Real Differences
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The media claim John McCain and Barack Obama share "surprising policy overlaps" and "common ground," separated by a mere "stylistic gulf." It's a laughable attempt to mask Obama's radicalism.
This year's election for president is no repeat of the 1960 matchup of Richard Nixon vs. John F. Kennedy; 1972's Nixon vs. the far-left George McGovern would be a far more appropriate analogy.
No one could imagine Sen. Barack Obama outhawking his GOP opponent by warning, as JFK did on the campaign trail 48 years ago, that "we are rapidly approaching the point where we will be unable to act as equals at the bargaining table" with America's enemies. The bargaining table is where Obama believes his greatest accomplishments will come.
But the media establishment would have us believe that Sen. John McCain and his Democratic foe are really not so different from one another — two admirable pols with different packaging.
Last weekend, a Los Angeles Times editorial wondered if the surprising nominations of the two suggested that "something like a national consensus is developing."
It contended: "they don't differ much in their ideas about how best to protect the country" and share "common ground even in areas of opposition." The paper's conclusion: "Some might complain that this means voters will have little to choose between in November. We say: Welcome to the middle, candidates."
In a similar vein, the Washington-based Politico tabloid caricatured the two prospective nominees as a sort of political Oscar and Felix — "the Odd Candidates" — separated mainly by their very different styles. Obama and McCain are "well-cast foes, cutting distinctions on presentation, personality and personal image. One is the master of the arena rally, the other the town hall . . . both claim to be straight-talking and reform-minded, and both are occasionally self-deprecating."
What a disservice to American voters. The notion that there's "little to choose between in November" is outlandish. In fact, this may be the most consequential election ever.
In the midst of a global war on terror, this is no time to revive the naïve foreign policy of Jimmy Carter by having a president sit down with thugs ranging from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Cuba's Raul Castro, to North Korea's Kim Jong Il — then, like Carter, being shocked when they lie to him.
This time, the consequences of believing our enemies' lies go beyond invasions and coups on the other side of the world; America is faced with the real threat of nuclear terrorism and future 9/11s.
Unlike Sen. Obama and almost every other Democrat, Sen. McCain supported the surge strategy that turned things around in Iraq; by contrast, instead of completing a hard-fought victory, the unwaveringly anti-war Obama wants to withdraw prematurely.
As for fiscal policy, the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union's comparison of the candidates' spending plans shows McCain, who has crusaded against the corrupt practice of congressional earmarks, proposing less than $70 billion in new spending annually, while Sen. Obama wants $344 billion each year. Big difference.
Sen. McCain has called for preventing President Bush's tax cuts from expiring; Sen. Obama wants higher taxes on income, Social Security and capital gains.
In comparison with McCain, Obama opposes free-trade measures that create millions of U.S. jobs, like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Wartime is no time for a frivolous journalistic focus on superficial matters of style. We are in an era in which substance has life-or-death consequences. The difference is real, and so is the choice you will make in November. |
