His guest was author Joseph Farah, who was on to discuss his book None of the Above: Why 2008 Is the Year to Cast the Ultimate Protest Vote. I haven't read the book, but I've done a fair amount of research on it. Frequent patrons of JG&AH know my feelings about election sit-outs. This (Presidential Election sit-out) from what I understand is the crux of Farah's argument. On the show, Farah said as much, inferring that Republican voters can still impact local and congressional elections, without participating in the presidential vote.
I've heard others advance this argument before, most of them advancing the line that "it took a four year wake up call from a Carter to bring us a Reagan." Farah was essentially making this same point on Humphries's show Thursday. Its also for all to see in his World Net Daily column entitled "Why McCain is Worse Than Obama". Says Farah (and this will sound very familiar to many):
I present this history to you to make a point. I believe the best way to get another choice like we had in 1980 is for Americans to have the opportunity, if you want to call it that, of seeing someone very much like Carter back in the White House and working with a House and Senate dominated by his own party.
Don't get me wrong: I believe four years of Barack Obama will be terrible for America – in the short term. But the suffering we will experience as a result of his governance could prove to be very positive – in the long term. Why? For the same reason the Jimmy Carter years were terrible in the short term and positive in the long term.
Obama's policies of taxing and spending and clamping down on freedom in health care and other areas will prove massively unpopular when Americans see them fail as these discredited ideas always do. Obama and the Democrats will try to blame past administrations for the problems, just as Jimmy Carter tried to do. They will try to blame the people, just as Jimmy Carter tried to do. But with Democrats running Congress and the White House, it will be easy for Americans to see who is to blame.
I can almost promise you Barack Obama will not be elected to a second term. He will, in all likelihood, just like Jimmy Carter, pave the way for a real Republican president in 2012 – if indeed there is one in the wings.
If you go here you can see the links at World Net Daily to Farah's two pieces where he makes the case that McCain is worse than Obama. Read both for yourself and we'll discuss the merit's of his arguments.To summarize, McCain is worse in the long run, says Farah, because he will govern liberally on the domestic issues in such a way that the sure-to-be-Democrat Congress will have a front for the failures they are sure to legislate into American life. He envisions an America so fed up with Republicans that in 2012 a Hillary Clinton-type will be swept into the White House. Let Obama win in 2008, the argument goes, you tee up another Reagan type Republican for 2012 and beyond.
Farah may be correct in this regard. I've been very vocal about my disappointment with the McCain ascendancy. If you look at McCain's domestic record in the Senate, it is an improvement over Obama's, but not by much.
The biggest weakness to this argument, however, is National Security. Yes, its fair to refer to McCain as a domestic Liberal. But I trust the man unreservedly with National Security. Obama I wouldn't let watch my dogs for a day. And folks, four years with a child like Barack Obama as Commander in Chief is an ample amount of time for Islamofascism to do unspeakable damage to the West.
I recall Farah discussing this on the Humphries Show by invoking the Soviets of the Carter Era. The Russians, we are reminded, even had nuclear weapons, yet we survived four years of Carter as Commander in Chief. The logic goes, that we can survive Obama, too.
The problem is, the Soviets were Rational Actors. They were deterrable. They respected the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. They calculated the terrible response invading West Berlin or a NATO ally. They feared the consequences.
The Soviets, however, have been replaced by a far more terrifying enemy, Radical Islam. Why more terrifying? They are not deterrable. The thought of an Ohio-Class Missile Sub lying in wait off the Kamchatka Peninsula made the Soviets think twice about launch. Radical Islam, a suicidal movement, is willing to see a city of Muslims under a mushroom cloud, provided they get one in themselves. In short, there really isn't much deterrance in the fight against stateless Islamofascism. Only prevention.
Prevention. For starters, a President Obama's commitment to prevention tools such as foreign surveillance is suspect. In December of last year, he made this statement:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. ... Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."
The campaign now has changed its position on FISA reform, but can they be trusted? I've also commented here about Obama's assured weakness as a wartime leader as well.
Yes, McCain could very easily be a poor president on the domestic front. Yes, the Republican Party will probably suffer some embarassment that may cost us electability in future elections. Yes, most likely, as with GWB, we are going to have to suffer from a media beatdown that will be tedious for the next four years.
But we can't afford four years of our pants being down in the war against radical Islam. I've often joked with friends that, if I knew our nation would be secure from external threats, the thought of someone like an Obama or Hillary Clinton in the White House would almost be amusing to watch. Folks, in this day and age, that's entertainment we can't afford. And its for that reason, we need to view our votes for McCain not as votes for McCain, per se, but votes to keep ignorant children like Barack Obama from unzipping our national fly.
Sorry, Joe, I'm not taking that chance.
