Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)

Much to Gain, Little to Lose: Debate Three

            Mitt Romney and Barakc Obama square off for the third time on Monday night. Sorry Monday Night Football, but there’s a bigger fight in town. The debate will air live from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida and focus solely on foreign policy. Truth is, this one is a boon to Mitt Romney.

            The last three debates have all been interesting. This one should be no different. Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to hammer the President on this subject, and take little damage himself. Barack Obama bungled the Arab Spring, Egypt, and now Libya. The beauty of the situation for Mitt is that he can play offense all evening long. He can attack Barack on Iran, Afghanistan, Benghazi and so on. Mitt’s offensive attacks have the potential to make Monday a devastating evening for Barack Obama’s polls numbers, which are sinking daily.
            The dirty little secret here is of course that Barack doesn’t have many offensive options. In fact, he’s only got one: Mitt Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience. The parry to this attack is simple: “Neither did you Mr. President, and you’ve made a mess. Who are you to tell the American People that I’ll be worse?” Obama can and will at least try to attack Mitt Romney, but the truth is that Mitt has next to nothing to defend—and he’s got lots of attack options. It wasn’t Mitt that blew the last 4 years of foreign policy—it was Barack Obama. Mitt doesn’t need to give an account for anything. Barack needs to give an account for everything.

            In short, this debate it Mitt’s to lose. He stumbled a little last debate on Libya, but with some good prep time and newly minted attacks he could leave the viewers marveling at the mistakes Obama has made. Mitt needs to own the counter attacks, destroy excuses, and use the verifiable truth. He also needs to be prepared to push back at the moderator should it come down to it. For Mitt, the facts and data that have been uncovered since September 11 are all the ammo he needs. If he blows this, he’ll have no one to blame but himself. If he wins it handily Barack Obama better hope for a miracle. He’ll certainly need it.

Where Did the 47% Go?

 Mitt Romney’s little gaffe involving a remark about 47% of voters he supposedly “doesn’t care about” was MIA during Wednesday’s debate. It was supposed to be Obama’s biggest bullet and it was noticeably absent, which came as a shock to O’Reilly, Rasmussen, Gutfeld, Krauthammer, and other pundits. Everyone's got a theory as to why this didn't happen. My thoughts on this are because maybe:

-       Obama didn’t use it because it was a clean fight and he didn’t want to be the first to bring the mud…(“look who just got nasty first”)

-       And/or he felt like starting the mud-slinging meant that more would come back and he didn’t want to answer for his own mud… (“Let’s talk about your video at Jeremiah Wright’s church”)

-       Obama felt like Mitt was doing well enough that he could defeat the attack on the 47%, and Obama would have attacked in vain. Mitt was on his game and could simply roll right over it, and thus render future “47%” usage pointless. ("Didn't we talk about this last time?")

-       Obama felt like the first debate was a wash anyway, (and historically this is true), so why waste a good attack on a lost cause?

It's possibly that many of these reasons come down to a conscious choice on Barack’s part to leave it alone. If so, why? Because it would have hurt him more than it helped him. Whether this is by means of missing the mark entirely, starting a fight that was more damaging than successful, or wasting a good attack…well, who knows? But the honest truth is that it’s potentially a great attack. Given Obama’s position, the urge to use it next time has got to be pretty strong. Obama needs to perfect the attack (simply mentioning “the 47%” won’t cut it), and Romney needs a killer deflection and an even better counter attack. So expect to see attempts for each of these strategies from each contender next time in Kentucky—because after that the shelf life may leave the issue a bit stale. If Obama mentions it on the 16^th it will be three, maybe even four weeks old at the time—which is an eternity in our ADD culture. Obama has to use it or lose it, and it’s possible that the expiration date is looming for him. Either way, Mitt should be beyond prepared for the question and Barack better make it a good one. Odds are, you’ll see it on the 16^th or not at all.

It’s a win but...

            Mitt Romney scored big against Barack Obama in the first of three rounds of presidential debates. Even between libs and the GOP the general consensus is that Romney won. There needn’t be any huge argument about it—simply follow a lot of big democrats on Twitter and the blogosphere and the answer is obvious. Even the DNC painted that this could very well happen and Obama himself alluded to such a possibility a few days ago.

            Notable points, both verbal and non-verbal include:

-       Mitt using humor more successfully

-       Obama’s constant (though not complete) refusal to look at Mitt Romney

-       Mitt’s focus, versus Obama’s tangents

-       Obama’s stutter and slow moments (which is characteristic of his speech—not a slight on him, but this mannerism certainly didn’t help)

-       Mitt handled the moderator well (refusal to be bullied) while Obama did not—some are arguing that Obama snapped at Lehrer once or twice.

-       Obama tried to invoke the power of math, Romney invoked actual numbers—often and with relevance.

-       Mitt owned the counterattacks.

-       Obama is not a great speaker under pressure, off the cuff.

-       Mitt was on offense all night, and Barack never got a chance

-       Obama was more general. Mitt was more specific.

-       Romney was having fun. Barack was not.

All this being said, there’s some notable things to discuss. First, as the DNC put it (and yes it’s spin, but it’s got some truth), Romney was historically in a good spot to win this one—which he did. Barack was ill-prepared—as one Reuters commentator told Greta van Susteren: “I recognized the President’s performance tonight—the same one I had in college when I felt like I didn’t need to study for an English exam because I already knew English.” Perhaps Obama prepared the wrong way, and expected the wrong attacks. Perhaps. But it’s highly arguable that he won’t make that same mistake twice. Conversely, Romney knew Obama’s playbook and had done his own research and study. When Obama called upon the power of the almighty Independent Study, Mitt knew which one and had 4 more that said something different. Love him or hate him, Mitt wasn’t lucky—he was prepared.

Also of note is how clean the fight was. Romney didn’t mention Barack’s newly surfaced videos, or questionable friends (Wright, Ayers, etc), and neither did Obama mention the “47%” remark or Bain Capital. Some of these attacks might have fit into the debate context, but the two seemed to be quite content hitting each other above the belt. Again, this may not happen next time. Obama likely feels the need for an “edge” and the “47%” or Bain might be appealing as a way to get that edge. (Of course this opens the possibility that Mitt could do that exact same thing to keep his edge). Either way, Romney should be prepared—Obama never really got his offense going tonight, and he’ll want to taste blood during the next debate. Mitt should be ready to dodge some fast punches in 13 days.

Now that Obama knows how Mitt will fight, he’s going to work on his technique. First round to the challenger—certainly…but there are two debates to go. If Mitt wants to keep this up, he needs a decisive victory over the next two debates. While Obama has prep time to analyze Mitt’s attacks and plan his own, Romney has to plan his deflections and counterattack.

Among other things here’s a shortlist of points not pressed, not touched upon, and possibly to be used and considered for next time:

-       Romney ran a terrific offense—he was at his best. Can he keep being his best?

-       Lehrer was honestly a weak moderator. Compared to Obama’s own flat performance and a helpless moderator, Romney couldn’t help but look strong. The moderator next time may not be such a push over.

-       Obama should hit and even belabor the points where he feels strong—this may help keep Romney out of the groove and run the clock down.

-       Mitt’s 47% and Obama’s little race video might pop up. Both need attacks and both need parries and deflections.

-       When ObamaCare resurfaces (as it will) Mitt can easily win the point with one line: “ObamaCare needs to be repealed because the people want it repealed and the majority of Americans don’t support it—even though the President and a democrat congress rammed it through.” In this way Mitt can defend RomneyCare and attack ObamaCare.

-       Mitt should use Libya as evidence of a failed foreign policy. This is going to be a tough plot of beans to defend for Obama—because Libya has “botched” and “scandal” written all over it like obscene words in a bathroom stall.

-       Neither one can afford to let the other get in the groove first. Obama was on his heels 97% of the night. He doesn’t like that feeling—so he’s going to try to "return to sender". Mitt’s job is make sure Obama stays on his heels.

All in all, the debate definitively went well for Romney, and the win was certainly needed. But his excellent performance needs to be repeated, and then repeated again. Obama must go on heavy offense now, but with the additional topics coming up Mitt has little to lose on foreign policy and Barack has little to gain. Additionally Obama is a bit behind on financial issues as well. Even so, it’s arguable that the advantage is still to Obama, as the safe alternative to Mitt Romney. If Mitt wins next time Barack will definitely be behind the count—and he may not recover. It’s still anyone’s game, but Romney made a decisive point to be everything he needed to be. If he keeps it up he’ll likely have two more wins—and possibly a presidency in his pocket. Still, it’s not a one-man show and Obama wants to retain his seat of power for as long as he can. Part of Mitt winning involves Obama losing, and that’s something the president won’t give up easily.

Fight Night in Denver: Romney’s Big Chance

            One of the best quotes about Mitt Romney’s debate performance comes from Rush Limbaugh. During the GOP primaries Limbaugh said, “Mitt Romney does not win debates. He survives them.” Back during the primaries survival was good enough. Newt wowed crowds once or twice, but otherwise fell flat. Ron Paul’s disjointed rants and Rick Santorum’s obvious discomfort at the debates made for a constant “less than par” performance from these two contenders. Mitt simply had to show up, breathe air, and avoid eating his own shoes and he “won”.

            That won’t cut it two days from now in Denver. There will be no passive victories in this fight. While Rick, Ron, and Newt all died on the mat from self-inflicted blood loss Obama will do no such thing. Mitt simply remaining standing will not motivate the 15% in the middle who will swing this election one way or the other. Mitt will have to not only get on offense, but to do so with uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Obama’s overall approval is largely negative at this point, so if the middle sees someone that can and will bloody Obama in the debates they may respond very favorably to a contender with a strong voice and a definitive message.

            The DNC has outright stated that historically the challenger usually wins the first debate—possibly in an effort to do preemptive damage control for the president and bank on a weak Romney follow up debate performance. For Romney the challenge isn’t to “win” per se as a “win” may not cut it. His challenge will be to establish a pattern of effective, aggressive offense on Obama’s record, and thus generate momentum going into the next two debates. Providing Romney does his job well in the debates, Obama should be in shock by the end of the first debate, sputtering angrily at the end of the second, and dazed, punch-drunk and looking for an exit by the third. If Obama looks lost and outgunned he’ll look like a poor choice for a leader—and that’s Mitt’s goal. Unfortunately for Mitt, that kind of unprecedented result will take an unprecedented performance on his own part. Mitt has a great opportunity in Denver with the “challenger” advantage, and Obama’s record for ammo. If he fails to capitalize on this first round, the undecided may be too busy following reality TV to give Mitt another chance to make his case. He might not have enough time left to strike out and do serious damage to Obama in the eyes of the undecided voter. Mitt won the GOP primaries arguably because he was “safe” compared to his competition. But now the tables are turned, and it is Obama who is the “safe” candidate. For Mitt Romney, it is time to be dangerous. Nothing less than success will do, and if Romney fails, time, and history may not forgive him for it come November.