There is something contradictory of integrity for anyone to further the election of anyone with which he has fundamental, conscientious differences. Between two candidates who both believe in the right to life, there might be reconcilable differences on the best way to protect that right. The party that has lately come to respect religion at least to the point of toleration has a problem about wanting to take and keep as much of Americans' money as can be taxed from them. The problem is that God forbids the coveting of another's goods. And though surely justice requires sufficient taxation to conduct a modest amount of government that amount required for the common good justice prohibits confiscation of citizens' money on the theory government knows what is best for everybody.
Confiscatory taxation is a denial of personal responsibility and private property.
I would think that if the party of high taxation and severe regulation of property use has got religion, it would consider God's Commandment that one is not to covet his neighbor's goods. The same, of course, applies to the other party that has been more appreciative of the need of a moral culture all along. I am glad to see that the Party of New Propriety is eschewing and disavowing funds to be raised by one of its congresswomen at Hugh Hefner's bunny paradise. There again, however, such recent rectitude might well be motivated by a suspicion that voters in November may not appreciate the free-wheeling lifestyle of the party's leader being ratified, as it were, by a party bash at the bunny warren. The beautiful people, no matter what their inclinations, don't want to be damned out of office, and if necessary will appeal to be abstemious and proper to avoid such damnation.