McCain was wrong to suggest we don't need to fear an Obama presidency

Yesterday I heard John McCain say that we don’t need to fear an Obama presidency. I submit that he is wrong. I think we have plenty of reasons to be fearful of an Obama presidency.

The first and most important reason to be fearful is his economic policy, or more specifically, his lack of an economic policy. His tax policy would be damaging to our economy even when it was strong. In this economic crisis, his tax policies would be devastating. He likes to say that unemployment is up, wages are down, gas prices are hurting Americans, etc and that it is all to blame on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.” I still don’t know which policies of president Bush he is talking about or what he would do different. If unemployment is up, how is taking money from businesses and corporations going to motivate them to hire more people? How is raising their taxes going to make them pay more to their employees? When faced with rising taxes, companies will make up the difference by raising prices and cutting costs. This means that we will be paying more for the things we need or want and cutting costs usually means cutting jobs or sending them overseas. Our economy needs investors more than ever. Raising taxes on capital gains will deter investment and slow our economic recovery even more. He doesn’t like to talk about the higher taxes, except in the context of raising revenue for all the spending he wants to do. Instead, he wants to talk about giving a $40 per month tax cut to most Americans. To me, that is just a gimmick to buy votes. The damage done by his tax increases will eat up that $40 per month and more.

He has shown a disturbing lack of leadership on the economic crisis. Again, he just wants to blame it all on the “failed Bush/McCain policies.” He has offered no plan to deal with the crisis, nor he has demonstrated any understanding of how it happened. He blames deregulation, but there seems to be a lot of top economists who believe that over regulation is more to blame than deregulation. He refuses to admit that raising taxes in this environment would be harmful to the economy. He can announce that the Bush policies have produced the worst economy since the Great Depression, and then fly off to Hollywood to attend a $28,500 a plate fundraiser. Sen McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington. If nothing else he was available and ready to work with congress on the bailout. Sen Obama said he was in “constant contact” with Sec Paulson and was available if he was needed, all you have to do is call him. He thought it was more important to keep trying to be elected. He takes credit for calling for taxpayer protection and limiting CEO compensation. These protections would be in there without the wisdom of Barack Obama. There is enough blame to go around for this economic problem, but to simply say it was caused by Bush policies shows a complete lack of understanding of what caused the crisis. I think democrats bear the lion’s share of blame as they were the ones charged with oversight and preventing this type of event for the last two years and their policy of forcing Fannie and Freddie, as well as smaller banks, to make risky loans so that low income people could become homeowners. This policy at least contributed to the problem.

We still don’t really know who Barack Obama is. Normally I wouldn’t care about his associations with people like Rev Wright and Ayers. I can give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he doesn’t share their anti-American and anti-capitalistic views. However, his association with Acorn and other similar groups does scare me. He was chosen by Ayers to run a $100 million education grant, but he never gave any of the money to schools. Instead he filtered it to groups like Acorn who have an extreme left-wing agenda. He represented Acorn and trained some of their activists. This group has been responsible for pressuring banks to make risky loans and has been accused of voter fraud in several states. And this is not new, they were accused of voter fraud in the 2004 election as well. Even knowing this, Obama gave them $800,000 to register voters. It’s no coincidence that the states this group has been accused of voter fraud in are almost all contested states in this election. When you take all these associations together, as well as the Rezco association, you have to wonder what Obama really believes in.

We should also fear his complete lack of foreign policy experience or judgment on foreign affairs. This wouldn’t be as big a problem for me if it weren’t for the fact that we are at war in two places. Even though he is trying to back out of it now, he did say that he would meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea without preconditions and within the first year of his presidency. I don’t believe he would actually do it, but I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of world affairs. Someone should ask Obama if as president, would he sign a war funding bill for Afghanistan that had a timetable for withdrawal in it. I’ve never been a military commander, but even I can understand that if you are in a war, you should fight it to win and that announcing that you will only fight it until a certain date and that win or lose you will be quitting is wrong. Whether or not it was wise to go into Iraq in the first place, we are there now and need to complete the job. Even now, with victory in sight, Obama would stick to a strict timetable for withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground. There are so many reasons to not leave before we succeed, not the least of which is how great it would be for terrorist groups recruitment efforts if they can say they defeated the US.

Probably the single biggest reason I support John McCain for president is that he is willing to stand up for what he believes is best for America, regardless of party position. I can’t say the same for Barack Obama. In fact, from what he has said, quite the opposite is true. His entire argument for being qualified to be commander-in-chief is his judgment to oppose the Iraq war. He wasn’t in the Senate then so we don’t have a record of a vote for his position. What we have is a speech he made in front of an anti-war crowd while campaigning. He has also said that opposing the Iraq war was the “toughest decision he has had to make.” He has been spending the last year and a half telling us how strongly he believed that going into Iraq was wrong. Why would taking a stand on an issue that you believe in be the hardest decision you had to make? I think the difficulty came from trying to decide which side of the issue to take in order to get elected. I think that is also why he has so many “present” votes or did not vote.

Finally, Obama has shown no willingness to lead. He has gone along with democrats nearly 100% of the time. He ran virtually unopposed to get elected to the Senate and has done pretty much whatever the democrat party leadership wanted him to do. With a democrat majority in the house and the senate, I see no reason to believe that Obama would oppose anything they would want to do. In effect, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be running the country. Democrats came to power almost 2 years ago with promises of a common sense plan to lower gas prices and an economic agenda that would create jobs and higher wages for Americans. I haven’t seen it. Gas prices and unemployment are way up since democrats took over. And while the current economic crisis has been brewing for a while, it has gotten much worse under the democratic leadership. Can we afford four more years of the last 2? I fear that we cannot.