The International House of Bacon

As noted, I’m having a really hard time talking myself into voting for McCain, mostly because of a wealth of reasons that seem to keep cropping up when I least need them to. The fact that I think he’s generally a good choice for the left on a whole doesn’t help that feeling, and a piece on Reason’s blog yesterday really highlighted that for me a bit more, even if it wasn’t the intent.

Matt Welch wrote a book on McCain, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick (a book I have yet to read but still plan on reading), and his piece at Reason was not entirely positive, but not completely negative either. Two of the three highlights, however, were what tipped me off, even if I don’t necessarily agree with Welch on them.

The first, of course, is Iraq. For better or for worse, McCain at least appears to be framing himself as the war candidate, and while it might have been a tactical mistake a year ago, but with perception starting to catch up with reality, it may not be a terrible thing for McCain to focus on at least in terms of gaining significant distance between his eventual opponent (as he lacks it in other areas). The highlight of Welch’s Iraq note was this speech, where McCain stated that he “will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country’s interests secure and our honor intact.” While Welch somewhat mocks the apparent dismissal of the “should we have gone” question, I think it’s a much better way to view it at this stage - no matter how you feel, felt, or plan on feeling about the Iraq War at this point, essentially everyone is in agreement that the sooner we can leave without causing any extra problems, the better. McCain’s dedicated to doing it right, and there’s no question that he’s in the interests of making sure that happens - a stark difference from Clinton, who isn’t looking to rush but is concerned chiefly with getting out rather than solving the remaining problems, and Obama, who’s looking to rush and is fine with going back in if things go sour (which would likely end up costing more and taking longer than any other plan out there currently). Plenty of the Democratic/left-wing anger and hunger for “change” is tied into Iraq policy, but if it’s a major issue for you, the true “change” you want is a complete separation from Iraq, which can only be done via a changeover that ensures that there won’t be a need to go back caused by ourselves. Can we really be confident that the Clinton and Obama plans provide that? Sure, McCain’s might not be able to either, but McCain’s plan is at least aware of the realities that the country is facing.

The second, and perhaps more importantly, is trade. If we learned anything about Ohio last night, it’s that a) lying about your trade statements on the campaign trail isn’t going to help you in the polls, and b) that voting Democrats have wildly poor views regarding trade realities. While McCain has a very checkered economic record, if there’s one thing he has been relatively consistent on, it’s trade. He has generally understood the need for free trade, and he’s been pounding that point home as of late, which is a sharp, sharp contrast from the Clinton/Obama mantras. As others have said in the comments, it’s not like the Republicans have been perfect on trade, or that everything is completely hunky-dory, but compare McCain’s more recent statements (and most of his recent career) with Obama’s alleged desire to renegotiate NAFTA or Hillary’s fairly schizophrenic record on the issue - with global trade a reality, it’s hard to sy that either Democrat is a solid choice.

I’m sure more will crop up as time goes on, but once we see the two parties seriously campaign against each other, I think we’ll see more of this sort of thing reveal itself.