to rally around.

If Roe v. Wade were to vanish tomorrow, you'd instantly have about a dozen fights in various states where abortion is still on the books as illegal, and you'd lose almost all of them. The pro-life movement would splinter into two dozen different states (And the rest of the states would have no functioning movement at all.) all trying for different things...some might be smart and only try to restrict abortion, not outlaw it (as that's all they'd get in that state), and they'd be stabbed in the back by other pro-life movements. It would be total chaos, and in the end you'd get nothing at all, or, in your wildest dreams, five states where it was illegal, although I'm thinking more like two.

You have to change hearts and minds first, before this goes from an national issue to a state issue. Legislature doesn't mean a damn thing, pardon my french, you will win exactly when you get a critically large segment of the population to agree with you, and not before, and there's no 'after' except doing the paperwork. And when you take out Roe v. Wade you better be very sure they're already on your side, because by removing the focal point, you'll seriously crippled yourself.

If you keep going forwards, by 2020 you'll have Roe v. Wade overturned, and by 2030 absolutely every single state will have abortion legal and the pro-life movement will consist of forty thousand people total who can't even get people elected to state government. Real good plan. (Or, rather, that's what would have happened if Bush hadn't crippled the GOP, I don't know what's going to happen with it now, you might lose everything.)

"And hence it is...I'm going to have to go with 'stupid'...stupid to attempt to change the law to something the people do not want. It cannot happen. It will not happen. If it did happen, it would very quickly be changed back."

David, I'm in agreement here, and with most of the rest of your last post. Basically, all I'm saying is that while the attempts at 'heart- and mind-changing' are occurring, and should be primary, the legislative/political side of things cannot be ignored. Put on a back burner, maybe? Perhaps. But not ignored completely. As a matter of fact, in the latest issue of Touchstone, David Mills has an editorial that says something very similar.

As far as the GOP goes, frankly, I don't care much what happens to it. Pro-lifers and conservatives who put so much stock in their cause being related to the future of the party are either frightfully naive, unobservant, or wrongheaded, IMHO.

I am 52 years old, a Disabled American Veteran that served not once, but twice for my country and then in the Army Reserve. One thing though, my alliegence is to God first period, then family, then country. This is the first time since I was 18 that I will not be voting in an election. I can't justify before God voting for any of the 3. Obama, Clinton or McClain. People say I'm going to have to vote for the less of the "3 evils". Well to me Evil is Evil. There is no less is better. Most of the Evangelicals I know feel the same way. As I stated in the beginning of this the Bible dictates our alliegence is to God first and foremost. Candidates that support abortion, homosexuality and the rest will not get my vote. God gets my vote first !