A pro-life candidate gives us the touchdown option. But given the possible scenario of the two main parties having pro-choice nominees, the touchdown is off the table. Pro-lifers can only choose between tying with a field goal or losing the game. A third party candidate doesn't offer the chance for a touchdown as.I think there are quite a few holes in this analogy considering if Giuliani is nominated, a pro-choicer will have the chance at nominating the next Supreme Court justice (which is highly likely considering Stevens' age) regardless. And I think there's a decent chance Giuliani, if elected, could nominate someone who's not completely on board with overturning Roe.
It would be much better if one of the main candidates is pro-life and offers the winning option. Go for the touchdown, of course. But if our alternatives are lose or draw, I'd prefer to go for the field goal and stay in the game. Stay on the field rather than stand on the sidelines and watch a pro-choicer nominate the next Supreme Court justice.
I'm a big fan of football analogies so I attempted to come up with a scenario I thought worked better. Below is a comment I left in response (with some minor corrections):
One problem I see with prolifers who would be willing to support a pro-choice Republican candidate for President is that electing a pro-choice Republican virtually guarantees us 8 years of a pro-choice presidency.Thoughts? Better analogies?
If Giuliani wins the GOP nomination and is elected in 2008 - he'll most likely be the nominee in 2012 and I think we all know what the chances are of the Democrats nominating a prolife candidate.
What's better a guaranteed 8 years of a pro-choice presidency (with the possibility that 4 of those years are decent for prolifers because Giuliani might veto some pro-choice legislation and nominate decent Supreme Court justices) or a guaranteed 4 years of a pro-choice presidency (with a pro-choice president who'll try to reverse prolife gains, nominate pro-choice justices, etc.) but a chance at getting a prolife president in 2012?
So I think the football scenario which would be more accurate (though still far from perfect) if Giuliani was nominated would be more like this:
It's 4th and goal from the 35 yard line and we're down by 4 points. Our chances of scoring a touchdown (electing a prolife third party candidate) are very slim. We have the option of trying to use a field goal kicker (Giuliani) who isn't very good. If he actually makes the long field goal (vetoes pro-choice legislation and nominates decent individuals to the supreme court) - we'll have to use him again (for another four years) to make another field goal. Or we can punt (allow a pro-choice Democratic candidate to be president for 4 years) and hope to stop the opponent's offense and then try to score a touchdown on our next drive (2012).