Thursday, October 09, 2008

The naked truth:

I have been in contact with a major "moral/conservative" force about politics, and I noticed that their web page describing the stances of Presidential candidates based on a moral/traditional/family minded worldview/focus. I had been on that page early this year, and I requested that Ron Paul be included in their survey of all the Democrat and all the other Republican candidate hopefuls. They complied, although they put a very negative slant on his "laissez faire" attitude..even going so far as to say (in the video) "...government has a major place in our nation..." (implying that reducing it was NOT something positive).

I re-checked their site two weeks ago, and asked them to also place Chuck Baldwin on the list, as he fit 100% with their pro-life, pro-marriage outlook....and I received this letter in response:

Dear Jennifer:

Greetings from ( ______) and thank you for your e-mail. I consider it a privilege to reply on behalf of our staff.
We appreciate your taking a moment to share your perspective on (our views), of Senator McCain's candidacy. While your feedback is valued, I'm afraid we're not in a position to comment on his political views past what he's communicated. As for the possibility of addressing Chuck Baldwin's candidacy, while we realize it may be disappointing to hear, we've chosen to focus our efforts on providing information about the stances held by the candidates remaining in the race who are most likely to gain the presidency.
Again, thanks for contacting us, Jennifer. We trust you will join us in praying for our great nation at this critical juncture in our history. God bless you!


Needless to say, I was shocked, enraged, and highly put-off by this answer, and although with a feeling of christian love towards them, I believe it to be the most bigoted statement of all for a "conservative" group/organization who purports to be moral and God-serving.

I sent them this response: (yes, I prayed about it, and it was at least 24 hours before I responded, allowing my thoughts to be refined, and not so angry/hateful)

I suppose, since I am rather young, that life has many things in store for me, disillusionment being a part of that.
I did learn something from you, though, when I read your response. Here dumb little me thought that this election was about the future course of our nation. I thought it was about "values voters", and "traditional family values", and Biblical morality. I THOUGHT it was about saving the lives of yet-unborn babies.
How stupid of me. All that REALLY matters is getting the less-worse end of a popularity contest. As you put it--SO well-- "focus our efforts on...the candidates..most likely to gain the presidency".
Thank you for allowing me to see behind/through your rhetoric and teachings to the REAL goal.
Sincerely, (me)


Anyhow, you can be sure that I will never again listen to them/their material/their speaking with an unbiased mind. All I will hear is "most likely to win", and know that when (as one of their people said) they talk about values and family and abortion and America.....they gave up their convictions on the altar of "most likely to win" and that's all that mattered.

8 comments:

childofprussia said...

I'm really sorry to hear this. It must feel incredibly disappointing, and dissillusioning, as you mentioned in your response to them. *sigh* Sometimes it just sucks being in the minority, even if that's where our convictions keep us.

Autarky said...

Jennifer,

Perhaps I simply got an early start on disillusionment, but the way I see it is this:

-The worst possible outcome of the election is an Obama victory.
-A vote for McCain, however distasteful it might be, will do more towards an Obama defeat than a vote for any other candidate.

Of course the two-party system sucks, and of course it sucks to vote for such a lousy candidate, but unless you think Chuck Baldwin is a *perfect* man, you are simply voting for the lesser of 3 evils (or 4, or 8, or however many legitimate candidates you think there are.)

I know pretty much nothing about Baldwin, but I'm willing to take your word that he would make a fantastic president. That being said, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Baldwin will *not* win the election, even if I vote for him. Even if every American who shares our values of true conservatism changed their minds and voted for him instead of the lesser of two evils, there still wouldn't be enough votes for Baldwin to win. Not nearly. The vast majority of Americans share our values either only in part or not at all. A man like Baldwin will never win a US election. That's just a fact.

I think my opinion is basically that it is my duty to ensure the best possible outcome of the election. There are no *good* outcomes of this election, but of the two options we have McCain is the better. So I'm voting for him.

Warbler said...

As a person, Baldwin is not perfect.

As a politician, as a candidat, and as part of a party, I think they ARE the perfect solution.

Also, you have no right to gripe/complain about the system unless you are doing something to change it.

The point of this post was that this big, famous, seemed-to-be-driven-by-God organization is SO bigoted that is will not allow any other options. Why? Because then they might not win the popularity contest.

They continually TALK about values voters and principles and right and wrong...but they don't stand for it where it effects the biggest change...and that is the ballot box.

Autarky said...

You really think he'll never sign some farm bill or other weird legislation you don't agree with? Ever? I have some politicians I really like, but I disagree with them sometimes. Obviously I'm imperfect, but they certainly are too. As humans and as politicians.

Also, you have no right to gripe/complain about the system unless you are doing something to change it.

And I could retort that you have no right to complain about an Obama presidency if you vote for someone who has no chance of winning. But I don't think either of those statements are fair.

The way I try to make the system better is by voting for the best possible candidate there is in the primaries. There were plenty of very good ones this year.

Unfortunately, most Americans seem to have terrible judgment when it comes to this whole "politics" thing, and the worst candidate in both parties won.

To vote for a third party candidate in the present system is to accomplish absolutely nothing with your vote. I can't do that. Until a third party candidate comes along with a legitimate chance of winning comes along, I will continue to vote against the worst candidate the way I'm going to in November.

Like I said in my last post, even if every single person in America whose views aligned with those of Baldwin voted for him, he still wouldn't win. A candidate is going to need much broader appeal to make it as a third party candidate, and until that happens I see voting third party as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The point of this post was that this big, famous, seemed-to-be-driven-by-God organization is SO bigoted that is will not allow any other options. Why? Because then they might not win the popularity contest.

It's a lot harder for me to defend an organization when I don't even know what organization it is (which is fine), but based purely on the information in your post, I fail to see how they're bigoted. Baldwin has no change at winning. None. Zero. In a thousand parallel universes, he would still never win the election. This organization thinks (rightly, in my opinion) that there's no need to waste time on candidates who are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, no wonder how good their politics are.

Warbler said...

I have NO qualms about an Obama presidency...at least, no more than a McCain Presidency....and no more than on the Bush presidency.
THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY AS HORRENDOUS.
In fact, I have a list on why Obama might be better than McCain...I can post it as a blog post if you wish.


You keep saying that there would not be enough votes if every "conscience objector" voted 3rd party. where are your support links? I cannot accept your observations as valid when numbers come from the top of your head.

What matters MOST: winning, or principles?

For me, it is principles. If it doesn't fit the mold, it can get thrown out. Winning is of no importance. What I know to be true, is universally true, no matter WHAT comes along, or who gets nominated, or how many choices there are.

McBama, Ocain....MORE OF THE SAME.
For me: none of the above.

Jesse said...

You keep saying that there would not be enough votes if every "conscience objector" voted 3rd party. where are your support links? I cannot accept your observations as valid when numbers come from the top of your head.

Baldwin is far right. The vast majority of the country is not far right. If they were, Obama would not be at about 50% in the polls right now. I can't really see how you can dispute this.

THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY AS HORRENDOUS.

Ridiculous. Obama spent 20 years attending and financially supporting a far-left church with a racist pastor. He supports government funded abortion-on-demand. He voted against a bill to protect the victims of botched abortions who were born alive.He gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN, an organization that specializes in voter fraud. Obama is one of the 2-3 worst politicians in America. There are a lot of things to dislike about McCain, but he is nowhere near as bad as BO.

What matters MOST: winning, or principles?

I don't see how not voting for a perfect candidate is unprincipled. If I were to vote for the person who I thought would do the best job as president, I'd be writing in a name, which would be a waste of a vote.

Warbler said...

Writing in is not a waste of you vote if you see principles as the most important. If winning was what matterd, counting and wasting votes would be a serious issue.

McCain divorced his wife after she was in a car accident. He supports illegal aliens in their bid to break the law and then get away with it. He urges the Federal power to use your tax dollars to use baby products as scientific research material.

He not onyl supports the illegal, economically draining, and wrong war in a foreign country, and even proposes continuing it in other countries.

You were saying?

Jesse said...

Those are both bad things but they pale in comparison to what Obama will do. Socialized medicine, abortion on demand, government controlled banks,...I could go on. Obama would probably get two supreme court appointments, and he would surely nominate two of the worst justices in history. I truly think Obama could take us past the point of no return, and the idea of voting against a far better option just because there are some things I don't like about him is very foolish.