Given the choice between an economic liberal and an economic conservative, I will always choose the conservative no matter what their social views are. Economic policy, especially at the federal level, will more directly influence my life than social policy. If a religious zealot somehow seized office and enacted a law that would require us to become Christian, I could still believe whatever I wanted to believe. Conversely, if a communist zealot somehow seized office and enacted a 60%+ income tax (I'm not referencing Obama here) I can't choose to not pay taxes. Laws cannot punish action or inaction.

This election presents me with a more difficult choice. I would say that neither McCain nor Obama are economic conservatives, but McCain is more conservative than Obama. I could vote for Bob Barr or right in my vote for Bobby Jindal. But given the political climate for third-party candidates, it would not be in my best interest to do so--since an Obama presidency would be in my worst interest.

The reason it's so easy to be pro-McCain via anti-Obama rhetoric is because Obama's ideas are a radical departure from my own. I look at his ideas, cringe, and actively campaign against him--for any other candidate running (except Nader).

"But you're for tax cuts, aren't you?" asks little Lisa Liberal. "Obama plans to give tax cuts to 95% of wage earners!"

Are you sure about that? A "tax cut" by Obama's definition does not mean actually letting people keep more of the money they earn (how sick is it that the government has to let or not let you keep it?), but it's actually giving people money that they didn't earn. A third of Americans don't even pay income tax, so how could they get a tax cut? Well, it's not really a tax cut at all. It's welfare. And how does Wundercandidate plan to pay for this change? Taxing the rich, of course. They can afford it. They don't deserve their money. It would be better for everyone to spread the wealth around. "Close the wealth gap!" The difference between Obama and Robin Hood is that Robin Hood robbed from the government to give back to the people. He didn't rob other citizens.

"There are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them." -- Atlas Shrugged

If this is what Obama considers a tax cut, I don't want it. Sure I would have more money in my pocket, but I could get the same outcome if I put a gun to someone's head and robbed them. The difference is that the government holds a monopoly on force. Their "negotiation" at the point of a gun goes unpunished. My wouldn't (and rightfull so).

The "rich" bear no responsibility to the "poor." No adult bears a responsibility to another adult unless they have an agreed upon contract.

"I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need." -- The Fountainhead

Obama has also said on numerous occasions--much like McLame--that it was "greed" and "lack of regulation" that caused the economic downturn in this country.

Bullshit, Mr. Obama. Bullshit by the pound.

If regulation solves finanical problems, why do we keep having them? Our market is no where near as unrestrained as it was in the 30s. How could we possibily have a situation even close to the Great Depression? How could "greed" bring down the markets now? Additionally, if regulation was the answer, why did the most regulated markets in the world collapse faster and harder than ours: Russia, China, Europe? Of all of the failing markets, we've actually fared the best--this might relate to the fact that we have the least regulated market of the four, but I'm not sure.

Additionally, I trust McCain more on foreign policy than I do Obama. The extent of Obama's foreign policy experience is giving campaign speeches to Europeans--oh the hopeless audacity.

Finally, the fuss about Palin is incredible. Yes, I personally would have preferred Romney as the VP--then again I would have preferred him as the presidential nominee. Nonetheless, to argue that Palin is inexperienced and Obama is seems breathtakingly silly to me. Two years in the Senate with no prior executive experience does not qualify someone to lead a nation--and he's at the TOP of the Democrat ticket.

Palin on the other hand has just under two years as the governor of a state with 15,000+ employees and a budget of $11 billion. Unlike Obama, she has actually changed things in her short time in office AND she's a Washington outsider AND(!) she's the Republican VP nominee...I think the media tends to forget.

I refuse to address the claim that she's "stupid." The default argument against any conservative is that they're stupid, and I think it would be a waste of my time to give it serious thought.

I am voting for John McCain because, of the two electable candidates, I honestly believe he would make the better leader of the free world. This stance does not mean I agree with all of McCain's policies or that I endorse his "maverick" style. Equally, though, it does not mean I am supporting the "lesser of two evils." Neither candidate is "evil" in this race. One just has horrible ideas.

Now, KGF, where is your treatise on how someone as smart as you could possibility support someone like Barack Obama?


This is the worst blog post I have ever written.

No comments: