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
I would say that if you give your consent to either party, you are resigning yourself to an irrelevant choice.
bump
At this moment, if you are voting for anyone other than McCain, I’m going to thank you for President Obama.
I made the same mistake with Ross Perot and got eight years of Clinton. You have history to look at, I did not.
Your standing on principle will give us a Marxist as CIC.
You are disregarding the one conservative who has a chance of winning anything, Sarah Palin. Vote her in and we have a good chance of a President who is 100% with our cause. Vote third party and that person has no chance, just like Perot.
Besides that old Chuckey Baldwin is a truther nut- even if he receives 100% of the vote on the States he is in, he will receive a maximum of about 110 electoral votes, no where near the 270 needed- ie, it is mathematically impossible for Chuckey "Truther" Baldwin to win.
Bump for a good list I plan on stealing at some point in the near future.
An excellent refutation of the author's points!
I agree with most of that, and the thing is?, most of those changes will effectively be irreversible (or take 25+ years to reverse). In other words, we won’t suddenly be “saved” if The Next Reagan comes along in 4-8 years. More like 40 years.
Thanks!
I was just going to find that in my pings!!!
“We might as well be discussing structural integrity dynamics with Alex Jones.”
You might as well be discussing Jessica Alba with Barney Franks.
I'm voting for McCain/Palin.
I stole it from Jim.
agrandis,
I will bet you are a very nice person. However, you are obviously cursed with the inability to draw a distinction, perhaps because of a lack of incisive thinking or an inability to screen out superfluous information. I have sympathy for your predicament.
There is one thing I do not understand. Why would you publicly advertise this problem and humiliate yourself?
I think you suffer from the “Don Quixote” Syndrome (DQS) which reflects a romantic view of an unlikely world rooted in the inability to deal with the world as it is. Be careful, DQS sufferers often develop full blown liberal dementia if not treated with heavy doses of reality testing.
Good luck and all the best.
The author’s points are founded in ignorance.
Uh, yeah, special treatment, maybe that's why the guy, who was fit as a fighter pilot, returned to the USA unable to comb his own hair from being beaten so severely so many times.
the author of this piece is a scumbag piece of crap, and anyone who follows this drivel is basically voting for 0bama.
At least I won’t be casting an irrelevant ballot. Adios.
At least I won’t be casting an irrelevant ballot. Adios.
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.