[approachable]

Hi. How is everything?

Can you give me some general advice when it comes to picking a candidate to be President? I'm young (22) and kind of inexperienced at this. In asking this, of course, I know that everyone may have something that they see personally in a candidate, so I'm not asking for any personal information from you (unless you desire to share it). From a Christian's perspective, I need general advice.

Though the Lord will ultimately pick who gets in office (Daniel 4:17 & Romans 13:1-6), and knowing too that none of the candidates will be perfect, I want to at least look at what the candidates stand for, and pray that they will be as honest as possible (I Timothy 2:1-2).

Thank You

[m273p15c]

I think you have already hit on the most important passages, so I have little to add of spiritual application, except this:

Generally, I rank issues in my mind, according to some priority level, and vote for the one who best represents those issues AND who has a reasonable chance of winning. Being a Christian, the most important issues are spiritual, so abortion and homosexual marriages are very important topics to me, even more important than Iraq and the economy. Therefore, I will gladly pick someone who is committed to reversing Woe v. Wade [sic] or ratifying an amendment against homosexual marriages, even though they may not have the best plan for the economy.

However, one thing I learned from '92, voting for the most ideal candidate can be actually be equivalent to voting for your worst nightmare! I knew several people who thought Perot could really do something great for this county. Not too many people voted for him, but enough voted for him instead of Bush, which gave Clinton the victory. If everybody who had voted for Perot, instead voted for Bush, Sr. (which I think is fairly reasonable, if Perot had not run), then we might never have had 8 years of Clinton's escapades and immoral leadership. That is why I say that I always vote for someone who best represents my values AND who has a reasonable chance of winning.

If McCain gets the Republican nomination, I will still vote for him, even though I will hate it. Why? Since he is as immoral as Clinton or Obamma, I see him as no better spiritually. But, failing to vote for him is practically equivalent to voting for Clinton or Obamma. Since the Democrats generally have a spiritually digressive agenda (humanist, evolutionist, pro-abortion, etc.), I would not want to see their power increased at this time.

That is just my 2 cents, and I would not be dogmatic about it. Certainly, this opinion does not represent this forum and should not necessarily represent anyone else.
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

[acts2216]

Hello, gentlemen,

If I might throw 2 more cents into the pot, this particular topic is one that has been on my mind a lot through the past few elections. While mulling things over during the last presidential election, I heard a statement that cut me to the quick: "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I no longer bend over backwards in compromise for a candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning. Experience should tell us that this does not yield the results we hope for. Republicans have been in power the majority of my lifetime and Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned by Republican appointees. And regarding conservative philosophies, in the past 8 years, the government and its deficits has grown many times over what the Clinton administration managed to do. The next time Democrats rise to power, they'll have a significantly swollen government with which to drive their agendas. It seems to me that insisting someone must always choose one of two erroneous positions is the way to always be wrong.

I vote for the man who enables me to walk away from the Diebold machine with a clear conscience. In short, I started handling my political power the same way I handle my religion. I believe the best way to conserve and advance Christianity is in getting back to the apostles' doctrine--what does the text say? In the same way, the best way to conserve and advance the American system is to judge a candidate based upon his adherence to the American founding document, that which he will swear upon his inauguration to uphold--the Constitution. I want a candidate who will preserve liberty by upholding the laws we have, not by piling new laws onto the books and creating new departments to enforce them.

If I handled my religion the way most of us handle politics I imagine it would look something like this:
"As a Christian, I don't agree with Billy Graham. He makes a lot of statements that contradict the Christian philosophy. Besides not showing an attitude that reflects Christ, I disagree with much of what he teaches about salvation and the church. But he has a large constituency, the ability to reach more people. It is better for someone to accept his brand of Christianity than continue living completely depraved, right? Better his brand of Christianity than Islam or Buddhism, right? After all, if I put my support behind someone committed to sticking more closely to the founding documents of Christianity, I'm just wasting my effort, throwing away my support. Much better to settle for the lesser good, the lesser of two evils. The restoration principle I've been committed to is hopelessly unrealistic."

So far, this stand has left me voting for the third or fourth guy on the presidential ballot. This time around, I intend to vote for Ron Paul. Some of my brethren who know of my choice have objected, saying they've seen voter's guides that mark him as being against traditional marriage and abortion. I've seen these, too. I've also heard the man speak on each issue. He is marked as being "against" these things because he argues that no new laws or amendments need be made to defend the one and defeat the other. To say one is “against” heterosexual marriage because he doesn’t think the Federal government should be the determining power in the issue is exactly like saying one is “against” orphans getting cared for because they don’t think the Church of Christ should be the determining power in the issue. Ron Paul is a political "anti"! He has said, we needn’t redact the Constitution in order to define marriage—just look it up in a dictionary! In other words, that marriage is between a man and a woman is self-evident. He is not opposed to civil government defining laws of marriage, but he has said such should be handled at the state level. And if Massachusetts and California are going to hell in a handbasket, it doesn’t mean every other state must follow suit. That kind of "radical" talk of state autonomy shouldn't be that unfamiliar to those who argue on the same grounds for congregational autonomy. Regarding abortion, the man is an obstetrician. He knows that a fetus, by law, is a human being. A fetus has rights of inheritance. If a doctor harms or kills a fetus, he can face criminal charges. The laws are there. They should be enforced. The power to make law does not lie with the judiciary, but with the legislature.

Is a vote based on a vastly outnumbered but sound principle a wasted vote? I don't think so, no more than my casting my lot with a congregation of 70 saints taking a stand in a down full of churches with much larger power of influence is bad stewardship. I hope that my vote will be part of a movement that eventually gets the attention of the Republican party and persuades them to not only stop, but reverse the slow crawl towards liberalism that continues to disappoint so many of us.

Meanwhile, with both of you, I will fearfully pray that God will grant us peace while we are under whomever should rise to the ever-ascending highest office in the land. But I don't think our instruction to pray for that man necessarily means we should hold our nose, vote for him, and hope he bears fruit with his new power that is far sweeter than that which has come off his vine so far.

At the same time, I realize most of the brethren I know will vote for McCain. I don't intend to hold it against them. I preached a meeting in rural Kentucky last year--when I pulled into the parking lot of the assembly house for the first time, I thought I might be in the wrong place. I saw at least 3 Kerry bumper stickers! Yes, the whole church was composed of yellow-dog Democrats, going back generations. That limited my conversation somewhat at the potluck! It forced us into talking about things we share in common, like our faith and our families. The meeting went great.

I don't intend to draw lines of fellowship based on our political champions or issues like Social Security or the war. I marvel that the first Christian congregation contained big government tax collectors and pro-secession Zealots. I wonder how politically active they remained after becoming citizens of the Kingdom. Did they have to leave it all behind? I can only imagine they at least had to leave their political principles at the doorstep of their assemblies. I'll do the same ... But I'm sure not leaving them behind when I walk to the ballot!

[thetruth1]

I think you should form your opinion based on where they stand on the issues yet none of them are strongly on those issues because of corporate interests. If you want to try and bring back America to what it used to be I would vote Ron Paul because he takes no money from corporations or special interest groups and will abolish the federal reserve which has caused America its most important problems. Since Ron Paul told the truth he was ignored or laughed at by the media which is owned by giant corporations. Today though electric voting machines are rigged and have been to make whoever the Fed wants to be in power. I dont think god chooses who is president though because his vote matters just as much as yours.