Posted on 10/29/2008 11:56:01 AM PDT by agrandis
Various of my friends and members of my extended family are urging me to vote for Sen. John McCain for President in the rapidly approaching general election. Few of them have much or anything positive to say about McCain himself, but they tell me that the dangers presented by the election of Barack Obama leaves us no alternative but to vote for McCain, thus blocking an Obama presidency. As always, we are told on all fronts that this is the "most important election in history."
For several reasons, I disagree with these friends and family members that our only alternative is to vote for John McCain.
Claim: McCain is the lesser of two evils.
There is not a real difference between the two presidential candidates of the major political parties in philosophy, worldview, or integrity. One is Black, and one is White. One is old, and one is young. I claim that, in spite of the rhetoric, this is where the differences end. In recent sound bites, on the topic of personal liberty and the Constitution, Obama sounds slightly more conservative than McCain. On abortion, McCain sounds a little more conservative than Obama. On foreign policy, McCain sounds slightly more hyper-interventionist than Obama, and neither sound conservative. But when you consider all of the rhetoric, their records, and the practical implications of their stated goals, all the supposed differences melt away, and we are left with another Bush Administration, or another Clinton Administration, with a slightly different flavor, but the same old direction for our nation: rapidly toward more foreign interventionism, more economic interventionism, more suppression of liberty, more complete reliance on government, more tax funding for all manner of evil, including abortion, unjust war, welfare for politically connected multinational corporations, more official corruption, and, eventually, bankruptcy, chaos and/or brutal totalitarianism.
To know how a President McCain would govern in the realm of economics, one only has to remember his actions of a few weeks ago, when he pushed for unprecedented powers for the Secretary of Treasury, and, along with Bush's urging and Obama's help, lead the way for the Senate to pass the infamous bailout bill, which was the exact bill which angry voters had just persuaded the House to reject, only now with over 450 pages of earmarks (pork), tax "extenders," and new powers for the IRS added to it. McCain publicly chided House Republicans for listening to their constituents and stopping the first monstrous bill in the House! Bush and McCain and Obama told us we were all going to suffer financial ruin if we did not pipe down and hand over our children's wallets to the banksters. Now that they have had their way, we have seen dramatic drops in all of the world's stock markets. What better example do we need to see that McCain and Obama are on the same page when it comes to economics?
What about the right to be armed? Surely McCain is better than Obama on that issue? For the answer to that question, I would direct the reader to this web address: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm. It is a compendium put together by Gun Owner's of America, of John McCain's gun-control record.
What about immigration? More than even most Democrats, McCain has been a consistent advocate of uncontrolled immigration. In 2007, he was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy Act, which sought, among other things, to legalize the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country. This was being pushed during the jostling for position in the primary elections, and was a very unpopular bill among the Republican rank-and-file in an election in which opposition to unchecked immigration was expected to play a huge role. Yet, somehow, John McCain managed to win the primary popular vote. Incidentally, none other than Barack Obama was an ardent supporter of this act, and also a co-sponsor.
The environment? See McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.
Free speech? See the McCain-Feingold Act, a famously unconstitutional piece of legislation.
Foreign policy? Both candidates have advocated aggressive interventionism and nation-building. Both support our illogical and immoral policies in the Balkans, and hypocritically support the independence of a Muslim Kosovo, but oppose the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Both want to increase and expand our current quagmire in the Middle East.
Abortion, I am told, is where the important difference lies between John McCain and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is famously tolerant of all abortions, any time, any where. McCain, on the other hand, currently claims to be pro-life, and promises to select judges that are "strict constructionists," implying that he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, if given the chance. But John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue, like so many others in his political career, several times. He has made statements in recent years that he does not want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. Also, McCain's role in promoting justice David Souter, the currently important role of Warren Rudman in McCain's campaign, and his voting record for past nominations in the Senate, is an indication of what kind of Supreme Court justices we really would get under a McCain presidency; they are not likely to be justices that would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
John McCain has repeatedly stated his support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and has even implied that it should be increased.
McCain shows no tendencies to stop the over $1 billion of Federal funds that go to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America every year, and under a McCain presidency, funding for this and other abortion "services" would likely increase, as it has under the Bush Administration. Until those of us who are pro-life get away from the distraction of the fight for the Supreme Court, and trying to Federalize laws against a certain kind of murder, and instead focus on the right of a state to protect the lives of its citizens without Federal interference, and, more importantly, insist that those politicians who call themselves pro-life do all they can within their sphere to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and pro-abortion propaganda, we will never make any political ground against the Culture of Death. It's easy to call oneself pro-life, but it's another thing to stand for life consistently.
Although conservatives today have chosen to support nearly all wars waged by the Federal government, and believe any and all justifications for these wars, unjust and needless wars are also the taking of innocent lives. In other words, it is state-sponsored mass murder. Why do we rightly speak out against the evil slaughter of millions of babies through abortion, but tolerate and even support the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies in other countries in wars that are based on government falsehoods and flimsy justifications?
Claim: McCain has better character.
Others will admit that there is no essential difference between the politics of McCain and Obama, but that Obama is a man of bad character, and associates with bad eggs, while McCain is a war hero.
While I, too, am very disturbed by Obama's personal and political associations, and do think his character is a relevant and important topic, I am equally disturbed by the associations of John McCain. Disturbingly, there is even some overlap in the nefarious associations of the two men. In the interest of space, I will leave it to the reader to investigate for themselves the following partial list of associations with John McCain: The regime in Libya, the regime in Georgia (the country, not the state), mob boss Joe "Bananas" Bonano, Charles Keating (how can we forget that?), George Soros, and Juan Hernandez (McCain's Director of Hispanic Outreach).
As for the designation of John McCain as a war hero, it is indisputable that he was shot down on a bombing raid, and that he spent over 5 years as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam. However, what happened to him as a POW is disputed. Many Vietnam veterans, including some of his fellow POWs, claim that McCain cooperated with his communist captors without undergoing the torture he claims was administered. They claim that he was given special treatment by the North Vietnamese, because of his special status as the son of an Admiral, and because of his willingness to cooperate in producing propaganda with them.
These men who make these claims are also veterans, and were also held captive by the enemy as POWs, so there is no reason to automatically discount their claims, or to say they are less credible than McCain because of McCain's status as a war hero. Two things give credence to their claims, in my view. One is the frequency with which John McCain lies today (he has been caught in too many blatant and public lies to itemize here), proving that the truth is not something he finds to be important. Secondly, John McCain, as a US Senator, has doggedly stonewalled attempted investigations into the fate of the many POWs and MIAs left in Southeast Asia. The surviving loved ones of the many missing US Servicemen have been publicly belittled by McCain, and have been the recipients of displays of his famous violent temper, for simply wanting to know the truth about the fate of their missing family members. Further, McCain stated that no POWs in Vietnam were interrogated by Soviet agents. We now know through evidence and testimony that has since come to public light that this statement is not true, and also that McCain had to have known it was not true, based on his seat in the Senate. The demeanor of McCain toward these surviving family members of POWs and MIAs and their advocates, and his tireless efforts (teaming up with Senator John Kerry) to block their searches for answers, seems incongruous with his claims regarding his years as a POW.
John McCain's military career before being shot down in Vietnam was spotty, at best. He was known as a party animal, and lost five aircraft, including the one shot down over North Vietnam. Only two of these crashes could be considered combat-related, including a fiery explosion on an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors.
While I'm writing about character, I will mention the fact that McCain left his first wife after she was in a car wreck that left her confined to a wheelchair, for a younger, much richer woman who has better political connections. He may repudiate the foolishness of his youth, and one need not be perfect to advocate virtue, but the abandonment of his first wife does understandably cast doubt on his character, and does not put him on strong moral ground to advocate family values.
Claim: McCain's no good, but his VP pick is:
Some argue that I should vote for John McCain because of his running mate, Sarah Palin. They agree that there is no difference in the character or policy views of McCain and Obama, but that McCain is old, and may die in office, and the true conservative Palin will take his place. But leaving aside doubts of the stories about her fighting corruption within the GOP in Alaska, and whether her professed feminism is good or bad for her family and our society, Sarah Palin shows her true colors by even being willing to be the running mate of John McCain, and being willing to promote him and his politics. She has embraced McCain's politics, and has already been willing to compromise her past views. If she is half the woman her supporters think she is, she will be somehow removed by the current corrupt GOP leaders, or she will remove herself.
In conclusion, I believe that a John McCain presidency would be at least as bad for our nation and our families as an Obama presidency, and perhaps even worse, since he would be falsely viewed as the conservative choice of the voters, though he would run the country in no appreciably different way than would Barack Hussein Obama. (I use the phrase "run the country" because thanks to the Congresses and the Administrations of the last 20 years, the President of the United States is for all practical purposes a dictator.) As we have seen with George W Bush, a Republican President gets support from much of the conservative portion of the population when he does things that would incite near riot by the same people if he were a Democrat. Therefore, perhaps it is better for a Democrat to hold that obscenely powerful position for now, with the hope for some popular resistance to his actions, and some unity in the opposition among conservatives.
Each election, conservatives reluctantly vote for someone for President who is more progressive, more socialistic, and less Constitutional than the candidate in the previous election. When will it end? When will we say "no more?"
I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party. I urge all Americans who are tired of the lawlessness, corruption, and increasing totalitarianism of our current government to vote with me for Chuck Baldwin, or to vote for another Third Party, or to write in someone else, or to not vote for President at all. Don't throw away your vote! Why choose between drowning and hanging? Why choose between Benito Mussolini and Vladimir Lenin? This election, let's not give these nihilistic demagogues our consent to govern us. Just say no to Ocain and Mcbama!
Thanks for reading...
Dan Jacobson
Ignorance? I suppose it’s a highly evolved intellect that continues to assert, without a shred of evidence to support it, that voting third-party will have a positive effect on the outcome of this election.
Third party voting gave us Bill Clinton in 1992. Apparently that’s OK with you, and it may very well happen again this year, but with consequences far worse than anything endured under the Clinton Administration.
Now, self-righteous is a Christian term, which means that a person thinks righteousness originates from himself, instead of from the God who made all things. It has been adapted in the post-Christian world we live in to be an emotionally charged (and therefore reason-suppressing) word to describe anyone who cares too much about evil, or won't compromise with evil.
I KNEW it! What was there to vote for in Perot???? The guy talked in circles, and said nothing, but did make it plain he did not believe in limited government, and didn't care about the Law of the Land.
You have a history of putting your faith in fools.
No, I’ve learned my lesson. Apparently, you’re still trying to learn yours. Keep voting for nutjobs like Ron Paul and see where that gets you (and our country). It’s done wonders so far, hasn’t it?
You mean the first wife who is supporting him in this election, I take it?
It's okay - you like Big Government; you like paying for propaganda and abortions and unjust wars; you don't mind being lied to over and over and over and over. Most people on this site these days are just like you. And so are the people in East Saint Louis, by the way. But when the SHTF, none of that will matter.
Take care....
Here we go again - the same folks who love to jump out from behind the couch every four years and yell “BOO! Republicrats are SCARY, don’t vote for them!”
Where’s the plan? Really, if you want to get serious about getting back to the Constitution, you need to go to work NOW, not two weeks before the election. You have four years to get the ball rolling and get some publicity and name recognition happening for people like Mr. Baldwin, and now is the time to do it while everyone’s attention is focused. If you think you and five other people (20% - where do you get this number from?) voting third party is going to leave any sort of impression whatsoever, you’re not grounded in reality.
You’re going to need a lot more people on board before you can make any difference. You need to sell the idea of liberty to the public. You need people who can infiltrate the Republican party at local levels. You need to do something other than this last minute vote-your-principles campaign.
So what does the Constitution Party plan on doing after the election? Will they disappear like they always do, or will they make an effort to stay in the spotlight? Will they work below the radar to get the word out, or will they try to get some supporters hired at a local paper? How do they propose getting close enough to grab the brass ring?
Get over yourself. This isn’t about you. It’s about the next four years during a time of war and economic challenge. You have two viable choices for President. You choose neither. That’s your right, but you certainly have no standing to project arrogant sanctimony. Thanks.
And you’re playing the part of Useful Idiot. Karl Marx, Barak Hussein Marx Obama, Nancy Marx Pelosi, Hairy Marx Reid and their leftist comrades worldwide unite and thank you very much.
Love Rothko
Don’t get Rothko
Love Rothko all the same
LOL!
Unjust wars? That’s all I need to know about you. Have a nice day, sir.
The founders of this nation were a minority of their day. Many others were content to except the evils of the king or other local leaders. A few however were not. Put your hopes in doing what is right instead of what is the lesser of evils and count on the LORD to do the rest. I also remind everyone the GOP was born a third party and elected as such even a lowly congressman was elected POTUS something the party now says is impossible. GOP was born of a division and collpase of a former party simuliar to the one fixing to happen soon to the GOP. There are plenty of good person in the GOP. However there are far too many who see voting for evils or degrees thereof as an answer to our woes and it's not gonna work. Never has and never will. It simply drags both parties and the nation to the same end.
“Get over yourself. This isn’t about you. It’s about the next four years during a time of war and economic challenge. You have two viable choices for President. You choose neither. That’s your right, but you certainly have no standing to project arrogant sanctimony. Thanks.”
If you’re telling a Baldwin voter to stay home, you don’t want conservatives in the Senate. You don’t want conservatives in the House. You don’t want conservatives in the governor’s seat. You don’t want conservatives in the state legislature. A Baldwin voter will mark Constitution at the top of the ticket, but do you think they’re NOT going to vote R’s all the way down?
In short, if you tell a Baldwin voter to stay home, you might as well come out as a liberal, because that’s what you’ve become.
I can not think of two more arrogant politicans than Obama and McCain. Well I can but both are certainly close to the top of the list. Less than one year ago McCain was one of the most despised Republicans in this forum.
I’m voting for Sarah Palin.
McCain is the opening act.
If you are voting third party at this point and can live with NOT voting for the only 100% conservative candidate that we’ve had since Ronald Reagan with any kind of shot of winning, your righteousness is getting in the way of your thought process.
It will likely take just that to do the job. Todays Democratic party is Socalist. Today's GOP is somewhere well left of the 1960's Democratic Party under Lyndon Baines Johnson. That shows what voting lesser of evils gets a nation.
I fail to see your logic.
Palin is not running for POTUS. Palin is not running for POTUS. Palin is not running for POTUS John McCain is and he too like Obama is wrong.
Now as for Reagan? Do you realize who helped put the man in office? Do you even remember the name of the group formed to turn the nation back to Conservative values? I doubt you or three fourths of this forum-can name even one founder of that group. Look at what our nation was under Reagan and see where she stands today. I'll tell you what the Partybots grab their garlic when you mention Howard Phillips. Yet without him Weyrich, and yes a DEM Preacher there may have not been a Reagan win. Would eight years of Poppy Bush instead or Reagan suited you better? Poppy was without a doubt his biggest mistake as Poppy tore down everything Reagan accomplished along with his NEOCON Liberal wrecking crew left over from the Ford Disaster.
There are no Reagan's today because the RNC, the MSM and NEOCON's fear such happening again. Reagan was not perfect by any means but no POTUS since has came close to achieving what he did both for our nation and the free world. Most of it done without even firing a shot.
Then you need to be on the front lines, urging your men forward, instead of ordering them into situations they can never come out of.
Quit being a coward and help this country rise again to Glory!
There is no such thing as a “sure thing,” but I’ve lost too many ancestors, friends and aquaintences to let you snivel. VOTE! CHANGE THINGS! DO IT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.