Neither McCain nor Obama

There's one issue that breaks this deadlock for me...Supreme Court nominees. One bad nominee can do more damage than almost anything else. I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain.

I strongly dislike that MacIntyre piece and said so back in 2004 (http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/10/a_reason_not_to.html).

Another problem I didn't mention on Amy Welborn's site back then. MacIntyre assumes (it's not in the part that Rod excerpted) that "not voting" constitutes an intelligible political act: "In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote."

The problem is that "not voting as a vote against the system" is epistemologically indistinguishable, at least to the political system, from "not voting because you didn't like these candidates" or "not voting because of bad weather" or "not voting because you know and care nothing about politics" or "not voting because you cannot punch the ballot right" -- not to speak of all the various different and mutually-incompatible reasons one might vote against the system (Marxist, monarchist, Ignatian, etc.). MacIntyre isn't even advocating something quixotically futile like peeing in the wind; he's advocating something closer to "peeing your pants and hoping the wind will pick it up."

I've been thinking a lot about that MacIntyre piece over the past few months. (The story behind it, as I seem to recall, is that it was originally written as a response to a notorious NY Times op-ed by Mark Roche, the Dean of Arts & Letters at Notre Dame, that argued that Catholics had a moral duty to vote for John Kerry. Apparently the Times decided that the most important philosopher of the later half of the twentieth century wasn't good enough for them.) Anyway, I plan to take his advice and cast my vote "against [the] system" (as I did in '04, when I voted for one of my professors).

As I see it, since one vote obviously doesn't make any material difference in the election's outcome, the only reason to go cast one in the first place is if I regard it as a sort of "sacred" act. Under these circumstances, it seems clear that it would be a serious mistake to resign myself to choosing between the lesser of what are clearly two great evils, each of which would be - as MacIntyre says - "politically intolerable" if not for the presence of the other. In other words, since a vote is just a symbolic gesture anyway, it seems improper to use it to symbolize my support for a candidate whose policies I largely despise. And so the thing to do is to head on down to the polls, skip the check boxes, and fill in the blank with the name of one Rod Dreher.

This quote from Jacques Ellul seems to me to get things right:

... the Christian must not act in exactly the same way as everyone else. He has a part to play in this world which no one else can possibly fulfill. He is not asked to look at the various movements which men have started, choose those which seem 'good,' and then support them. He is not asked to give his blessing to any particular human enterprise, nor to support the decisions of man.

Victor,

Why do you say that "None-of-the-Above" is not an option? It /is/, and obviously so: you can either write in the name of the candidate of your choice, fill in the rest of the ballot and leave the presidential portion empty, or - if there is such a person - vote for a candidate from a non-major party whose policies you find less appalling.

John:

Two of the three acts you cite are votes for particular people, not for "none-of-the-above." Leaving the ballot blank is the exception, of course, but I assumed that MI meant a formal "none-of-the-above" choice occupying a ballot line (that's what his link was pushing).

As for leaving a ballot blank, just like not voting at all, doesn't say why one is doing it -- from inattention, from ignorance, from particular dissatisfaction, from systemic principle, from which systemic principle. It's a gesture meaningful only to oneself, not even a meaningless gesture to others.

In Nov 2004 I, a registered Democrat, got off the train home from work, and headed for my polling place. As I drove along I came to the conclusion that I could not vote for John Kerry. And the deal-breaker was, very simply, that he was a cheerleader for abortion.

Apart from that I just didn't care for him as a person; I thought of Kerry as a vain, pompous and self-important man. I recalled reading an in-depth article about him (Summer 2004, I think) on the campaign trail in the New York Times Sunday magazine. One thing that stuck in my mind from that article: Kerry excoriated an aide who had forgotten to bring along Kerry's hairbrush (I suppose for his $175 hair-do). Too, the word gigolo does come to mind.

Bush? Sorry, a real loser! God is talking to him? Easily manipulated by the neo-con bunch who saw in him a willing fool who would further their agendas.

Fast forward to 2008:

Obama is a very appealing man; well-spoken, attractive man, quite different from the dope in the White House today. Still, a cheerleader for abortion. Will I vote for him? Don't know...probably not.

McCain? An honorable man! I've always admired him, especially for his survival in Viet Nam. But another hundred yrs in Iraq? Um, No!!

Sounds like a replay of 2004, at least for me.

I'm weighing MacIntyre's words carefully. I'm really considering not voting in the presidential for M's reasons, as well as the strategic reason that if McCain wins the presidency, the GOP is gonna figure it can win with moderates and without conservatives. However, when i think of the (unconstitutional and disproportional, outsized) role and power of the federal judiciary, I really think a 'lesser of three evils' argument can be made. So I might hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Now, about Iraq: the '100 years' thing makes a great YouTube mashup, but he explained again and again at length that he's not opposed to our presence there *so long as* we're not taking casualties -- as is the case now for us in Japan and Germany.

Further, do you really think Obama is going to be able to pull the troops out? "They" won't let him. And Hillary won't either. Regardless of what these clowns say, Iraq policy is not going to change all that much.

And hey, take comfort that McCain is actually a guy who is anti-Gitmo, anti-torture, and cares more about 'global warming' than the unborn. If that's not enough for someone...

Victor, I respect where you're coming from, but I also respect what John is saying (and what Rod seems to be struggling with).

Voting for someone other than the major political party candidates isn't at all the same thing as not voting or leaving the ballot blank beside the presidential candidates' names, as you point out; further, the "hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-X" option is also a meaningless gesture as far as others are concerned. The candidate whom you select by this method doesn't care if you held your nose (literally or figuratively), agonized over your choices, marked the X by his name half-heartedly and in a spirit of glum defeatism, and left the ballot box hoping the computer would fail to record your vote--the important thing, if he is elected, is that enough of the worthless nameless faceless voters out there did select his name.

Rod,

I have had difficulty with this too. I did find this Andrew Sullivan post to be thought-provoking (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/conservatives-f.html) and wondered what you thought of his reasoning. An excerpt:

"Supporting Obama may well empower liberalism for a generation. I've said that for almost a year now. But it might also help defeat the corruption and degeneracy of "conservatism" that now dominates the Republican Party. That I once gave this faux conservatism too much benefit of the doubt and enabled it in part myself does not lessen the fact that I now believe it's the obligation for many thinking conservatives to repudiate it. That was the core of my book, "The Conservative Soul." Other conservatives have seen this and will continue to see this - and do the right thing by putting the long-term interests of a more responsible Burkean conservatism before the narrow short-term interest of their party."

This long-term view does make sense to me but I'm still on the fence.

Re: the so-called quote by McCain about "100 years in Iraq" ----

That's being grossly distorted by his opponents. Say what you will about McCain, but it's not his desire or intention to have this country keep combat troops in Iraq doing the kind of heavy fighting that we're doing right now any longer than is absolutely necessary. No one wants that. I'd encourage anyone to review the transcript or look at it on YouTube.

What McCain means is that the US has had troops in Western Europe and the Pacific Rim for over 60 years. They're based in friendly countries. Our bases allow the US to work with allied countries to maintain airlift capacities and the ability to respond to problems in a lot of places around the world. Despite tensions with local populations (in Okinawa, for example), the host country governments appreciate the U.S. presence.

McCain's point (and that of his questioner) in the wildly mis-quoted exchange was that we shouldn't discount the POSSIBILITY that the situation in Iraq might improve to the point where nominal US forces might be based there in a permanent fashion the way they are now based in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

Is that something that is likely to happen anytime soon? Who knows! Is it something that -- were it possible to happen -- would be good for our interests? Absolutely! This is something that neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton would argue with (though they might deny that in a Democratic Presidential nominating contest).

The idea that McCain is pro-war is a myth. Politicians who've seen a lot of combat -- and watched buddies die in their hands -- are not warmongers. In this context, think of Bob Kerry, Dwight Eisenhower, John McCain, Colin Powell, et. al. The problem is with the civilian amateurs who think it's all just a lot of theoretical war games -- people with next to no combat experience. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, GW Bush .... Obama. It's the folks in the latter category that should make us nervous.

I'm not sure I understand your point, Erin. Are you saying Lincoln was a third party candidate? Last I knew, he won the electoral vote as the Republican nominee. He was the first one, granted, but his victory was not a result of grass-roots write-ins on election day.

Erin wrote:

further, the "hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-X" option is also a meaningless gesture as far as others are concerned. The candidate whom you select by this method doesn't care ... the important thing, if he is elected, is that enough of the worthless nameless faceless voters out there did select his name.

Absolutely. Which is why two of the three pre-eminent qualities Max Weber calls decisive for politicians are "a feeling of responsibility" and "a sense of proportion," and they're just as important for voters. A politician receives a mandate only in the very broadest sense and he cannot really know whether his 51 percent consisted of 51 percent "Heils" or 51 percent "nose-holders" or any mix in between. For voters, as I said above, you basically know your vote is not going to be decisive and can never in-principle be explained in the whys or hows, so it's simply incoherent, not to speak of disproportionate moral vanity, to view the act of republican voting as participation* in that candidate's moral qualities.

* I mean "participation" in the scholastic philosophy sense, not in the contemporary poli-sci sense.

Well then what should it be viewed as?

Participation in a civic rite for its own sake, which rite constitutes a relative judgment between or among candidates.

a positive indication that this is a person you think is suitable for the relevant office.

No, it's not a positive indication of anything, which is why saying "they are all unacceptable" often comes across as purism. There is always a "better," even if there is not a "good."

MM, the point is that the Republican party was a relatively new party when it ran John C. Fremont as its candidate four years before Lincoln; had enough people not been dissatisfied with the status quo, the party would never have done well enough for Lincoln to win just four years later.

We may be reaching a point in history when enough people will want to move beyond our current two-party stranglehold, and then a third party with some shot at gaining victories may have a chance. It won't be this election cycle, or the one after it; but if we're going to say that a third party has to be "viable" before we can support it then we've effectively decided there can never be a new rising party that will do in our era what the Republicans did in the middle of the nineteenth century.

By concentrating all the power into the hands of two parties who are virtually indistinguishable from each other in their support for the continued and probably unconstitutional expansion of the federal government and the corresponding decline of individual liberty, we've all but guaranteed that it won't matter in the least which person takes office next January. The war will proceed much longer than anyone thinks it will, the economy will continue to falter well into the next decade, the government will take an unprecedented and extremely expensive role in health care that will erase more of our privacy and liberty than anyone cares to think about now, and the skyrocketing demands made upon Social Security and whatever health plan replaces what we have now by waves of retiring Baby Boomers will pretty much ensure the servitude of the middle class and the growth of poverty. The plan of both parties is to keep us from noticing or caring about any of this, but instead to point our fingers at each other and remain highly divided about such issues as abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform, and so forth so that we will overlook their depressingly similar views on everything else.

So hold your nose and vote for whomever, or enthusiastically support whomever. It's unlikely to make much difference at this point in time.

Victor Morton may see that as "purism," but I see it as reality. I haven't always thought this, and I don't expect to think so forever, but in this particular election cycle I see little difference between Obama and McCain. They're both good at appealing to people and getting elected; they both want things to continue much as they are; and if McCain is slightly less likely to appoint judges who think the barbaric but legalized killing of unborn humans is a really, really good idea than Obama is, there are no guarantees, as any glance at Republican track records on this matter illustrates all too well.

I did not vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004. I felt as you do in this election, that neither was a sound choice.

I am disappointed by certain aspects of McCain, but I don't see him as disappointing enough to go write-in or third party again. Iraq is going to be a bad situation no matter which one wins or what we do. I'm not convinced McCain would be that much worse on the matter.

So that gets to why I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I felt Bush was hurting us with other nations and his horrid gaffes were harming the kind of conservatism I liked. I don't think McCain will do as bad and conservatism is going to be damaged goods for sometime regardless. The Congress is not likely to veer Right even if Obama is elected.

Then again I'm coming from a different vantage point than I think many here would. I was a cautious supporter of the Iraq war who became cautiously critical. I don't know Rod's history, but I'm not sure I ever had a period where I was intensely for or against the war. If I did it was rather brief and mostly was caused by disliking the far-Left element of the anti-war movement and maybe some of the more hopeful moments in the initial campaign. Even now my guess is that the Iraq war is not actually the worst war going on at this moment let alone in US history. (In terms of both injustice and death count) I do hope whoever wins does something for the non-Muslim refugees of Iraq, who do seem mostly powerless and innocent, but outside of that I don't feel confident enough to say what's right for that place.

MacIntyre sounds like a Christian Democrat (As in the Jacques Maritain/Conrad Adenar type of CD). I like that.

Many of us were wrong about going into Iraq--including McCain and Clinton. Some have been wrong about saying they support the troops but then not providing the funding to make them as safe as possible--including Obama and Clinton. Which catagory would you rather be a part of considering we are in Iraq? Senator McCain is not a warmonger. His 100 year statement has been blown way out of proportion as has already been pointed out in the comments on this post. Rod--where is McCain falling short with Iraq? The man wants to cut out pork barrel spending. He wants to invest in green technology. He wants to get off our dependence on foreign oil. How are these wrong positions? He wants to secure the borders and is realistic about what to do with the undocumented workers who are already here. His only conservative misstep as far as the abortion issue has been to support stem cell research using fetuses that would otherwise be distroyed. His voting record shows that he can work with both sides of the isle which could translate healing some of the division between left and right. Neither Clinton with a 97% with her party voting record nor Obama with a 96% record (and at least half of the remaining 4% going against democrats when they went with republicans) have shown they will do anything other than support the same old liberal solutions. What specifically are you struggling with here?

>>>>
The electoral college system was, we are told, put in place because the Founding Fathers didn't want a "rule-by-mob" government. Unfortunately, what we seem to have wound up with is a system where the mob shouts at itself while the people in power do what they want to do anyway.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Barrett | March 29, 2008 8:58 AM
>>>

Since the Founding Fathers were the ones in power when they wrote the Constitution, it is possible that this is a feature, not a bug.

I have it easy here in Illinois. Thanks to Chicago, we skew so far Left that if the election is close nationally, it will be a landslide for the Democrat here; and if it's close here, it'll be a landslide for the Republican nationally. So my vote won't count, and I can happily vote for Ron Paul, even if I have to write him in.

If I lived where my vote mattered, that'd be a harder call. I think I'd have to hold my nose and vote for McCain. The Supreme Court is just too important. (It shouldn't be, but it is.) I don't know that he'll give us constructivist judges, but I do know the others will use a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative-action litmus test.

On the Iraq occupation, I don't think the differences between the candidates would be as stark in reality as they're telling us. Remember that in Vietnam (the war everyone keeps trying to compare Iraq to) it was LBJ, a Democrat, who dragged things along the most, and we finally left under a Republican who promised to win it. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Obama/Clinton back way down on their pull-out talk once in office and confronted by the do-nothing-risky State Department. Similarly, I'd expect McCain's rhetoric to be greatly softened once it's put into action. Either way, I expect we'll stay there for a while, with the main difference between Presidents being how much we let the soldiers shoot back when shot at.

On immigration, they all stink, so we'll have to fight the next president on that one the same way we fought Bush. On guns, to paraphrase the nursery rhyme, McCain is bad, but the others are horrid. He might sign bad gun legislation if it shows up on his desk, but he won't instigate it. That's the only difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton on a lot of issues: he'll sign onto the liberal side if it gets him something (like media praise), but he's not as likely to use his political capital to push that side himself.

On the economy, I figure we're paying for several decades of overspending and borrowing, both personal and governmental, and like in Iraq, there is no good answer. None that any of these three will come up with, for sure. This wasn't caused by the last one or two presidents or a particular bit of deregulation, and it won't be fixed by the next one.

That covers all the major issues I care about. I either end up with McCain, hoping he'll give us a decent SC Justice or two and not do too much damage on immigration or Bush's North American Union fantasy; or Clinton, hoping she'll offend everyone so badly we elect enough Republicans (including some conservatives, even) in 2010 to bury her in gridlock. Fun choice.

McCain is ex-military. For him, the only possible answer to the question of "How Long do we stay in Iraq?," will ALWAYS be, "As long as it takes."

Minor quibble: James Webb is also former military, combat veteran, and war hero, who also served in Vietnam - and he wants withdrawal. I suspect McCain's stance on the war is not solely the result of his status as a veteran.

As an aside, I voted for Gore in 2000 and opted out in 2004. I really wish Gore had won in 2000, but we can't base our decision on how we'd like the world to be. We have to base our decisions on how it actually is.

Just write in Ron Paul.

I still think Obama is the best choice though in these times I see his policies doing more to reduce abortions than conservative finger wagging.

Rod, I feel exactly as you do, but I suspect that we'll both end up voting for McCain. The question I'm now asking myself is whether or not to work for McCain. Will McCain's choice of VP matter to anyone? I do respect, however, a person who refuses assent. I appreciate discussions like this about situations where we find ourselves unable to clearly decide, as much of life is like this for me.

"I still think Obama is the best choice though in these times I see his policies doing more to reduce abortions than conservative finger wagging."

What policies would that be? He won't even cut off the whacky reverend. How do you see him now, suddenly, going after the fatherlessness and rampant license?He won't take a stand against a racist loon, in fact quite the contrary. Another example of people filling in the blanks they way they would so like them filled.

I think Rod's neither vote is understandable. The thing that gives many true conservatives pause is Mccain suggesting we could be in Iraq "for 100 years" like Japan or Germany. But the questions are really why are we anywhere except home at this point, and what really can we hope to accomplish long-term in Iraq given their culture? I'd note though that what little a policy (and he's been awfully consistent about saying almost nothing of o substance expcet new groovy social programs to the tune of $1 trillion and tax hikes to match) has leaked form the Obama campaign seems even more softheaded and unrealistc than that, akin to the bake sale for bombers bumpersticker.

I'd expect to vote for Mccain strictly on a lesser of the evils basis.

Oh, David, I do agree with what you wrote--the divisions in our country today don't compare to the division over slavery, and any third or fourth party now would have a much more difficult time getting established.

But I get tired of people thereby concluding that we ALWAYS have a duty to vote for a major party candidate since to do otherwise is to "throw away" one's vote. Reasoning by that logic, we always have the duty to figure out which candidate is most likely to win and then vote for that candidate, since to vote for the loser is also to throw away one's vote.

The last time I didn't vote for a major party candidate was when Bob Dole ran. It didn't seem like the Republicans were even trying, and as I weighed the usual considerations I came to the conclusion that there weren't any compelling reasons to vote for Dole, who was weak on the social issues, probably unsound on the judiciary should appointments open up, and too much a career politician to hope for much in the way of innovative action on the issues that mattered.

This election is feeling like the Dole choice all over again: McCain is a career politician who seems pretty out-of-touch with voters. I recall a news item from a while ago where he went on and on about the problems our senior citizens are facing and what he plans to do to help them (with federal money, of course) and all I could think was that he either doesn't realize we're about to see the wealthiest wave of retirees and seniors this country has ever known, or he doesn't care so long as this core constituency votes him in. Which is pretty discouraging, because my generation is one of the first to face the reality that we can't expect to do as well as our parents, that our savings are practically nonexistent even if we live close to the bone and avoid extravagance, and that the money for new programs for the 60+ crowd is, like everything else, going to come from us in the form of newer and bigger tax increases on working families.

Obama, McCain, or neither? So far, I like neither.

Anyone who disdains their responsibility and freedom to elect their (viable) representatives - under the idea that it "sends a message" - is in serious need of some pills that regulate delusions of grandeur, and perhaps, an extended vacation under an amoral dictatorship for some quality growing-up time.

Anyone who seriously believes that their single vote is evidence of their responsibility and freedom to elect their (viable) representatives - under the idea that it "sends a message" - is in serious need of some pills that regulate delusions of grandeur, and perhaps, an extended vacation under an amoral dictatorship for some quality growing-up time.

I encourage everyone just to write in Alasdair MacIntyre. Or Duncan MacIntyre for that matter.....

Erin Manning:"This election is feeling like the Dole choice all over again: McCain is a career politician who seems pretty out-of-touch with voters.

Basic dates of McCain's pre-political life:

1936 birth
1958 grad USNA
1967 shot down
1973 freed
1981 retired from Navy (age: 44/45)
1982 elected to House

How is someone who spends 24 years in the military, including 6 years as a prisoner of war, a "career politician"?

"You apparently are not aware that this is not possible in many states, where there are no "write-in" votes (because they are illegal and uncountable due to machine voting, and where third-party candidates are similarly excluded."

I'm not unaware of that at all. In fact, I'm painfully aware of that fact. Nevertheless, it is possible to work at the grassroots level in support of third party candidates and to fight for great ballot access. The Green and Libertarian Parties are prime examples of what can be done by not buying into the status quo. Change does not come over night. However, it is patently absurd to think that change will come at all if you continue voting for whatever two choices the media and special interests select for us.

"Follow the link and read the whole thing. Does that make sense to you?"

No, because (a) I'm not a malcontent and (b) I've long thought that Alasdair MacIntyre is overrated. If one wants to talk about important political philosophers from the latter half of the 20th Century, Robert Nozick and John Rawls are better subjects of conversation. In any case, the MacIntyre piece just reads like a more sophisticated version of the "I don't vote because I won't validate the System, man" nonsense that one can hear in any coffeehouse in any American college town or midsize-to-large city.

If Obama and McCain are completely unacceptable to you, there are other options, like the Libertarian or Constitution Party. Of course, voting for such parties in this Presidential election may indicate that you are something of a freak and malcontent, but then again, if you think Obama and McCain are both completely unacceptable, you probably are a freak and malcontent. Nothing wrong with being a freak and malcontent per se, but one should affix the proper names to observed phenomena.

In any case, the MacIntyre piece just reads like a more sophisticated version of the "I don't vote because I won't validate the System, man" nonsense that one can hear in any coffeehouse in any American college town or midsize-to-large city.

Well said.

I'm a adjunct college teacher. Most academicians hate conservatives and despise Bush. They look down their nose at Republicans.In one of my classes--"peace and conflict" of all things--one of my students said he guessed I was conservative because I was the only professor in the philosophy department who had not bashed Bush within the first two weeks of class.

Even the outstanding evangelical scholar Mark Noll fell victim to that syndrome (my impression is that he's Canadian in birth, which may partially contribute to his views). Most of these views have their psychological roots in academic elitism and arrogance--which is precisely why I reject them.

Obama is liberal on abortion? That is not the only concern about electing him! Satan speaks through a man who he still stands behind as his Pastor. His daughters, the next generation, have been spoonfed hatred of America as well as messages of prejudice against white people, Jews, or whoever else "The Good" Reverand Wright has grievances about! That's just great! And we wonder why there is a racial divide in this nation! Obama stands behind a man who supports Louis Farrakhan. If Obama is elected, there will be more racism and an Islamic Revolution in this country! That is the main problem here folks! The Devil is not down in Georgia. He is in Chicago in the form of Reverand Jeremiah Wright and in his puppets (a.k.a Barack Obama)! By the way, kudos to the Governor of Pennsylvania and to the Mayor of Philadelphia for having the courage and chutzpah not to go along with the other crazies such as that Senator from Pennsylvania, who endorsed Obama (Did you happen to notice that you are white, Senator?)! These folks swam against "The Obama (Satan puppet)Rage."

don't you have any morals?

if you did, then the choice would be clearer.

your vote shouldn't depend on the state of the economy - which is always in flux.

neither should it depend on iraq.

it should be based on values.

if you were a real con you would get that.

but you are a weird crunchy con - which means what?

i think it means you want to hang socially with libs and have think you're cool.

lookit: all three candidates left are libs.

one is a partial hawk.

the partial hawk - mccain - is a little less lib then hillary who is a little less lib than obama.

if you want a lot of lib legislation - like higher capital gains taxes and government caps on lots of things the marketplace can price more efficiently,

then vote for either dem.

if you want the least lib alternative, then vote mccain.

if you are an adult conservative then you must vote mccain.

if you don't then PLEASE: drop the con crap and just start calling yourself a crunchy lib.

ALL THE BEST!

Steve:

When you vote for Democrats because they're willing to pay for social services, you're actually voting to steal from your neighbor. Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, nor the U.S. Government for that matter, has any money that they didn't take at gunpoint from your neighbors.

There's nothing charitable or Christian about taking care of the poor with someone else's money. Jesus wants YOU* to care for the poor. He wants YOU to take in the stranger. He wants YOU to make sure that no one goes hungry.

There's nothing charitable or decent about putting a gun to your neighbor's head, and using the money you take out of his pockets to feed the poor.

(* and me)

Well, David, last I checked McCain has served continuously in Congress (first the House, then the Senate) for 26 years. I think that goes beyond "hobby" or "retirement income" at this point, don't you?

Then by that definition, any politician will be "career". So what is your complaint? How is that a reason to reject McCain, since (if you are consistent), you must reject any imaginable candidate who has made it that far in the process?

No, it is not a reason. It is an excuse.

I'm hesitating between McCain and writing someone in. The difference between you and me is that I don't see the war as big of a deal as you do.

His money (via his wife) comes from selling beer, the beverage of the unwashed masses in flyover country.

Steve

And bear in mind that this will be the first Presidential election in American history where both candidates are sitting senators (putting aside McCain's pledge to resign as soon as he is nominated).

Is it really down to two issues for you? I feel this is a simple-minded approach, and a wave off to truly deciphering who will ultimately provide a better place for your family and kids. I am certain after reading your book at the age of 19, which truly led me to a more open-minded approach about politics that you could look beyond your stubborness and find reasons to hope in one of the candidates.

I will plainly state my vote is for Obama. I am displeased about his stances on abortion, but I more scared about the future if McCain decides to leave our forces in Iraq. This is a negative decision to my life and my future kids lives. Our divisive approach to terrorism is causing this radical and illogical philosophy to spread and cause growth in numbers. If we do not apologize for our miscues in the Middle East this sore will fester and result in more wars and loss of American credibility. On a more personal note, my brother is currently at West Point. He will probably graduate in the top of his class. The top soldiers are pigeon-holed into infantry due to the Army's belief that the best and brightest need to lead on the front lines. Does John McCain care about my brother's life? Would my brother be defending his country or the interests of America's fake empire? We are also vulnerable at home right now. We are so bungled in the affairs of others, we are forgetting that protection is needed here.

On a sidenote statistics, as you are probably well aware of, show less abortions occur under Democratic rule because Planned Parenthood is better funded. For me, however, it's not a two issue decision. It is about national security in America (are we being properly looked after by our military), economics that consider local economies just as important as the global economy (which I am happy that Obama would reconsider areas of NAFTA as they do not support local production of food), renewable energy, which McCain can not give proper funding to if he is throwing billions away each month for the war, and education, which basically says science and math will guide us into an ideal technological world where all our problems will be solved by numbers. If we were to find this golden era, the idea of machines would need to change from one of destructiveness to one of pragmatism. Will that realistically happen? Obama, as a former college professor, would cleary see that as Wendell Berry says, "Science means knowing and Art means doing, and one is meaningless without the other." When math and science are sometimes taught in elementary schools for twice as much time as reading, we are headed down a road to a void of intellectualism. McCain is prepared to even put more emphasis on science and math says his spokesman Matt David. My sister has students in her fifth grade classes barely able to read on a second grade level, and my aunt spends more time preparing her kids for tests than teaching them basic writing skills. Are we a country who cares more about facts than helping our kids decide what their worldviews are comprised of? This will not lead us into the Great Society Lyndon Johnson envisioned many years ago.
All to say, while Obama will probably not lead us into Utopia (that word really doesn't literally mean anything anyway, sorry for my poor diction), I do think he is a less divisive character than McCain. He will find a way in which to regain American's credibility in our crumbling society caused primarily by the stubborness of Bush and his cronies and the cynicism and indifference of our politicians and citizens to truly confront if not conventionally then in a creative manner our current President's mishaps.

I think I set myself up for some critical backlash. Learn while you're young I guess.

i am a christian and as such i have certain responsibilities. these include feeding the poor, visiting the sick and imprisioned, careing for the children, etc. i am so greatful to God thatHe has not asked me to save soles. For years i practiced nursing. I have seen many things that were not christian. these behaviors were practiced by both liberals and conservatives. there was little evidance that those who believed in the right to life believed that they should care for the little ones who lived. i would never have an abortion, neither do i believe that a born again christian would have an aboution, therefore i believe in a woman's right to choose. i leave her salvation up to God. we need not play God in this terrible time when men are making decisions on fear, power and greed. be careful how you vote. our children and grand children must live with our decision. our children are smarter and more tolerant than we are but not a majority. speak with the young people befor you vote. it's their world that will be most affected. more people die in a year from no health care, poor health care and medical errors. american children go to bed hungry, our air and water is poluted, our jobs are outsourced, our property is lost to the unchristian lenders, and our children are not well educated. i wouldn't want to vote for any president with too much baggage such as "being vested" meaning an ax to grind. History of the killing fields, our right to win ar all cost. It's a sad situation but not for the reasons stated by the writer.

"Re: the so-called quote by McCain about "100 years in Iraq" ----
The idea that McCain is pro-war is a myth. "

The 'so-called' quote is so-called because it is a quote. If he is not pro-war, explain "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

V

Yes, there are states in which write-in votes are not permitted. In those states, maybe the thing to do is research the minor party candidates carefully and vote for the one whose positions are closest to yours. But what we all really need to be doing is bringing back the real meaning of the secret ballot. Give up "strategic voting," which rarely accomplishes its avowed purpose anyway. Vote for the candidate whose victory would least dismay you, regardless of his or her chances of winning. And urge all your friends and relatives to do the same. It's the only way we will ever really change the system.

Fine, then, the next whacko Amendment proposal:

Article I: The right of the individual to vote according to conscience shall not be infringed.

Article II: No state shall deny the people the right to write in their choice on a free ballot.

Any other ideas?

I was planning to vote for McCain, but it bothers me that he says he would take a "do-nothing" approach to the current financial crisis. In practice, he might not be able to do so, but knowing how stubborn he is, I could forsee him refusing to take action and waiting for "market forces" to work things out until the U.S. economy was on life-support.

As far as Obama is concerned, I might consider voting for him if he named Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. That would confound the Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright-types.

If its too close to make a call then vote the old party out. An entrenched party leads to entrenched corruption.

I choose Obama because he expresses courage and commitment to give us a chance to reach accross the aisle and bring people together to work on the issues that despartely need attention. I believe the issues of health care, education, our economy will require all of us to put politics aside and put our collective minds together to solve the major issues facing our country and in some instances the world. Excessive compectiveness has helped to produce more chaos than peace and prosperity. It is time for us to talk with,work with, partner with, diverse groups to solve the problems facing us. Even our willingness to do so will at least launch us in the right direction.

This last writer has no idea what it means to be on a slippery slope (i.e., "...let's not confuse with what is present at conception and a full-term child..."). To better think this issue through, please read Aristotle (over and over again); in fact, please read the preeminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (as mentioned earlier in this blog), a neo-Aristotelian.

Sincerely,
A father and graduate student of philosophy.

"Later on, I thought about this piece from philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, declaring his withholding his vote from either Bush or Kerry in 2004 as a positive moral act."

MacIntyre didn't withhold his vote. He cannot vote at all because he is not a U.S. citizen.
He was arguing as a general point that not voting in 2004 is still morally responsible.