Responding to Rusty about McCain
Several days ago, in response to a Human Events article I wrote in which I said that McCain's position on "cap and trade" cemented my opposition to him, my friend Rusty asked whether that was a counter-productive view because McCain, although flawed, is still better than the Democrats. Here's my response.
I think about those questions a lot.
The answer is complex. Yes, McCain is better for my preferred agenda, but not better enough to support him.
In 2006, the GOP lost control of the Senate by 1 seat. In Missouri and Montana, the Republican lost by fewer votes than the Libertarian candidate received. If you're willing to believe that (at least in the past) libertarians were more likely to vote GOP than Democrat, you could argue that the Libertarians cost the GOP control of the Senate. For me, that was a great thing.
I am not a "good Republican" in the sense of supporting the party blindly. My interest is in good government. I believe the GOP may be capable of it. I believe the Democrats are incapable of it. If the GOP nominates a candidate who is just barely better than a Democrat, if you adjust for expectations he's actually a lot worse than the Democrat.
And, as I said the "cap and trade" issue is truly huge. It's the biggest threat to the American economy in my lifetime...maybe in the nation's history. And I don't believe I'm exaggerating. If McCain is President, cap and trade will definitely pass. If a Democrat is President, maybe enough Republicans will stand up against it to either keep it from passing or at least to get it changed to a less malignant form of cancer...something which a cure may be found for before it kills us, a cure like another Reagan Revolution after 4 years of a President Obama or President Hillary.
Don't forget, with all of McCain's talk about "reaching across the aisle to get things done", that bipartisanship in Washington means conservatives voting for big-government liberal bills, such as increasing SCHIP, or the Farm Bill, or the Highway Bill. It's never liberals crossing the aisle to vote for liberty, limited government, or free markets. So, in my view bipartisanship is not only over-rated, it's generally dangerous. The last thing this country needs is a "bipartisan maverick Republican". It just means he'll sell us completely down the river, just as he did already with McCain-Feingold and as he tried to do with McCain-Kennedy (immigration) and as he's trying to do with McCain-Lieberman ("climate"). He's a megalomaniac, he's dangerous, and even though he's definitely better than either Democrat, I still kinda hope he loses.
I thought George W. Bush was better, on paper, before his first election than John McCain is now. Much better. And I voted Libertarian in that election; I've never voted for W. If I couldn't vote for W because he wasn't solid enough on fundamental American principles, then I certainly can't support John McCain.
|Print article||This entry was posted by Rossputin on 05/25/08 at 01:38:36 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.|