travisthornton.net

Today I found a Post-It note from this Summer, upon which I had scribbled the following:

I cannot support a candidate for President who would:
a)  Say, without a doubt, that global warming is not real.
b)  “Just pull out” of Iraq.
c)  Say that he or she would not raise taxes to lower our national debt.
d)  Support universal health insurance.

I guess “b” and “d” exclude a certain party, now doesn’t it?  After watching tonight’s Las Vegas Democratic Debate, there are a couple of additional excluders to add to that list.  Ruling out nuclear power as a pragmatic energy option to meet American demand is ludicrous.  Raising ther federal minimum wage also defies logic.  I can think of a no more quicker or decisive way to devalue our dollar.  Most public policy issues raised tonight did nothing more than to rapidly perpetuate the Nanny State. 

Tonight, in their lurching toward a “universal” social welfare state, their blatant confusion over the energy crisis, and their complete and unified desertion of reasonable foreign policy, I was afraid.  Let me invoke Ronald Reagan, circa 1964, who in the height of the Cold War said, “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender… You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery… You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.  We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

There are, however, others running for President, and not on the Dark Side mentioned above.  There are some that are doing well, with a well-constructed platform, pandering to the Neo-conservatives, whose policies are based on illegitamite populism.  For instance, what do some say to do with 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants?  What makes sense?  Furthermore, what do some candidates say about stimulating the economy?  What makes sense?  Is the candidate elected President of the Economy?  What say does the President have over the state of the economy?  What do these candidates say in the realm of possibility?

This Summer, when I wrote on that Post-It note, John McCain was down and out.  He revealed he can hire, and fire, the appropriate people to achieve the mission.  His campaign is based on principle, not on pandering.  As he said early on, “He would rather lose the Presidency than lose this war.”  This Presidency; this “bully pulpit” soon available, will determine an alternate course in the history of this nation.  Which way will it go?  Who has been willing to say the hard things, and not just the pretty things?

McCAIN 2008