Preserving our liberties

“In order to survive our current crises, America needs a recommitment to our basic values — life, liberty and the chance to pursue happiness by making our own visions come true.

We are engaged in a struggle against terrorism in which, literally, our lives are at stake. Regardless of how one feels about the current wars being fought on foreign soil, the fact is we are there and we must win. The people of America, Afghanistan and Iraq will all benefit when we can leave those lands safe and secure — but until that stability is ensured, we are all at risk and therefore must persevere toward final success.“

Your endorsement is disappointing, but hardly surprising.

First off, your view of national security seems to be limited to a view that security solely involves an ability to fight overseas wars – regardless of whether or not the war makes sense, or whether or not we are fighting the right war.  But never mind that. 

What is really lacking in your argument is any sense that national security involves something more than a fleet of jet bombers; national security is equally about creating jobs, having a strong national balance sheet and sensible fiscal policies, educating our children to enable them to compete in an increasingly competitive world, taking care of seniors and providing health care to our citizens.  On the issue of economic competitiveness you state that “his (McCain’s) basic understanding of the need for economic freedom will stand us in good stead.”  Would this be economic freedom as in no regulation of final markets, as in allowing Wall St. executives to reap hundreds of millions in bonuses with one hand and with the other request hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-payer funded bailouts?  Is this the economic freedom of having McCain’s former economics advisor, Phil Gramm, repeal the Glass-Segal Act so that investment banks and commercial banks can join forces and create trillions of dollars in unregulated credit default swaps, which have now come home to roost and our crashing our economy?  McCain himself has often said that an understanding of economic is not his strong suit – and you cite it as a reason why we should support him for President?  That’s funny.

And if our country’s security is so important, then what about Sarah Palin?  Do you see her as competent to stand-in as Commander in Chief should anything happen to John McCain?  Why not mention Palin’s qualifications as part of your rationale of supporting John McCain?  And what does McCain’s selection of Palin say about his judgment?

The case you make for John McCain is weak, uncompelling and not well reasoned.  It is difficult to give your editorial serious consideration given the poor nature of your argument.

This endorsement comes as no surprise. The Progress has been way out of touch with their readership for many years. We expected the Progress to endorse any warm-body with an (R) after his name than a vibrant, organized Democrat with an actual vision of a better America. The logic behind the editorial, however, is mostly flawed. That, too, comes as no surprise.

This claim, for instance, is patently false (that means it’s a lie): “For all his good qualities, Mr. Obama is the most liberal presidential candidate from a major party that this country perhaps has ever seen.“ Obama doesn’t even come close. As some quick research by Waldo Jaquith discovered, FactCheck.org cites both Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt as having been more liberal. In fact, the National Journal (whose liberal rankings are used to make the claim that Obama is the most liberal Senator) points out that he was the most liberal only for votes in 2007. For other years, he barely cracks the top ten. Now, for some that may be too liberal, but while the Progress is entitled to their own opinion, they aren’t entitled to their own set of facts.

Interestingly - in fact, incredibly, the Progress doesn’t mention McCain’s VP pick, who has been roundly criticized by both liberals and conservatives. In the eyes of many, the first executive decision of John McCain’s political life was abysmally bad - it was very impulsive (“Mavericky?“), and it was wrong. Applicants for jobs at McDonalds have more interviews than McCain required of Palin. Many liberals and conservatives have noted quite clearly that Governor Palin is uniquely unqualified for the office of Vice President. She can’t even tell you what responsibilities that office holds! That the Progress chose not to mention her in the editorial speaks volumes. That the Progress chose not to mention her while knowing that the odds of her acceding to the office of the Presidency within 4 years if elected are higher than typical given the health of the 72-year old McCain is just reckless.

On top of all that, you’ve just endorsed a candidate who ran one of the most disorganized, chaotic, and rudderless campaigns in modern history. Yet you think he can do a good job running the country?

In the words of the person you just endorsed for the office of Vice President, “Thanks, but no thanks.“