Proportionate reasons: electability, not opposition to war

Marquette law student Daniel Suhr echoes Rick's misgivings about Casey Khan's moral analysis of voting for Fred Thompson:

First, let's not be too quick to judge what exactly Senator Thompson did or did not do while a lobbyist. As [yesterday's] Boston Globe points out, many leaders on the Religious Right have acknowledged the complexities of this particular question. And let's remember that Thompson's record on life issues while in the US Senate was stellar.

Second, there can be a proportionate reason in a primary - electability. As we all learned in the 2004 Pennsylvania US Senate primary between Senator Specter and Congressman Toomey, many reasoned, conservative Catholics like Senator Santorum believed that a candidate's chances of winning constituted a proportionate reason to support a pro-choice candidate. Many pundits and analysts say, with good reason, that Senator Thompson may be the GOP's best chance at holding on to the White House in 2008.

Third, being wholeheartedly against the War in Iraq is not a proportionate reason for being pro-choice. As Archbishop Myers reminded us in the run up to the 2004 election, the Pope did not bind the conscience of Catholics to oppose the War in Iraq - he merely expressed his own prudential judgement on the question. Moreover, as the Archbishop points out, we must remember what we are balancing here - the lives of 1.3 million unborn children in America every year. Virtually no other modern policy issue - not taxes, welfare benefits, minimum wage, farm subsidies, the war - compares on that scale.

As a primary voter, Casey is entitled to go for idealism. But Ron Paul is a non-starter as a serious candidate for president. I, for one, am looking for a candidate who is both ideologically compatible and electable. Senator Thompson, among other Republicans, fits that bill.