Seven reasons to vote for McCain

One of my fellow dittohead bloggers is the “ultimate blogging machine”, Bob McCarty. He has a humorous take on an Obama supporter’s blog post with what the original blogger termed seven reasons to vote for Barack Obama. Those seven reasons in original order are:

  • The Obama campaign has spent significantly more on staff salaries than John McCain’s.
  • Because of point number 1 above, McCain’s “ground game” is seriously lacking.
  • Obama has made his a 50 state campaign.
  • The opportunity to make Democrats a “true governing majority.”
  • Campaigning in traditionally “red” states will make Obama a more effective leader.
  • A situation like 2008 doesn’t come along too often.
  • The time is now for a change of leadership that can last a generation.

Like Bob says about the last point, that’s a scary thought.

I pointed this out about a month ago, but several of the original blogger’s (David Mauro and a site called Burnt Orange Report) reasons are based on the fact that Barack Obama decided not to accept public financing of his campaign. It also allowed me to argue that this election will really come down to a handful of states, and if Obama campaigns in states like Utah (where McCain should win handily) or here in Maryland that’s probably a waste of his resources, or, in our case, a sign that Obama is desperate. Back when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee, it was noted by one of the speakers at our state GOP convention that if Hillary was campaigning in Maryland after Labor Day, it was a sign of trouble. The same goes for Obama.

With the caveat that we’re still three months away from the election (and with both candidates probably getting a polling bump from their convention, Obama moreso than McCain), the fact that polling is essentially even nationwide shows that a lot of people still have doubts about the “messiah” Obama. To hear the drive-by media talk about the campaign, Obama is being treated as if he’s up by 30 points. Maybe in Prince George’s County Obama is (in truth, the margin there is probably more like 60 points), but there’s a lot of folks still smarting about Hillary Clinton not getting the Democrat nomination and who just don’t trust the neophyte Obama.

While millions of people look at this election as yet another “lesser of two evils” one, the Obama campaign approach of vowing change while painting McCain as a third term of President Bush had some appeal, but Obama’s stances on particular issues have wasted the advantage he built up with this approach. Neither Mauro or McCarty looked at the most important reasons to vote for McCain: a better approach to energy independence and a vastly superior foreign policy. While McCain was far from my first choice, the more we find out about the alternative, the less palatable Barack Obama becomes.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

10 thoughts on “Seven reasons to vote for McCain”

  1. When I saw the headline, I was hoping to actually find seven reasons to vote for McCain. I still haven’t made up my mind about the Presidential race, and this post didn’t help me at all.

  2. How can MCcain have a ‘superior foreign policy’ when he can’t even distinguish between al quieda and other terror groups?

    How can someone that would choose war over diplomacy be more trustworthy? We’ve seen the disaster that mentality has created and we’re falling apart. I think even though you are a party loyalist, even you could admit that the Bush strategy has been a collosal failure, one that we’d like behind us as soon as possible.

    Indeed, I see it as a ‘lesser of 2 evils’ election and would like to see something better, but 4 more yrs. of a Republican sounds like the last thing we need. Give someone else a chance.

  3. Welcome back, Dan, it’s been awhile.

    Diplomacy is what you do after you militarily crush your opponent. Look at the Middle East and how much diplomacy has helped the Israel/Palestine situation.

    Barack Obama puts way too much trust in those who would just as soon slit our throats than talk to us. You’re not old enough to remember, but Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter as far as foreign policy goes and that was the time period Iran became a threat (after the Shah was overthrown) and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

  4. “Diplomacy is what you do after you militarily crush your opponent.” — Really? That’s a fairly limited view of what is involved in diplomacy. Personally, I’d rather have the diplomats sit around and find a solution rather than fighting a pointless war. If we can find a peaceful solution to our problems with Iran, it’s foolish to refuse to talk to them.

    And as far as the situation in Palestine and Israel, you might want to consider the failure of the current policy. Israel has constant terrorist attacks and the Palestinians live in squalor, under constant threat of Israeli military action. That sounds like a pretty crappy situation to me. If that’s your example of why we should avoid diplomacy, I think you’d better pick a new one.

  5. “Diplomacy is what you do after you militarily crush your opponent.” Yeah, that worked great in Vietnam! Diplomacy is what you do to get what you want WITHOUT having to go to war! Obama can bring that to the table, McCain cannot. Your attitude, Michael, has cost the U.S billions of doollars and, more importantly, thousands of lives.

  6. By the way, Afghanistan is probably not the best example for you to use. The U.S armed the Taliban, our best buddies against the Soviets. Whoops.

  7. Diplomacy never worked in Vietnam where we still have 1200+ MIAs 33 years later. Please, spare me. I’ve met people who went to their graves without knowing where the remains of their loved ones who served there were. Go tell those people diplomacy works. As long as the United States subordinates itself to the UN where our efforts at true diplomacy are thwarted by the nations that pour money and logistics (not to mention military aid) into R&D of nuclear armaments we will be the ones expected to make concessions. Yo’ Crallspace, Final Frontier, we’re the good guys here. Letting schmucks like Achmadinejab in Iran thumb their noses at the world is as unthinkable as letting an alcoholic leave a party drunk, with the keys to the Ferrarri. We’ve tried pissing and moaning, it didn’t work. You’re not dealing with rational people here. You don’t negotiate ever with terrorists or their sponsor states.

  8. BTW John McCain had 5&1/2 years to do little else but consider diplomacy. I think he made the right choice.

  9. Diplomacy could have AVOIDED Vietnam, is the point. What a wasteful war. Those MIA’s you lament could have been home with their kids had the U.S not fallen for the whole domino theory. How’d that work out, by the way? Lots of countries going communist today? The current war in Iraq is also hugely wasteful, and we should have been concentrating on Afghanistan the entire time. Bush and his cowboys thought they could “militarily crush their opponent” in a couple of months. Well, it is 5 years later–how’s that working for you? Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush led a lousy war effort because they were so cocky and viewed diplomacy as weak and now we are stuck with it. I want a commander-in-chief who understands that war is the last resort, and when they resort to it, they come up with a realistic strategy to win.

Comments are closed.