Houston based KSEV Radio’s Edd Hendee and Pat Gray have suggested the use of surgical gloves and an airsickness bag while voting for John McCain.

Many Conservatives who have associated themselves with the Republican Party since the Reagan years, are aghast at the prospect of voting for John McCain in the November general election. As Rachel Alexander points out, they have a lot to be upset about, and because McCain labels himself a “maverick” it brings into question exactly how much anyone can trust him.  He may follow the party line one day, spurn it the next, and who knows what on the third.  Some pundits have called him a RINO and others an out and out liberal.  Ann Coulter has gone on record stating that she will vote democratic instead of for McCain.  Others, such as Houston based KSEV Radio’s Edd Hendee and Pat Gray have suggested the use of surgical gloves and an airsickness bag while voting. 

I don't know for sure that Ann Coulter is serious.  I believe that the TownHall.com crew; Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, et al., are serious when they say that conservatives must get behind McCain.  As for yours truly, I'm amazed at the depth to which voting for the lesser of two evils has fallen.  A small evil is still evil.  A president who takes the Al Gore global warming snake oil seriously is not playing with a full deck, unless he is pretending in order to attract part of the liberal / independent vote.  Politicians are famous for lying, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it and not knowing when they are doing so only make things worse. 

There is one other aspect of this electoral mess that has occasionally been making itself heard on political talk radio; I am speaking of the person who compares Mr. Obama to the disastrous President Jimmy Carter, and proposes that we will have another Reaganesque savior who will step into the breach after four years to cure what will certainly ail the nation.  It is this argument that presents a major problem; can we trust that history will repeat itself, and if it does, can we depend on Reagan II to actually eliminate the problems he or she will inherit. 

Consider:  Jimmy Carter was an inept President.  He left the nation in a shambles economically, and in the foreign policy arena.  What saved America was that Carter's ability to wreck the nation was limited.  Our primary international adversary, the USSR wasn't really interested in an all out war.  Iran had our embassy staff hostage, but was incapable, at that time, of presenting any real danger beyond its borders.  At home our need for energy was mishandled, but we were able to survive long enough to overcome it.  Likewise, we managed to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, perhaps more through luck than skill in management.  While the nation was damaged, it was still intact.  The new Department of Education, a sop to teachers unions for their backing in the election was a bad idea, but it wasn't immediately deadly.  In short, President Carter made a lot of mistakes, but they weren't sufficient to kill or even seriously wound a resilient nation that could turn to better and more enlightened leadership.  The situation today is different. 

The USSR is gone, and while Russia is still belligerent toward us, it still doesn't seem interested in a direct confrontation.  China is more belligerent, and is more intent on rattling financial sabers that military ones right now.  It could still pose a significant problem for someone who is not diplomatically sophisticated.  However, the most significant international danger is presented by the Islamic militants who are 1) dead set on destroying or subduing anyone who is culturally at odds with their beliefs and 2) close to either building or acquiring nuclear weapons, which certain of them seriously intend to use at the earliest possible opportunity.  They present a serious and non-negotiable threat to this and other nations.  One should note that Pakistan's nuclear stockpile was originally constructed for use against India.  A militant takeover there could easily lead to a serious, rather than a brushfire war.  A nuclear exchange in that region could easily spill over into other parts of the world.  In a time when isolationism is for all practical purposes impossible, one must bear that in mind, constantly. 

What's more, today's international situation is not a contest in which a cold war strategy of mutually assured destruction will work; most of the enemy leadership doesn't care about survival.  It cares only about destroying the enemy.  The current Iranian regime has made that clear.  To defeat such a system will require precisely applied military and intelligence strategies that Senator Obama has shown he is either not in favor of or not interested in. 

Likewise, there are economic issues that need to be dealt with.  These include energy, the chimera of climate change, and health care, which is the liberal's current favorite cause.  Regardless of precisely what concerns the current crop of liberals would focus, the result would be billions in new spending; 280 billion being the estimate I have heard most often associated with Mr. Obama.  The issue of funding this kind of spending should be central, and if it was, then it would soon become obvious that the United States cannot afford it.  Instead, the proponents of such programs hide behind tax increases, reduced military spending and the like.  They ignore the current fact that the nation is seriously in debt, and must find a way to deal with the coming crisis in funding future social security payments; something that retiring Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, says will destroy the nation's economy if it is not handled soon.  The reason is simple.  Funding the expense would require so much money that it would destroy the ability of every American to care for their legitimate needs.  Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, for that matter, may be relying on some deus ex machina to rescue the nation before it is too late. However, ignoring the problem and putting it off to some other generation only makes things worse in the long run.  

In sum, America could recover from Jimmy Carter because the damage he could do was rather limited, and because it had a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to reverse much of the damage.  Today a president with the wrong ideas, who mismanages the nation, may, much more easily do such severe damage that there is no possibility of a cure.  And, there is no obvious doctor waiting to implement any, if it exists.  Like a drug user who finds himself in jail one day on charges that may send him to prison or worse, the modern American who follows Mr. Obama may wake up to find their nation wrecked, themselves in severe trouble, and no way out.  It will be their fault for believing in a false hope advertised by someone who knew how to make them feel good temporarily, but not how to cure the disease.  In the end, the drug wears off and the disease which was lurking in the background is still there, as real and as deadly as ever.   There is nothing wrong with hope; but it must be built on a proper foundation and not on smoke and mirrors or feel good rhetoric.