For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12

"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Senator John McCain For President....*sigh*

For weeks now I have been searching my soul for a reason to endorse Senator John McCain for President, but I've had a hard time putting it into words. The fact that McCain often takes positions that make what little hair I have on my head fall down the sink doesn't help any.

But to my rescue has come Thomas Sowell and his column which appeared in last week that my brother emailed to me recently. I've heard many criticise Obama and attempt to prop up McCain, but Mr. Sowell makes the point look like such an obvious one that I had to post the entire column (and because Townhall columns have a tendency to become detached from their links after a couple of days). Here it is:

[Obama and McCain

By Thomas Sowell

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.]

And this is why I've decided to belatedly and somewhat grudgingly announce my endorsement of Senator John McCain for President of the United States. He wasn't my first choice...or my second, third, or fourth. He was, in fact, my second to last choice just ahead of Ron Paul. But to think of what could happen to our nation if a McGovern-Carter idealist with little or no mental stamina (more on the stamina thing another day) who falls flat when away from a teleprompter, who was elected (or selected) by those possessing a Peter Pan teenage mentality and emotional instability (IMHO) who vote according to gender and race (identity politics), the choice is painfully clear. John McCain in '08.

Make no mistake..., anytime McCain enrages me I will jump on him. But I cannot imagine voting for anyone else at this point....


Anonymous said...

In the posts after this column on Townhall I was taken to task by 'Gideon'. My response(s) were a bit late but 'Silent Majority' has work to do and doesn't always have time to defend self-explanatory statements.

Paul said...

I'm with you, Matt. Michael Medved often quotes, "The perfect is the real enemy of the good." (I don't know the original source.} But Sowell hits the nail on the head.

McCain has many shortcomings for us conservatives (global warming, Gitmo and waterboarding, corporate business bashing, amnesty for illegal aliens, and McCain-Feingold, to mention but a few.) But Obama shares all of these positions with McCain.

IMHO, what distinguishes McCain from Obama are the candidates' views on:

(1) strategic national security (as Sowell so ably points out);

(2)Supreme Court appointments (McCain supported Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, and has condemned the Court's recent 5-4 ruling on habeas rights for Gitmo detainees. Obama has praised that ruling, and said that his SCOTUS candidates will be people who can "feel the pain" of minorities and other oppressed people in the U.S.);

(3)abortion (McCain is pro-life, Obama is strongly "pro-choice");

(4) bloated government (McCain has consistently voted against corporate and agricultural "pork" subsidies, while Obama obviously favors a massive expansion of federal control and outlays in such areas as health care, education and subsidization of the "downtrodden");

{5) taxes (while McCain originally voted against the Bush tax cuts of his first term, he now says he would make them permanent, and I'm willing to take him at his word. Obama wants to increase taxes on "the rich" (who already pay some 90 percent or more of our country's total tax bill), though he seems to be back-tracking on his original radical class war messages that won him the endorsement of and the other tinfoil hat loonies of the radical left.}

One of these two guys is going to be our country's chief executive as of 1/09. Neither is "perfect" to this conservative. But, without a doubt, only one is "good."

St. Blogustine said...


I read Gideon's comments and found them to be, not only impractical (as you say), but quite impulsive (pertaining to the repeated calls for nuking other countries, ie., Iran, China). Gideon's solutions would likely result in a nuclear response from Russia and others as a reflex. This is one reason we did not nuke North Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq.

Looks like the conservative movement still has its share of adults who never grew up, too. Thank goodness they're the minority here, unlike