Libertarian leaning independents like me tend to see the election as a choice between two evils. Which is worse, the Democrats who tax and spend or Republicans who borrow and spend?
In this election, I must admit, I am absolutely and thoroughly proud of the fact that George Bush had the political courage to stand against public sentiment and support the troop surge. I am also proud of the American Troops, who in the onslaught of adversity stood with the Iraqi people against the radicals who slaughtered innocent civilians in their quest for power.
I am voting for John McCain for his role in supporting the Surge and for a long history of working to do what is best for the nation.
The theme of this post is the question about which party is more negative.
As a matter of partisanship, newspaper reporters and college professors routinely use examples from Republican campaigns in discussions about negative campaigns. This creates that illusion that Republicans depend solely on negative campaigns.
What I see is something different. Republicans tend to be overt in their actions while Democrats favor subtlety. When a Republican goes negative, it is generally clear that they've gone negative. They want the world to see the negative thing they see.
Democrats, on the other hand, like to build negativity into the core of their message, while pretending that they are the beacon of hope and light.
A prime example of this technique is Barack Obama's message of "failure."
Look at how many times Barack use the word "failure" in his campaign.
Calling other people a failure is one of the lowest, underhanded, insulting and negative acts that a politician can undertake.
I've been astounded by the shallowness of Barack's campaign. It is nothing more than following the recipe laid out in the Manifesto and Mao's Little Red Book. What you do is label your opponent a failure. Frame issues to support the label, then talk about some sort of unspecified change that will happen on removing the failure.
There are always bad things in the economy and political structure that need fixing. Despite Obama's hate-filled drumming of the world failure, I see a great deal of good around me. As for the failure, the economic troubles seem to be things that built up over decades.
Let's see: A government-backed mortgage reinsurance scheme established by FDR crumbled under the collective weight of the bad loans created by the Community Reinvestment Act passed in the Carter years and strengthened in the Clinton years.
Add to this the slew of social legislation passed in the first 100 days of the Pelosi Congress.
We then had two solid years where the partisan press screamed recession, death and gloom. This finally pushed the economy into a position where oil speculator (both in and outside the US) were able to push oil prices to absurd levels. This was followed by an orchestrated short attack on the American stock market.
The only connection that the above events have with this election is that many of the players in the drama loathe George W. Bush.
For once, I might actually vote Republican. McCain is the best candidate. He ran a positive campaign. His views on immigration match my views. He probably would be ahead in the polls if the partisan press had not framed the election in such a way as to have people voting on McCain's weakest issue … the attack on the economy.
My only hesitancy in supporting McCain is that he has a long history of working with Congress in a bipartisan fashion. He is the guy who makes things happen. With a Democratic Congress and Senate, that means he would make an expansion of the state happen.
Of course, it is Congress that holds the purse strings. A bigger more intrusive government will happen regardless of the president.
I hope that American voters reject Obama's message of failure because we are not a failed nation.