Whatever Obama would do, McCain would do a lesser version of the same thing. Obama: mass-amnesty. McCain: amnesty. Obama: give away housing. McCain: buy bad mortgages with taxpayer money...it’s still socialism, just not as bad.
I’m willing to put aside my own personal stake (401k, whatever) in order to vote for someone that represents my views...and McCain doesn’t so I can’t vote for him. Money isn’t as important as integrity.
The political system set up by the Founders was a representative republic. The idea of that is not to follow the daily polls and attempt pragmatic calculus (though that’s your right of course), but to vote for a candidate that best represents your views. I find nothing in the Constitution saying requiring or even describing ONLY two parties.
We are not being represented accurately if we vote for someone who doesn’t actually represent our views.
I tried the “lesser of two evils” philosophy. It works up to a point, the subjective point at which a candidate becomes so unacceptable in a voter’s mind. McCain was unacceptable as a primary candidate and he’s unacceptable as a presidential candidate.
Whatever. I still think that you have a very shallow analysis of what is at stake. It’s not about the money, it’s about the loss of freedom and our whole way of life.
McCain would not give money to communists, Maoists, ACORN workers, etc to go into the schools and indoctrinate the children. Obama will, heck, he has, but this time it will be your money.