As I read Jackson's article I found myself saying, "This is what I've been saying!" For example:
Mitt Romney is not only not a conservative on any issue, he's not even on the left-right spectrum. He has no beliefs. No principles. No backbone. No soul. He is a soulless creature who will do and say anything to get elected. I will not under any circumstances vote for Mitt Romney. Ever.
Oops! Is that violating the separation of church and state?
Jackson lists the reasons why he supports Huckabee, and then he supports each reason. Here are the reasons: Abortion, Marriage, Immigration, Foreign Policy/National security, 2nd Amendment, Taxes and spending, Special rights for Homosexuals. I'm sure that some of you, based on the campaign rhetoric to date, are surprisde that "taxes and spending" would be listed as a reason to vote for Huckabee. Isn't Huckabee supposed to be a social conservative and a fiscal liberal? Here is what Jackson writes:
Huckabee is, by far, the most fiscally conservative of the three. As governor he cut taxes almost 100 times and left Arkansas with an $850 million surplus. While I have some questions about his proposed" Fair Tax" which is a flat consumption based tax that would replace our federal income tax, it is by far the most aggressive fiscal proposal put forth by any candidate. While Senator McCain did oppose the Bush Tax Cuts (b/c they didn't include enough spending cuts), he now supports making them permanent. And nobody doubts his anti-pork spending bona fides. Romney, as governor, raised taxes by over $500 million dollars. (He called them fees) leaving the Commonwealth in financial turmoil. His government run socialist healthcare plan he claimed as his signature achievement has been exposed as a catastrophe in the making. And although he derides McCain for not supporting the Bush Tax Cuts, Romney himself didn't support them either. (emphasis mine)
Huckabee has always been opposed to same-sex "marriage" and any special rights based on sexual orientation. Romney boosted funding for pro homosexuality indoctrination in schools, pushed gay adoption, falsely pretending that a law forced him to, and has been the more aggressive in catering to the homosexual militants than most liberal Democrats. He argued in 1994 that he could get more accomplished for the gay agenda than Ted Kennedy and made similar promises when running for governor in 2002. He called a 2002 Massachusetts protection of marriage amendment "too extreme" and is solely responsible for illegally instituting "same sex marriage" in the Cradle of Democracy. He also supports homosexual Boy Scout leaders and homosexuals serving openly in the military.
This brings me to a touch decision. What if Mike Huckabee does not win the nomination? I could, with a clear conscience vote for McCain. What if Mitt Romney is the GOP choice? I cannot with a clear conscience vote for Mitt Romney. What then should I do? Should I abstain?
Now back to my tough decision. Several years ago in an online government course I had a conversation with a liberal classmate who took me to task on the issue of abortion. I had declared that I could not and would not support a candidate - regardless of party affiliation - who supported abortion, and I view bring pro-choice as synonymous with supporting abortion. The liberal asked me, "What would you do if both candidates were pro-choice?"
I didn't like the question, and I didn't want to think about the answer. This year I could no longer be idle in regards to an answer. All of the DEM candidates are pro-abortion. It seems that one cannot be considered for a office as a DEM unless one panders to the abortion lobby. But this election cycle had produced at least two GOP candidates (OK only one if you believe Romney) was pro-abortion. Rudy is pro-choice and Romney is whatever he needs to be in order to get elected.
I have come to the conclusion that the sanctity of life and the purity of marriage are far more important to me than tax policy and even immigration. That does not mean that those and other issues are not important to me. It means that they are less important to me. If a candidate is right on abortion and the family but wrong, or not as conservative as I'd like, on fiscal issues or foreign policy, I'll favor the more important issues every time.
Last Thursday Dr. Albert Mohler's radio program addressed this very issue. Here is the link to his show "Bringing a Christian Worldview to the Ballot". I strongly suggest you allocate 38 minutes of your day and listen to the program. Dr. Mohler unveils the "Albert Mohler 3-Step Christian Voting Formula" (patent pending) during the show. Mohler suggests that a Christian voter apply the following criteria to any candidate under consideration:
- Competence - Is this person up to the job? Does he/she have the requisite experience and qualifications for the position?
- Character - Do you trust this person? Does he/she have the maturity and integrity to represent the United States of America?
- Convictions - What are the policy positions of the candidate and do they align with your convictions?
That is a solid formula, and it is even alliterated! (Another indication of Mohler's Baptist identity.)
Paul instructs us by way of 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do (this includes voting), do all to the glory of God. All of the Christian's choices and decisions are accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ. All of the Christian's choices and decisions are to be made for the glory of God. This does not mean that God favors one political party or candidate over the other. We live in a fallen world populated by fallen people (this blogger foremost among them).
I neither expect nor believe it possible for one particular party and/or candidate to "lead the country to righteousness". I do believe that as a Christian I must do my very best to make responsible, Biblically informed, God-honoring decisions.