On March 6 I had the displeasure of attending a Republican Presidential Caucus. It happened to be the largest one in the state, was very poorly organized, and took hours longer than necessary. Instead of being able to vote right away, attendees had to endure the speeches of representatives for each of the candidates.
The lady representing Ron Paul had many good things to say about him: he plans to cut the federal budget by $1 trillion dollars in the first year, balance it in three, and was the only one to predict the housing bubble. But she did not mention the fact that he is also the only candidate that opposes war. I suppose this might have been a strategic decision in a very Republican crowd. I wondered how I might have done things differently, had I had the opportunity to speak on Paul's behalf. After mentioning all of the superior economic policies and stance for civil liberties that he represents, I would have liked to close by engaging the audience in this manner:
"It is not an exaggeration to state that a vote for any of these other candidates is a vote for someone who will sanction the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Perhaps ignorance at one time could be excused, but I am telling you this now. Please realize that there just might be some blood on your hands by the decisions you make tonight."
I sincerely hope that the problem in this situation is that many Americans just don't realize how many lives are affected negatively by American foreign policy. But, in contemplating it, I am reminded of what the crowd said to Pilate in Matthew 27 after he told them that, "I am innocent of this man's blood...It is your responsibility!"
The people replied, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"