I can't vote for McCain because...

Since I live in a country where I must fit all of my political views into one of two parties, I decided that supporting Barak Obama is really the same as opposing John McCain. (My third option is not voting at all, or voting for some third party candidate that didn’t have the $1 Billion that the two major parties will spend.) So, this post is in the format of reasons why I can’t vote for McCain.

He isn’t concerned about the economy. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” is his mantra. Four days after Paulson distributed his three page bailout proposal, McCain said, “I have not had a chance to see it in writing.” And, after suspending his campaign because of the crisis, he did an interview with Katie Couric, then went to dinner in New York, then spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative, then went back to DC almost 24 hours after suspending his campaign. Before he arrived, republicans and democrats had reached a preliminary agreement about the bailout. After he arrived, the deal fell apart. And, at no point did he suspend television and radio advertising.

His tax policy favors the wealthy. I do agree with McCain, that the American worker is at the heart of the economy (this is his reasoning for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong), so why don’t we make the American worker the beneficiary of our tax policy instead of the wealthy 5%? My take is obviously biased, so read Jed’s post “Issue 1: Taxes” for an unbiased explanation of the candidates’ tax policies.

He appointed Phil Gramm as his economic advisor, and who is a likely candidate for Treasury Secretary if McCain is elected. In July, Gramm said about those that thought the economy wasn’t so healthy, “We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Denial isn’t a strategy. My favorite Gramm legislation is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a bill slipped into a 2000 appropriation bill that deregulated energy trading (see Enron, which helped write the act, and employed Gramm’s wife at $915,000 a year) and credit default swaps, which have played a big role in the recent financial meltdown. This guy will make a great economic advisor! It would be a greater irony if he were appointed Treasury Secretary and put in charge of deciding which credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities the government will buy from failing banks. And don’t forget, he was a lobbyist for AIG after leaving the Senate.

He uses the troops in Iraq to get votes. This is a common republican strategy: speak lovingly about the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, then use it to question the patriotism of democrats. In the debate, McCain told a heartwarming story about a speech he gave in Baghdad to a group of American soldiers who had voluntarily reenlisted: “And you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming here. And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.” This is brilliant rhetoric: summon the brave and noble troops who want to be successful, and then use them to sell your military strategy. And just for good measure, subtly imply that your opponent doesn’t support the troops. One can support the troops and disagree with the overall strategy, because, as far as I understand, the troops don’t get to choose the strategy.

He won’t set a timetable for leaving Iraq, and he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the deterioration of Afghanistan. If you really support your troops, you will put them where they can do the most good (Afghanistan) and you will at least attempt to get them out of there safely. McCain doesn’t seem to mind the idea of sending generation after generation of Americans over there. And, by the way, we can’t actually afford to be there right now, much less a decade from now.

He selected Sarah Palin as his VP. Read any Associated Press (no liberal bias) article about her and you are sure to find some mention of her corruption. I can’t blame her though, it seems impossible to be a politician in Alaska and not be corrupt.

His election would show the world that the American people agree with the Bush doctrine of foreign policy. (If you don’t know what the Bush doctrine is just ask Sarah Palin.) In the end, the two candidates actually end up agreeing on issues 95% of the time. To be elected they have to be middle-of-the-road. What I believe sets them apart more than anything is how the world views us through them. When we elect McCain, we will be saying to a world that hates us and our foreign policy, “we don’t care.”

I doubt that, if elected, Obama would be able to get much of his policy through congress, but he can renew our standing in the world and give us hope. He can start to get us out of the cycle of fear: for too long America has made decisions based on the fear of terrorism and have thus helped accomplish the goals of Al-Qaeda. Obama reminds me of JFK, who wasn’t necessarily a Washington heavyweight, but inspired us to put a man on the moon. With some inspiration, we did the impossible: we strapped some brave men on top of a missile, sent them to the moon, and brought them back home alive. Every American was right there with Neil Armstrong as he took those historic steps and inspired a generation to grow up to be astronauts and pilots and scientists and, perhaps more importantly, patriots. What is our space race? I hope it isn't conquering middle-eastern nations, because that doesn’t inspire me much at all.