Pat :
My apologies if I came across as lecturing. And I’m certainly open to persuasion on the subject of time frame. It seems self-evident to me that when we’re asked to pick a leader for the next four years, it’s the country’s welfare during that time that we should be thinking about. But maybe I’m wrong about that — what would you say is the right time frame, and why?
I can only tell you that the scope of my assessment stretches into the decades. I am concerned for the continuation of the Republic 30 or 50 years from now more than our state over the next 4 years. Marathoners don’t worry about who’s leading for the first 2 miles and anyone who would have that as their main concern would probably not do well in the race.
Now, if someone thinks that something over the next 4 years will bring irreparable damage to the US (beyond high taxes or other relatively inconsequential considerations, in terms of the existence of our nation, which don’t scare me in the least) then it is not that they think that the next 4 years are important, in and of themselves, but that some deadly action will be taken during that time that will cause our eventual demise.
While certain actions in the larger war might have such an effect, the chances are very slim, and no different than what they have been for the past 3 years, anyway. Bush has gotten us back into the pre-9/11 position of waiting to react to a hit, and we are stuck here unless someone has the guts to deal with the real world. For all his talk of “pre-emptive war”, Bush never did anything but react. Iraq, which had to be taken down, whether people remember how things were before or not, was a reaction to a long festering problem, not a pre-emptive war. In legalistic terms, even, Iraq had been in violation of every single agreement/cease fire they signed and had been at war with us continually since the pitiful “end” of the first Gulf War. Bush’s policies have drifted so far off in his second term that I would not vote for him if he were running this time. He is about to leave office with 2/3 of the Axis of Evil stronger and more dangerous than they were on 9/12 and he has managed to almost totally ostracize the country that has been our traditional ally in world wars (with much worse governments and actions than they have now). I mean Russia.
None of the current potential candidates, McCain certainly included, has shown any desire to treat the world as it is, all of them instead choosing to continue following the idiocy of the past few decades, including staying in the UN, accepting OPEC as a legitimate organization, giving more lip service to the Geneva Conventions (even though the very existence of our strategic nuclear arsenal PROVES that we really never took the Geneva Conventions seriously – because the conventions never bore any relation to the realities of war), refusing to act as ruthlessly as our enemies demand, treating other cultures as if they were Westerners, etc. etc. All of the potential candidates, with minor differences, offer us more of the same, waiting to be hit again, until we can finally do what should have been done a long time ago, and certainly after 9/11 – though I still don’t trust any of them to do it even then. The Geneva Conventions certainly precludes any real warring, as all the tactics of a real war are “illegal”. It is all a pthetic joke. Our only hope is that this hit takes place somewhere else and scares America enough to say “stop with the idiocy”, or that India and Pakistan go nuclear on each other and finally force us to get serious and defang the rogue states that have been destabilizing and threatening the civilized world for decades. But I see no real differences, otherwise.
So Obama would pull out of Iraq. So what? McCain would force Israel to capitulate to the Palestinians and we see the jihadist bases already establishing themselves in Gaza and Sinai (a new development that will ultimately destabilize Egypt, leading to … very, very bad stuff) as a result (to some extent) of our idiotic policies that I pointed out earlier, not to mention the jihadist government we forced to be allowed to arise there. And let us not forget something, Israel has a large nuke arsenal and if Israel feels its existence truly threatened (which it is currently on the edge of) then the ending disposition of that nuke arsenal is more important than anything about Iraq. Whether Israel ends up launching those nukes in a Mutually Assured Destruction protocol, or collapses quietly and the arabs come into possession of the arsenal – both are totally unacceptable options for us. Obama, Clinton (both), McCain, Bush, Rice, … are all in a mad race to make Israel as insecure as it can be, and that is a strategy that can be fatal to all, whether they like Israel or not. The same would be said about the India/Pakistan nuke situation, except that the same geography that kept that area safe for millenia renders it also safe for nuclear war to take place without too many effects spilling over into strategic regions and we haven’t bothered trying to force them to do anything. I’ve seen no analysis of this type from anyone in the running (though their words and actions seem to indicate that they have not even considered these issues) and I have very little faith in any of them with this larger war.
Obama might be beyond on the pale on the larger war. Beyond his desire to pull out of Iraq, he might be able to irreparably damage the US, but even that I find highly unlikely. I am generally distressed by the idea of any of these people becoming President, in terms of how they would handle this war. But, that is the situation we are stuck with.
That aside (as they would all be awful war leaders, in my mind) it brings me to the domestic issues. Our country will be destroyed, by my estimation, with any amnesty. The US will not continue to exist if we flood the population with anti-Americans (those who carried signs that said, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us” are exactly the sort of people I am talking about). In this case, amnesty is more likely to be passed under McCain, and I feel that our existence as a country is more threatened by him. Obama and Clinton both want to pass amnesty more than McCain, but they would be less likely to do so – for various reasons.
I’d go further into this, along with the many other considerations in this election (global warming idiocy, first amendment rights, …), but I think you get the general gist of my thinking.
I don’t like having to listen to McCain supporters, most of whom have not considered any of these issues, telling me what it is important to consider in my voting and acting as if they see something that I don’t. If they did, they would be able to say it, and I would be happy to engage that debate. But we never get such debate from the McCain supporters – the same way no one ever offered a reasonable defense of their amnesty proposals.
Because of all this, I generally find McCain to be at least as great a threat to the US as anyone else currently running. McCain would be marginally better in the larger war, but not by much and perhaps not to our ultimate advantage, either. And if he delivers the deathblow of amnesty to the US in the meantime, which he is intent on doing, it won’t matter anyway.
These are some of my reasons. Other people against McCain have their reasons – I have heard myriad different ones, though most understand the mortal danger of amnesty to the US. This idea that people won’t vote for McCain because they just don’t like him is well off-base.
