You know it wouldn’t be very hard at this point for John McCain to make this election one in which the American people are asked to decide between socialism and freedom. Just recently I read that Obama is slamming McCain for being in favor of deregulation. Well, by necessity this means that Obama is for government regulation.

Why not throw out the confusing terms regulation vs. deregulation and start talking about what is behind those terms. Obama is admitting that he is in favor of Centralized planning of our economy. He is admitting that he is against free markets and free people. It doesn’t get much simpler then this. McCain could campaign on being for freedom while Obama is for slavery. It wouldn’t take that much to paint that picture and paint it convincingly.

One thing though that McCain would have to do is to come out powerfully against this bailout. Then he could travel the country playing the roll of populist and freedom lover both at the same time. He could paint Obama, with his support for the bailout as being for the rich, for socializing our financial sector, and for enslaving the middle class for the next two generations. McCain would ignite a firestorm of support if he just started running against big government socialists.

If McCain did this Palin suddenly becomes even more of an asset because she would be released to be Palin. I honestly believe that woman believes in things like free markets, smaller government, and serious reform but having been tied to McCain she has lost her voice. If McCain would craft this election as Freedom vs. Slavery Palin would be free to voice convictions that come natural to her.

But he won’t do it. He won’t do it because he hasn’t got it in him to see the opportunity that Obama and this crisis is giving him. The American voter isn’t stupid. They are against this bailout and they are against knowing full well that not doing a bailout is going to bring some economic hard times. If McCain would only tap into that it would change everything.

This article is in response to Gary De Mar bellyaching about Christians voting third party in a recent article written by De Mar.

First, I want to make it clear that Gary De Mar is not an enemy. The disagreement here is tactical and not strategic. Gary and I both share the same strategy of defeating the pagan left. The disagreement here is whether or not Gary’s tactics are counterproductive to achieving his strategy. The disagreement here extends to Gary’s accusations that the tactics of those of us who advocate voting third party are counterproductive to our shared strategy of crushing the pagan left.

First, Gary, like so many others, does not seem to comprehend why voting third party is necessary. Voting third party is necessary to communicate, in the only way that the major parties can understand, a profound discontent that will require substantive change in the major parties before those major parties can hope to attract again the votes of those who are voting third party. If Christians keep voting for Republicans, as Gary advocates, what is communicated to the Republican Party is that there is no necessity for the party to change in the direction of the political convictions of those who have bolted the party to vote third party. If the Republican Party believes the “Christian” vote is in its back pocket it will have no incentive to improve on issues that Christians care about. A Party that believes that it has a constituency that it can’t lose, no matter what, will ignore that constituency.

Second, building third parties, historically, has been a means by which the American Parties segues ideologically to new political positions. In the first couple of decades of the 20th century the Socialist party was a third party that ran Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas as Presidential candidates. Both Debs and Thomas were soundly trounced. What most people don’t know is that the Democratic Party, under the candidacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eventually adopted large portions of the Socialist party platform into the Democratic Party, thus going a long way towards remaking the Democratic Party into the image of the Socialist party. Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were never elected President but their Party and its ideas changed the Democratic Party forever. Other examples of this phenomenon in history can be recited.

Gary, doesn’t seem to understand that a third Party movement, supported by a healthy minority, though never winning, can work to be the means by which a party transitions ideologically. When Gary chastises people for voting third party and uses his influence to keep Christians from lending third party their strength he is insuring that the Republican Party will never take the Christian vote seriously.

Third, Gary seems to operating under the assumption that if Christians can manage to take over the Republican Party as a vehicle to advance their convictions that those styled “country club” Americans will support the Party. Gary’s reasoning seems to be that if Christians support the Republican Party now, while holding their noses, that what will happen is that other elements of the Republican Party will support De Mar type candidates while holding their noses. This is a questionable assumption on Gary’s part.

Fourth, voting third party is necessary in order to communicate that there are sizable portions of the electorate that are not generally satisfied with the two parties. The way the current two party system works is to funnel people into the major parties so that their vote communicates “general agreement” with the Party. Voting third Party gives a voice to people who are not in “general agreement” with the two Parties. Gary may be able to use his vote to communicate “general agreement” with the Republicans, but I find nothing in the Republican party with which I am in general agreement.

Fifth, voting third party is necessary in order to bring change through incremental gradualism. Those like Gary who advocate voting for Republican as a means by which to incrementally bring about change in the Republican Party would be hard pressed to reveal where any incremental progress has occurred. Indeed, if anything, it would be quite easy to point to incremental regress in the Republican Party (Mega growth in the size of the Government during the Bush administration, Increase of Entitlement programs, Increase in the extension of Empire, Attempt to Socialize the Financial sector of the economy, etc.). Gary, by voting for the Republican Party, communicates approval of this incremental regress.

Finally, on a practical level, we ought to be asking ourselves if we follow Gary’s advice how we are to prevent young Christians who get involved in the GOP to keep from being subsumed by the Borg. One only has to look at Patrick Henry College and their support for anti-home schooler Mike Huckabee to see that while in theory building a college to change the Republican Party from within might have seemed like a good idea, in the end it has just contributed to another educational establishment making good little soldiers for the fascist state as opposed to rebels who will fight the pagan left Borg.

Will Republican sycophants follow these tactics for bringing about significant change in our political process? Probably not. They will bellyache about how some Christians will remain true to their principles and those syophants will continue to compromise trying to achieve their strategic goals by using tactical means that are counter-productive to those stated goals.

McCain believes that we are safer from a 9/11 terrorist attack today then we were on 9/12.

Noted his support for a 9/11 commission, contrary to the Bush administration. Noted his opposition to torture. Noted the need to improve border control.

Obama likewise believes we are safer today then 9/12/01 but believes there are some areas that we have yet to improve upon.

Insists that we need to keep our eyes on Al Quida which he says is in 60 countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama says that he can bring respect back to America that was lost during Bush administration, thus insuring foreign country’s lending their help to us getting terrorist. Obama’s Messianic pretensions comes through in comments like this. Obama seems to be saying, “Elect me, because foreigners will like me.”

Obama keeps saying the Afghanistan is central. McCain says that Iraq is central.

Obama wants to take the savings of 10 billion a month that is spent on Iraq and invest in America (Read — entitlements). Insists that America has been so focused on Iraq that neglect of other areas of US policy, both domestically and internationally, has suffered.

McCain promises to, like a good Nanny, take care of the veterans.

The Iran question devolved into debate whether it is wise to sit down with lunatic international leaders like the leaders from Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc without some kind of preconditions or meetings at lower levels. Obama says “yes.” McCain say’s “no.”

McCain, in the way he addresses these questions keeps insinuating that Obama is naive on these issues because of his inexperience.

McCain wants to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO which I think is insane. What would Americans think if Russia desired to bring Mexico and Canada into their orbit of influence. The kind of commitment that McCain wants to give to Georgia and Ukraine is likely to create a flash point where if conflict were to rise with Russia vis a vis Georgia and Ukraine NATO members. Putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO is another evidence that we still have thirst for Empire.

It’s important to note that Obama agreed with McCain about NATO membership for these former Soviet countries.

Both seemingly desire to treat Russia as adversarial.