Posted on 11/02/2008 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
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 a$airs leader, lead us to the conclusion that McCain 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 McCain.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.