DeVos v. Granholm Some of you know I’ve had a bit…
admin October 26th, 2006
DeVos v. Granholm
Some of you know I’ve had a bit of a struggle on the upcoming gubernatorial race. The scales haven’t settled yet for me on whether to vote for DeVos or Granholm. I am openly soliciting *constructive* feedback, suggestions and opinions in the combox.
THE CASE FOR DEVOS: He’s staunchly pro-life. Also, Michigan is one of the most economically devastated states in the Union right now, and Granholm has had four years already to try to fix that.
THE CASE AGAINST DEVOS: He hasn’t particularly impressed me as able to do anything about the economic situation. Also, the Amway factor leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
THE CASE FOR GRANHOLM: She does a good job of laying out what’s wrong and what she’s doing about it. And in fairness, economic turnarounds can take time.
THE CASE AGAINST GRANHOLM: The aforementioned “she’s already had four years to do it” and she’s pro-choice.
So I’ve really been struggling with this. Granholm mopped the floor with DeVos during the first debate, and he didn’t do a lot better during the third debate. (I didn’t see the second one.) However, she’s a trained debater and a lawyer, and he isn’t, so of course she’s going to shine in that arena.
I really don’t like the idea of being a single-issue voter, no matter how important that issue is to me. But a friend did recently mention Catholic Answers’ position, which is essentially that if a candidate is pro-choice, it doesn’t matter how good s/he is on other issues. I can see their point. However, to use the reductio ad absurdum (that sounds like something Hercule Poirot would say, doesn’t it?), that means that if Adolf Hitler was up for election (before he started showing himself to be a genocidal maniac) and gave every appearance of being pro-life, while his opponent was pro-choice, I would be morally obliged to vote for him. This seems problematic to me. Know what I mean?
At the same time, JivinJehoshaphat had a really eye-opening post about Granholm and life. These really make me want to vote against her, especially when I clicked on the link and saw that the partial-birth abortion ban DID have exceptions for the life and health of the mother (which she explicitly said it didn’t and that that was why she vetoed it). That made my stomach turn – I’m trying to independently verify it. (Not that I don’t trust JivinJ, but it’s one of those personal integrity issues. I don’t like to take someone’s word for it that someone else lied, not when it’s something that should be verifiable…)
Anyway, be forewarned that once Nov. 7 strikes and I cast my vote, whichever way it goes, I will affect a ridiculously innocent look and say “It’s a secret ballot!” Up ’til that time, however, all bets are off.
(I actually did tell an exit poller who called me during the last Presidential election that it was a secret ballot…he hung up. Very rude of him…)
