What DOES matter is that millions of people continually vote for the Republican party (or Democratic, depending on their stance) based purely, or at least predominantly, on that issue alone, while unintentionally giving support to many other unrelated issues within the party platform. I believe both political parties are keenly aware of the opportunity this presents to them.

For example, as long as Republicans are consistently pro-life, and democrats are consistently pro-choice, they are each guaranteed to attract a large chunk of supporters based on that issue alone. It doesn’t matter whether their other issues are in the best interest of those supporters — they are so focused on the abortion issue that they will either convince themselves, often passively, that their party is correct on everything else. After all, any party who agrees with their view on abortion must be an all-around principled and decent party!

The reality of the situation is that most people cannot be neatly placed within one party or the other. There is just too much variation in opinions for independent, critically-thinking people to totally align with either platform. However, many people do exactly that, which tells me that they act simply as followers, who go along with whatever their party tells them. Unfortunately, “their” party is often determined by something like the abortion issue or even the party which they happen to be raised into.

The two-party system creates many ridiculous situations, which often seem to go unnoticed by many people. In the eyes of many, the parties are simply polar opposites, and a person can be either one or the other. In reality, there is no rhyme or reason to the views which a party lumps together into its platform. For example, there is no inherent consistency in a platform which opposes abortion and supports capital punishment. Or in a platform which supports universal healthcare and abortion. Or a platform which advocates gun freedoms and advocates low taxes. These issues are fairly independent of one another. Pretty much any of these views can be mixed-and-matched in a sensible person’s own personal political platform. Political parties attempt to explain their views in such a way as to give consistency to them, but in the end, there is no reason for people not to mix and match between all areas of the political spectrum to suit their views. Deeply emotional wedge issues like abortion are cleverly exploited by each party to attract supporters to their platforms and prevent people from thinking too critically about the full range of issues that lay before them. It is much easier for them to just pick a single issue and then shape their political identity to match the party which corresponds.

Needless to say, my worldview is somewhat cynical and contains vast gray areas. I personally like the idea of having a lot of third parties, but I am not optimistic about them ever presenting an effective challenge to the inherently flawed system we have right now. Hopefully I am shown to be wrong.

1) I know people who could legitimately be called “racist” who I would solidly put in the category of good people. Please note: that in no way means I find their racism tolerable any more than it means you find the pro-abortion stance tolerable of the good people you mentioned. But “good people” doesn’t (shouldn’t) automatically equate to “electable people” or “good governors”

2)As for the field of Republican candidates, I have to say that none of them really suit me. I’m more or less leaning toward some of the lesser knowns (read: snowball chance) like Brownback and Huckabee … I’m even taking a look at the Democratic field for options. But even there, I’m sure I won’t be able to totally back any one of them. I’m not sure what my “prime” issue is, honestly. The fact is — which you make eloquently in posing that question — a compromise must be made.

However, a man’s racism can reasonably indicate whether or not he is a good man. On the other hand, there are good men who believe that abortion is a right. I think the abortion issue is less of an indicating factor than racism, although I may be wrong.

Also, a man has man has much more of a chance of letting his racism permeate his policy than a pro-choice candidate would have, so the two are a little incomparable.

It is only moot if you — as a voter — don’t think the issue in question is important.

I’d have to disagree. As a Christian, my faith is important, but I do not require a Presidential candidate to share that faith. Also, the issue of pre-marital sex is important to me, but I would never vote for a candidate who wanted to outlaw it.

I suppose you mean “political importance”, and for that I would agree. If you do not consider an issue politically important, chances are you wouldn’t care about a candidate’s position on it, and vice versa.

So here’s a zinger for ya…
Rudy said that he supports public funding of abortions, but is personally against abortion. He has said that because the courts have made a decision on the issue, he has to abide within that decision. He has also had divorces.

Newt has been divorced multiple times, and is an admitted adulterer.

Romney is a Mormon.

McCain is a quasi-liberal, and simply will not win the primary.

You have to compromise on something. What will it be?

What would you think about voting for a man (at any level) who thinks that blacks shouldn’t have the right to vote? Certainly he would have no power to change the laws of the land, but doesn’t that say something about his character? Doesn’t it give you some clue as to his worldview?

Just because the issue in question can’t be directly affected, I don’t believe it means the issue is moot.

It is only moot if you — as a voter — don’t think the issue in question is important.

For example: divorce. If in your view of the world, divorce is no real indicator of anything (I mean, after all, isn’t a divorce more common than not?), then the weight of a man’s divorce record will be nil — not because of his power to affect any change to marriage laws, but because of the relative importance you place on one’s view and experience with marriage affecting anything.

Back to the issue at hand: I happen to find the abortion issue relevant for anyone being voted into elected office. If a man or woman will discount the value of an unborn human’s life simply because it’s politically expedient or because he or she honestly believes that some other human being has the right to decide if he or she lives or not — I’d be afraid of what that person would be capable of supporting should there be other elements of society deemed lower classes of human (Jews, blacks, Christians, Muslims, bald guys, ugly people).

I suppose it could be argued that his position on abortion could very well be indicative of his position on life in general, but it could be equally as valid to say that a man’s total marriages/divorces is indicative of his position on commitment. I guess my beef is that neither of those things really matter all that much when it comes to any practical relevancy. If a man has no power to implement his policy on abortion, does it really matter what his position on it is? What about governors? mayors? city counsel? school board?

Think about it. Would you not vote for a school board member because he’s pro-choice? Me … I really don’t care.

However, I’m open to correction

1) Abortion specifically matters because it goes to how interested the man or woman is in protecting the rights of all people, regardless of how “popular” such a stand might be. I’ll grant you that one’s stance on abortion might have little pragmatic value (they truely can’t change it), but it has huge suggestive value (suggesting what the moral fiber of the person looks like).

2)If, for these reasons, abortion doesn’t matter, then it could reasonably be argued that the presidency doesn’t matter. I say that not in total disagreement with the statement, but simply to point it out.

/rant

Abortion is a difficult issue for me. I absolutely believe that abortions are permissible in cases of danger to the mother’s health or life. Otherwise, however, it becomes muddier. Does a mother’s right to control ‘her own body’ supersede a fetus’ right to live? I don’t think it’s so clear-cut as either side makes it.

Nathan for President! Nathan for President!

Oh goodness no! Although I wouldn’t mind the $400K/year salary

Yes, a little class in the White house would be nice. But again, if there’s a candidate who has some decent reformation ideas, I’m all over that. I just want to see a President, in my lifetime, actually do something to shrink the government. JUST ONE!

That, I fear, is too much to ask.

Makes me appreciate my governor even more.