Unfortunately, in the real world Judie Brown has taught her followers to boycott elections and to turn in ballots that are mostly blank. Examples:
New Hampshire – Pro-Life Catholic activist Jennifer Horn lost a close primary to Charlie Bass in 2010. A.L.L. affiliate did not support her because a 3rd minor candidate jumped n the race and they did not think it right to decide between him and Horn. Two GOP candidates, O’Brien and Lambert, are running vs. Kuster in ’14. A.L.L. will find flaws in both.
Massachusetts - A.L.L. bad-mouthed Scott Brown in ’10 during his campaign vs Martha and then publicly advocated a blank ballot vs. Lizzy Warren. In the special that elected Mrs. Tsongas,, they campaigned for 3rd party candidate who received 3% giving Tsongas a 2% victory. In western Mass, they bad-mouth Dr. Jay Fleitman (anti-Obamacare activist in the medical community) and opponent of Neal and Olver.
NY: they trashed Tedisco, 99% pro-life voting record in Albany, in his race in the open 19th. Perhaps “pro-choice” Gibson (who votes pro-family) is getting worse treatment against his NARAL opponents. They did nothing for Doug Hoffman NY=23.
Nan Hayworth (opthamologist and anti-Obamacare activist), voted against the sex-selection bill (which is the ALL position!), and ALL folks purged her, giving us openly-gay NARAL celebrity Sean Maloney.
CT: They bragged about blank balloting in the DeLauro race even though her opponent was a pro-lifer. “we didn’t know”. Same with Martha Dean AG candidate (”She’s a lawyer and they aren’t usually pro-life”.) They smeared pro-life candidate Mark Greenberg (”he’s a Jew and has been married 4 times!”) The Jew part is true although he is non-practicing Jew. The “4 wives” is a lie. He’s a happily married man.
In Tolland, Nancy Wyman’s house seat just went to a pro-lifer. The large ALL group in the town boycotted cuz Waterbury didn’t tell them to get involved. The gun owners did the door knocking and phone banking.
The A.L.L. Cult is teaching people to boycott society and to become non-voters. It’s the Pontius Pilate card. “Piety in place of duty is no piety at all”. Boycotters are Morons.
Here’s Father Frank Pavone’s column:
“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.
By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.
Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”
http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm
I donate money both to the American Life Leage and Priests for Life. I was not aware that ALL even participated in electoral matters—its newsletter talks about their work to close down Planned Parenthood clinics and Judie Brown uses it to explain her philosophy (with which I largely agree). Where does ALL publish voter guides?
Tsongas won by 51%-45% in that first special election, so the third-party spoiler wasn’t really relevant. Still, backing Jim Ogonowski should have been a no-brainer.
I take it that "Waterbury" means the Muckles, Bill O'Brien, CRTLC and their fellow activists there. Did you try to persuade them on CT-3 or CT-5 or on Martha Dean for AG? I don't claim that I can "deliver" them but I have every expectation that I can talk to them. When they say that they do not know enough about a candidate, they are being honest and they will not endorse candidate A simply because they reject candidate B. They want a sense of confidence that a candidate they may support is WORTH supporting on his/her own merits. I don't blame them.
I would agree with you on NH-2. Kuster deserves to lose. So did Bass, however, like his father before him. In Massachusetts Senate race, I would not have voted for Fauxcahontas, Martha Coakley, Mrs. Tsongas and likely not for Scott Brown either. I know nothing about the Western Mass Congressional candidates other than Olver who had earned a defeat. Likewise the New York candidates other than Hoffman who deserved support as a Conservative (Democrat) candidate against the despicable pro-abort Ms. Scozzafava to teach the sleazy GOP leadership a deserved lesson.
In the Connecticut races: The black guy who ran against De Lauro looked particularly good and worth supporting. Martha Dean for AG over either Blumenturd or his replacement early and often. CT-5: Mark Greenberg even if he was a Zoroastrian and had been "married" to his donkey. I would have stirred from my computer in my old age to help him.
Face it. Sometimes (not always) "society" is well-worth boycotting. Seen many good Hollywood movies lately? How about Network TV series? Much good new pop music? Here in Illinois, my State Rep.. my State Senator and my Congresscritter are all ostensibly "conservatives" especially in their voting records BUT they are each and every one total party hacks for a state party that makes Connecticut's GOP look like the John Birch Society. My Congresscritter is particularly objectionable as a loyal footstool for Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy. I want to encourage each of them----- to retire. I don't vote for them.
In the Tolland race, that was a nice victory. Guns were the issue of the moment and gun groups SHOULD have taken the lead. They did. Good for them.