Who Should We Vote For?

I am posting this in response to Steve Deace's blog on Monday. You can see it here.

http://www.whoradio.com/pages/stevedeace.html?page=2

When trying to decide who to vote for. I try to apply these five principles, in accessing the candidates qualifications.

Our Principles:

1. The Natural Law handed down to man from God, communicated to us through the Bible is the ultimate Law of the Land. Natural law supersedes all Laws written by man.

2. Life is precious and should be protected.

3. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and is a tradition that must be preserved.

4. We believe in the limited Government the Founders envisioned for this Nation, expressed in the Constitution.

5. We believe that all people are endowed by God with unalienable rights, and America should continue it's tradition of Defending Those Rights by Peace Through Strength

So applying these to the hypothetical candidates Steve has listed in his blog. Let's see who to vote for.

Candidate A:

Candidate A seems to pass number one until we find out he considers Health Care a right. Hardly a mandate handed down by God. On number two he fails because of he is Pro Life in name only. Number 3? FAILED BIG TIME. Number 4 failed: His public record shows no basis what so ever of belief in original intent. Number 5 Failed : Just because he is a war veteran, doesn't mean he is into Defending his fellow man. His positions on the other issues leads me to believe I can't trust him on Defense. Anyone hear of John Kerry? Actually I think I will call candidate number one John Kerry. Thumbs down on this guy!!

Candidate B:

Since Steve has made all three candidates male. I am making the Atheist Libertarian a woman, who doesn't go to Ron Paul events, but rather is beloved by Conservative Women's groups. This candidate passes number one because she is really a closet Christian who believes in original intent, but loves the pot lucks that the Conservative Women Groups put on, and doesn't want to be kicked out of them. I giver her a thumbs up on number 1. Number 2and Three: She passes, she is solid on life and marriage. I cut her some slack for not wanting to make waves, and have her sisters in the movement question her womanhood. Now you say she maybe a little weak on marriage and Pro Life. But she does have a previous voting record I can rely on. ( I can count on her to do the right thing). Numbers 4 and 5 are easy. She has shown all along a believe in limited Government. Since Defense has not come up in her past. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. Gee I guess we can see why it is the year of the woman. :) If this candidate were a man he would fail miserably for having no ca hones. But since she is a woman and naturally has no ca hones I can live with her.

Candidate C:

FAILED ON EVERYTHING. Don't be confused he doesn't fail number one because he is a Divorce e. Reagan was a divorce e. So Evangelicals when a candidate with a Divorce in their past pops up. Don't fall for it. The liberals are playing you and you fall for it every time. It turns you off to great candidates and helps liberals get elected even though they have a divorce also. Why? You weren't going to vote for the Liberal either so you stay home and the Liberal wins. It is a turn out trick. The main thing is if a candidate can pass my five criteria it is really about who they are now. Not who they were then. Adultery on the candidates part does compel you to stay home. I do fall for that one every time. No adultery? Cut them some slack.

Well that is my take on our political, no win scenario. Just like Kirk. I changed the test so I get some one to vote for. Have no doubt. Even though I vote for Candidate B. I realize I am still not voting for a die hard Conservative. It is very hard to find a Conservative with the steadfastness of a Reagan. Being realistic and not cheating on this test. Taking the candidates as they are, and they being the only choices on the BALLOT. I leave that race blank and look at other races on the ballot. This store didn't have what I was looking for. I need to go to the next store down the street.