Why I Support John McCain

To compare him to his Democratic opponents, on the issues that matter

1. Immigration
McCain joins in the the hardwork of actually getting compromise legislation through the Congress. Clinton and Obama are widely seen as sympathetic to immigration reform, but do not take political risks to move it forward.
Advantage: McCain +.5

2. Free Trade
McCain joins the majority to enact DR-CAFTA, and stands up for NAFTA when it is being criticized for other candidates. Obama and Clinton are seen by those “in the know” as secretly supporters NAFTA and CAFTA, though they deny that.
Advantage: McCain +.5

3. Iraq
McCain proves me wrong, showing that my calls for withdrawal in Iraq were misguided, and what was really needed was a true counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy. Clinton still gives glimmers of supporting McCain’s position, but Obama’s twice-wrong position (against the war then, against the war now) allows us only to quote this-or-that adviser who implies the war would continue under him.
Advantage: McCain (v. Clinton) +.5
Advantage: McCain (v. Obama) +.75

4. Abortion
Where there is clearly a point at where post-conception birth control ends, there is also a point where pre-birth infanticide begins. McCain opposes the lawful murder of unborn children. Obama and Clinton do not.
Advantage: McCain +1

5. Science
McCain, Clinton, and Obama routinely support anti-science fads, such as destroying the Kennewick evidence and potentially foolish global warming legislation.
Advantage: No one.

In conclusion:

McCan v. Clinton: +2.5 on the major issues
McCain v. Obama: +2.75 on the major issues

Vote John McCain for President.

20 thoughts on “Why I Support John McCain”

  1. Indeed, Obama has been vague on the issue, saying that he swears to uphold Roe vs. Wade, but need I remind that John Roberts (the appointee who has inspired you to say bless GWB on one or more occasions) also has an equally vague stance, saying that he plans to uphold Roe vs. Wade, despite the relatives as to whether he has done so?

    If you call Obama an infanticider on such a basis, then you had better get on Roberts’ case for taking the same exact public position as well.

    Oh, and you are probably going to bring up the post-birth attempted abortion bill in the Illinois senate, to which I will say that there are enough legal loopholes in the bill to outlaw abortion completely, to which you will say that is just an excuse and Obama really likes to kill babies, and finally we will fail to convince one another once again.

    “potentially foolish global warming legislation”

    Indeed, while there are right ways and wrong ways of going about the global warming issue, let us consider for a moment how long it has taken enviornmentalist to mobilize on the platform of CO2 neutralization and how long it would take Barnett’s cost/effective platform to be mobilized. What I am saying is; We need to choose a solution and stick with it, and only one so far has the popularity to advance forth sooner rather than later.

  2. I think I’d end up with roughly the same numbers as you, only for different reasons on criteria #3 and #5.

    Health care doesn’t factor in?

  3. Adam,

    Good point on health care. Give Clinton +.75 (universal health care, not entirely employer sponsored) and Obama +.5 (a voluntary national health care plan misses most of the point).

    That lesson McCain’s advantage to +1.75 against Clinton, and +2.25 against Obama.

  4. I would add a point each to McCain for firearms (he is solid on RKBA) and court appointments (he has promised appointments like Roberts and Alito), and half a point for simply being more qualified to be commander in chief.

  5. “Your first three paragraphs would be relevant if Obama was a candidate for the Supreme Court, which he is not.”

    How’s so?

    “Could you rephrase your last paragraph? I’m unsure why political support for a wasteful strategy [1] makes such a strategy wise.”

    I didn’t know I was referring to a specific strategy, I thought I was referring to a common goal.

  6. Jeffrey

    “Your first three paragraphs would be relevant if Obama was a candidate for the Supreme Court, which he is not.”

    How’s so?

    You compare Barack Obama (a Presidential candidate) to John Roberts (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). Justices are chosen for judicial philosophy, and positions on individual political issues are de-emphasized. Preidents, in contrast, are chosen for their policy proposals.

    “Could you rephrase your last paragraph? I’m unsure why political support for a wasteful strategy [1] makes such a strategy wise.”

    I didn’t know I was referring to a specific strategy, I thought I was referring to a common goal.

    I’m still not clear what your point is. Fixation on global warming, like fixation on terrorism, is a myopic view of the world [1].


    Good points.

    I chose my major themes because people across the political spectrum agree they are important. In contrast, many liberals discount the value of the 2nd amendment debate, as many conservatives devalue the importance of warrentless wiretaps, say.

    [1] http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/04/the_gore_counternarrative_kick.html

  7. “Fixation on global warming, like fixation on terrorism, is a myopic view of the world”

    And I couldn’t agree more with that statement. I fear that the global warming issue may become like that of the war on terror as such that it is taboo to challenge how many resources that we put towards it.

    However, I am just saying that the environmentalist solution has time as an asset on their side since it is already mobilized, as opposed to the Barnett one that only 1 in 500 people have ever heard of. Perhaps the 30 year or so head start of mobilization may not give them an edge, but it is an advantage none-the-less. Either way, my inferior human brain hasn’t comprehended all the variables and for some reason I doubt you have either, and for that reason I think we should keep all solutions on the table with relatively equal consideration.

  8. “Presidents, in contrast, are chosen for their policy proposals.”

    O.K. Let me try again.

    John Roberts’ says that he upholds Roe vs. Wade.

    John Roberts’ lets the late term/partial birth abortion ban stand.

    Obama and Hillary say that they take Roe vs. Wade to heart (in policy terms).

    Considering the aforementioned, is it not possible for one to say they agree with Roe vs. Wade and yet oppose partial birth abortion, especially since the court has indirectly defined Roe vs. Wade as such with the last ruling?

  9. Jeffrey,

    Regarding the environment…

    The most effective — and perhaps the only cost-effective — solution to global warming in increased R&D. Fighting global warming while not harming economic growth is a modest goal with modest objectives. I wish the campaign well. But like the campaign to eradicate the rinderpest virus [1], however, it’s hardly an organizing principle for the United States government.

    Regarding abortion…

    Hillary Clinton voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. [2,3] Likewise, Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to ban partial-birth abortion [4].

    [1] http://cominganarchy.com/2008/04/04/the-extinction-of-rinderpest/
    [2] http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
    [3] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051
    [4] http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/18/cq_2588.html

  10. 6. Because I (TDAXP) thought Obama was a good candidate before, and now must scramble to change that tune now that his nomination is semi-likely. OBEY

  11. From the NYT article above.

    “Obama weighed in with support for the dissenting opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote that the ruling ‘tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in ‘certain cases’ by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.'”

    Is it possible that opposition to the law is because it makes zero concessions to cases of health being at stake? Even South Dakota’s previous law allowed all abortion under circumstances of health.

  12. Aaron,

    Certainly I hope that the Democratic Party loses in the general election [1], but I’ve been consistent that Hillary’s positions are closer to my own [2].


    South Dakota’s law (which was aimed at all post-conception methods) contained an exception for life of the mother, but not health of the mother. The problem with a “health” exception is such a broad category includes “psychological health,” the only way of varying if answers which are easily coached.


    What can I say… read Catholicgauze! 🙂

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/02/14/obamas-going-to-win-vote-clinton.html
    [2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/03/vote-mccain-vote-obama.html

  13. Dan,

    True, and that was what I was really asserting, but where does the federal law make exception for the life of the mother?

  14. Jeffrey,

    To answer your question, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 [1] provides an exception for the life of the mother in the following line:

    This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

    [1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *