Lively is by no means a libertarian (much less a Libertarian). Here’s his platform, which is very socially conservative (his bio describes him as a “full-time missionary pastor,” so that shouldn’t surprise us): http://www.livelyforgovernor.com/
And his campaign website asks visitors to sign a petition to the MA GOP that it run conservatives instead of RINOs:
“Petition to:
Massachusetts Republican Party
No More RINOs!
Run a True Conservative for Governor”
He links to the petition: http://www.citizengo.org/en/signit/608/view
So it seems as if Lively is a Republican who chose to run as an independent because he wants to make noise, not elect someone more conservative.
As for your decision not to “vote for liberals,” that’s your right. But Coakley would do far more damage than would Baker, which is something that you should keep in mind. A few years ago, Father Frank Pavone (longtime head of Priests for Life) wrote about what a voter should do when faced with two imperfect candidates. While he was writing specifically about the abortion issue, his teaching on what we should do when faced with the reality of an imperfect world is a sound lesson for all contexts:
“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
Blah blah blah. I’ve heard all those arguments before. I keep a clear conscience by not voting for liberals. I will not help them in any way to win and am not responsible for any of their actions. Liberal republicans “need” our conservative votes but then work to make sure we are NEVER actually represented in any office. I’m done playing their cute little game.
the whole thing is silly. An absurd coalition of NARAL-GOP-prolifers and a LT GOV who used to oppose gay marriage.
It does not work, but becomes a comedy routine.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/lieutenant_governor_candidate_1.html
In a high profile race, they will inevitably snub the 2% of the electorate that are serious about being social conservatives. The Baker pro-choice ads on NESN are a joke.
The solution? I am for Dan Allie for state rep, Westfield.
https://www.facebook.com/dan.allie.14