Posted by
Wayfinder on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:13:11 AM
Those that say McCain is the most electable are basically asking the rest of us to cede our principles of freedom in the name of political expediency. When Cicero ended up choosing between Mark Antony and Octavian Caesar, he couldn't necessarily see that he was effectively picking between two tyrants. One may have been more of a competant tyrant, but Octavian, later to be called Augustus, was a tyrant nonetheless. Expediency ended up having Cicero's hands nailed to the Senate doors.
Is John McCain a tyrant? We don't know. Is he a political opportunist. Clearly he is, and this makes him a dangerous choice for anyone. Hillary is also a political opportunist, with a much better spin machine available at her whim.
Michael Medved, and other "pundits," continually tout McCain's ACU rating of 83%, and his support from the likes of John Kyl and Trent Lott, but these mean absolutely nothing. Who knows what the man said behind closed doors to these others? This is a man who, in saying that he "got the message" about strengthening the borders, also said on Meet the Press that he would've signed McCain/Kennedy had he been president. What message did he get?
The man says he's not going to raise taxes. What guarantees do we have that he won't? How do we know he understands how taxes influence our market? He talks about global warming as though it were controllable with government legislation, which translates into less money in your pocket and less control over your property. Conservative, Mr. Medved? I don't think so.
More importantly, why does John McCain want to be president? What does he want from the job? What does he want to do?
Why is it that it seems every election we're supposed to choose between two evils, the "lesser" of which will hurt us the least? Choosing between two evils is still choosing evil.