For John McCain
BY World's Editorial Writers
Sunday, November 02, 2008
11/03/08 at 4:26 PM
Experience gives him the nod
During October, the Tulsa
World Opinion section was
dedicated to an interesting
project. The best and the
brightest from Oklahoma
Democratic and Republican
parties were invited to
write op-ed pieces on why
they thought John McCain
or Barack Obama was the
best candidate for president
of the United States.
We asked U.S. Sen. Jim
Inhofe and former U.S. Rep.
James R. Jones to discuss
foreign affairs in the election.
Former Gov. Frank
Keating and former U.S.
Rep. Brad Carson debated
the two candidates on economic
issues. U.S. Rep. Tom
Cole and Gov. Brad Henry
discussed why they thought
their candidate was best for
Oklahoma.
It was an interesting, intelligent
debate. Both sides
made good arguments but,
on balance, we find that
McCain wins on all three
points. Considered from
foreign affairs, economic or
strictly parochial Oklahoma
perspectives, he is the best
man for the job.
McCain’s experience and the
wisdom borne of his military
service give him the edge in foreign
affairs.
Obama has made much
of the fact that he opposed
the war in Iraq (although
his vice presidential candidate,
Sen. Joe Biden, voted
for it). On the other hand,
Obama — whether he admits
it or not — was wrong
in his opposition to the
surge in Iraq. The surge has
worked, and McCain has
justifiably taken much of
the credit for the strategy
shift. It stabilized the situation
in Iraq and has set the
stage for what we believe
both candidates seek: the
quickest end to the incredibly
expensive U.S. occupation
of Iraq.
McCain would end the
war in a less chaotic fashion.
The collapse of South
Vietnam amid U.S. powerlessness
cannot be repeated
in the strategically key Persian
Gulf. McCain’s military
service, his wisdom in helping
form the surge and his
broad experience as a foreign
affairs leader, lead us
to the conclusion that Mc-
Cain is the candidate most
likely to win peace without
losing national credibility.
Elsewhere in the world,
there is reason to be anxious
about Obama’s lack of
experience. His promise
to talk to foreign dictators
like Cuba’s Raul Castro
and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
without preconditions
is dangerously
naïve. We can’t afford a
well-intentioned amateur
running our nation’s foreign
affairs.
McCain has spent decades
studying the key
flashpoints facing our nation.
He has traveled to the
hot spots. He has seen the
behind-the-scenes discussions
of where U.S. policy is
coming from and where it is
going. He is better prepared
to guide the ship of state.
The conventional wisdom
is that McCain loses
ground to Obama on economic
issues. This is not
necessarily the case.
The greatest single challenge
facing the United
States at this point is freeing
itself from its dependence
on foreign oil, and only Mc-
Cain has wholeheartedly
and consistently backed
the “all of the above” strategy:
more domestic drilling,
more nuclear energy, more
wind power, more everything.
Obama has been slow
to back broad domestic energy
and hedges on nuclear
energy.
Break the nation’s foreign
oil addiction and you
solve most of its long-term
economic problems. Fail to
do so and little else you try
will matter. McCain’s plan
is the most aggressive and
the one most likely to succeed.
Sadly, this debate has taken a back seat
to that over tax
policy. McCain has backed
a broad tax cut. Obama has
targeted tax reductions and
wants to increase taxes on
the top wage earners.
More heat than light was
generated on the tax issue
in the final weeks of the
campaign. We don’t believe
Obama is a socialist because
he wants a progressive
income tax. Neither do
we believe McCain is out to
reward big oil companies
with tax breaks.
Here’s what we do believe:
A tax increase in a
time of economic slowdown
violates fundamental
principles of economics. It’s
essential that the federal
government make progress
on the exploding national
deficit — and McCain’s record
as a fiscally conservative
budget hawk and his
promises to take on wasteful
spending encourage us
in that direction.
But right now, when the
economy is teetering and
recession is almost certainly
pending, is the wrong
time for the government to
be extracting capital from
the job-creating classes or
anyone else.
If the polls and pundits
are right, McCain will not
win Tuesday’s election.
Barack Obama has outspent
him and has successfully
tied him to the failures
of the Bush administration.
Outside of Oklahoma, it’s a
bad year to be a Republican
and despite a valiant effort
McCain may not be able to
overcome the challenge he
faces.
There is no doubt that
Obama has a lot going for
him. His youthful energy,
grace, obvious intelligence
and unflappable demeanor
are appealing. His message
of change is hard to
resist. His choice of a running
mate was better considered
than McCain’s. But
Obama’s resume is just too
slender. What’s needed in
these perilous times is an
experience-tested hand at
the wheel, and that is Mc-
Cain.
If Obama is elected, we
will honestly wish him the
best of luck, as we know
McCain will. Our nation’s
political debates are harsh
at times, but that stridency
doesn’t prevent us
from gathering around the
eventual winner with the
unifying pledge: We are
all Americans now. Let us
move forward together.
Since 1940 the Tulsa
World has endorsed Republicans
in presidential
elections. This is not because
the Tulsa World
is a partisan newspaper
— indeed we have endorsed
Democrats more often than
not in local elections — but
because in each election
the Republican has most
closely reflected the values
we want in the nation’s top
office.
That is as true this time
as it has been in the past.
We endorse John McCain in Tuesday’s presidential
vote.
Associated Images:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. CAROLYN KASTER/Associated Press file
|
