I’d question that our enemies (assuming, of course, that we’re talking about Al-Qaeda) are actually afraid of either of the candidates, since they’re trying to achieve martyrdom anyway. Furthermore, it seems to me that Al-Qaeda’s goal has been to bog the American military down in as many wars as possible, then voting for the candidate that wants to bomb Iran may be precisely what they want me to do.

Richard, that’s good anecdotal evidence for McCain, but anecdotal is as much as I’ll give it. I base decisions on my own principles, not the opposite principles of America’s enemies.

2.Which of the two men, if elected, will cause our enemies around the world to dance in the streets in celebration?

2. Absolutely and it’s been my plan since he announced his candidacy. He was also my guy in 2000.

3. I think a Republican POTUS will have limited option with a Democratic Congress. What he can accomplish will be foreign policy (conservative), judgeships (pro-life) and supportive of the military.

4. No, as I said he was always my pick. However, pretty much any of the other nominees would have secured my vote against Obama (excepting Huckabee and Ron Paul).

I believe Obama is dangerous, but I wouldn’t take the vote-against theory too much farther down the line.

I see that point, yes.

There is an opinion around that conservatives should accept an Obama win (vote for him, or don’t vote at all), to let things melt down so badly that a replacement could (easily) un-seat him next time around (Carter-Reaganesque scenario)

Don’t want to drag this too far off of your original course, but maybe some time you would care to share attributes / examples of the conservative you would support with your vote?

You mentioned in your post “fiscal conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty” But who around has those credentials?! (I’d like you to vote sometime in the next 100 years!)

Limited government is totally off the radar for the voting public, huh?! Heck, the answer to every single issue today seems to be to run to the Feds (bail outs, gas prices, global warming, hurricanes, polar bears, health care, education, retirement, etc) So there goes any “fiscal conservatism”, too.

Individual liberty? This year’s Heller decision was a victory in that regard, but not directly from a President (but via Supreme Court). Imminent domain powers seem to grow each passing year though.

Jeff, you are analytical and precise. So, let’s hear it sometime: Who is THE “conservative” you’d vote for (real or imagined)?

S. 1805 is an example of McCain not being a conservative. That’s it. It’s not relevant in our discussion of short and long term goals.

The long-term destruction of conservative presidential candidates is the 300m target. You are focused on the bad things that will happen over the next four years in an Obama presidency. Yes, SCOTUS justices are important. No, I’m not willing to concede my principles because the next president will probably appoint a SCOTUS justice. I am focused on the bad things that will happen to conservative thinking and voting in America as a result of McCain being elected. I would rather have real conservatives in the White House and in congress after a destructive Obama presidency than a continued string of pseudo-conservatives that don’t deliver.

Thanks for answering the question. I am mostly curious about how far conservative McCain voters will apply their logic, and your answer gives me some insight.

Jeff, sorry to waste any space on your blog. But you A) invite comments (’Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think’) and B) You titled this blog post ‘Seven Questions for McCain Voters’.

I apologize for not walking thru your exact decision tree precisely. And if you dislike feedback that is not totally in line with yours, delete me = space problem solved. It is your blog (and a great one), but you seem to be thin skinned at times when commenters are not totally 100% in agreement with you. You are inviting comments and discussion, right?

I was making a larger point to many of us who take the same line of questioning you offered: What’s the value of a vote, either way - or not voting at all? Yeah, I was being snarky with the “one” vote, but you reinforced the point by conceding your state is over the edge towards McCain. So what difference does it make?

We live in a duality: we’re told how important it is to vote, your vote matters, etc. But we also tend to think that OUR one vote is so all important, all the hand wringing, self importance, etc. Blah.

So, before I’m put in the bit bucket, I’ll answer your 7th question: I would not take the logic all that far, since I agree with you that a ‘none of the above’ protest vote (not voting at all) can be effective strategically to send the message, that two bad choices are not the only alternatives.

But I as went thru the calculus with MY vote, I’ve decided to pull the lever for McCain.

Now, could you please expand on what are 50m targets vs 300m? S. 1805 is a 50m, but Supreme Court nominations are 300m…?

@ Possum, I see the point you’re trying to make. But I think you’re being short-sighted. Yes, 4 years of Obama would be bad. In the short run. However, electing McCain might set a precedent that could prove to be devastating in the long run.

Besides, you’re missing the point. The two party system is broken. And it’s not going to change until we do something about it. As diverse as this country is, we should have a more diverse set of (read: MORE) candidates to choose from. We’re like a horse with blinders on. As long as we keep ascribing to a broken system, we’ll only go in the direction it dictates, and that’s a dangerous path to go down…

Jay, does anyone’s vote count more than “one?” Just curious whether you’ve got a point with that one or if you’re just wasting storage space on my blog.

In the big picture my state is so in the tank for McCain that everyone I lay eyes on in a week could vote for Obama and it wouldn’t make a difference.

Still curious if anyone wants to answer the questions.