Home > Brandenburg, Mix 'n Match > Yes to McCain Is No to Obama

Yes to McCain Is No to Obama

October 8, 2008

Is McCain just the lesser of two evils?  I don’t think we can go that far in this election and I’m going to explain why.  First, I want to tell you about my voting record.

In 1980, I was 18 and I voted Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.  In 84 I voted Ronald Reagan, not Walter Mondale.  Four years later, I voted for the lesser of two evils—I think this would parallel pretty closely with the 2008 election—George Bush, Sr. and Dan Quayle instead of Michael Dukakis and Lloyd “You’re no Jack Kennedy” Bentsen.  I voted for Jack Kemp in the 88 Republican primary.  In 1992 we have Bush versus Clinton.  “Read my lips, no new taxes.”  “The Economy, stupid.”  I voted Pat Buchanan in the primary.  Four years later and four more years of President Clinton.  I voted Buchanan over Robert Dole in the primaries.   In 2000, a little different, because I voted for George W. Bush in the primary but Howard Phillips, Constitution Party, in the general election.  In 2004, I voted Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party.  George Bush couldn’t have won California in either 2000 or 04.  Those were statement votes.  Now we come to this election 2008.

The preamble to our constitution starts with “WE THE PEOPLE.”  We individual citizens are responsible for who we elect.  We take voting seriously, according to principles of God’s Word.  This year I argue for McCain.  Let me explain.

More than any other election in my lifetime, we have a “the-other-guy-can’t-be-allowed-to-win” election.  I’m going to make my comparison between Obama and McCain, but to start, Obama is the worst major party presidential candidate in the history of the United States.   I understand that a good argument could be made for Bill Clinton being the worst (especially in light of pretty credible evidence that he was a rapist).  Obama comes from the very corrupt Chicago political establishment.  Most of you have probably read about his friends (here too).  He was mentored by a communist.  He did far more damage than good as a community organizer.   He began his career in the home of an unremorseful domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers (a must see picture).  Obama couldn’t get started based on his own abilities and his own merits, so he utilized some of the most scummy as his gatekeepers.  He’s totally liberal in his Christianity, not a believer in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.  He was a leader in Acorn, one of the most radical, corrupt organizations in the United States [they’re already at work, it seems, in this election].  It seems he’s received illegal donations from Palestinian men who are party of a large clan of Hamas’ supporters.  He received the second biggest donation ($111,489) from Freddie Mac and called Franklin Raines, former chief executive for Freddie Mac, several times for advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.  He spent twenty years as a member of a church that believed and preached black liberation theology.  He is endorsed by Louis Farakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam.  He’s got a brother living in destitute poverty in Africa.  In his own big project in life, the Annenberg Challenge, he continued shady dealings with a domestic terrorist and ended in abject failure and the waste of $160,000,000 dollars [CNN has finally picked up this story].  He funneled $75,000 of government money to the organization of his wife’s cousin.  He earmarked one million dollars to his wife’s hospital.  He voted only “present” most of the time while in the Illinois Senate because he’s not good at making important decisions.  He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  If you were to go look at Obama’s campaign platform and compare it to how he’s actually voted, you’ll repeatedly get an entirely opposition view—count on it; he’ll behave like he voted, not like his platform.  With the above information, no one should even win a state congress position, let alone the presidency of the United States.

Doesn’t the above paragraph, a one-stop shopping spot for Obama, show us enough reasons already why we want McCain to win this election?  I have things I don’t like about McCain, but he’s also got some very good positions on issues, enough of them that they make him worthy of our vote.  Here are the main points.


John McCain takes a strict constructionist view of the constitution.  Did you hear Joe Biden in the VP debate bragging about how he opposed and helped defeat the nomination of Judge Robert Bork?  Bork, the originalist interpreter of the constitution, did not make it to the court because of Biden and others.  Obama will likely appoint the worst, most radically liberal Supreme Court justices ever.  McCain will probably follow the pattern set by President Bush, appointing conservatives.  He says he will.  This is an area that he is very conservative.  In the next four years, we could easily lose one or two of the liberal judges on the court.  Their decisions will affect a multitude of issues.  Homosexual marriage will likely go to the court soon just like the Texas state anti-sodomy law did (and was sadly overturned) a few years ago.  Two more liberal judges and the Supreme Court could easily overturn the marriage amendments in state constitutions all over the United States.  We need McCain’s Supreme Court nominations and we’ve got to avoid Obama’s.


Abortion wouldn’t be a federal issue if it wasn’t for Roe v. Wade.  Since that decision, abortion is executive branch and federal government.  Obama supports abortion.  In February 2004, Michelle Obama wrote a fundraising letter during her husband’s 2004 U. S. Senate campaign claiming the partial birth abortion ban “is clearly unconstitutional” and “a flawed law.” Obama argued in the Illinois Senate against giving medical care to survivors of abortions (here is a site that gives all the information in the right side bar).  Obama takes the worst abortion position in the history of American politics.  McCain is anti-abortion and Palin is a candidate that takes the strongest position against abortion that I have ever seen in a political candidate in my lifetime.


Obama has always supported gun banning.  He says he believes in the second amendment.  His actions show otherwise.  When Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”  In 1998, a questionnaire administered by IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”  In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.  Obama also opposes the current laws in 48 states that let citizens carry concealed handguns for protection claiming, despite all the academic studies to the contrary, that “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”


I don’t think there should be a department of education.  The state shouldn’t be involved in education at all.  However, it is, so with that in mind, McCain has advocated vouchers and school choice.  That is an incredible expression of conservatism, for which I was happy when I heard it in his acceptance speech.  On the other hand, you can mail in your Obama candidacy to the National Education Association and the other teacher’s unions.


Those four are enough for me.  I could include a much better stand for McCain versus Obama on spending and taxes, on defense, and against terrorism.  Those are bonus.  You may have a convoluted theory that makes us better with Obama.  You would be wrong.  I have a better chance of winning the Olympic high jump than Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes have of winning this election.  If you are going to vote for them, you may as well vote for your grandpa or dad.  Vote for me.  I’ve got as good an opportunity to win as them.  I see Obama as president as something like Fidel Castro as president.  We don’t want Obama.  We really, really don’t want him as president.   The only way to do anything about that is to vote for McCain.

  1. Bobby Mitchell
    October 8, 2008 at 6:00 am

    Funny that we’ve never talked about this, but I’m sure you could gather from my brief comments on Brother Mallinak’s post that you and I are on the same page here. Barack Hussein Obama must be stopped.

    Besides everything you wrote, the guy is an invention of his string-pulling buddies. Last night I laughed at the remarks by the press concerning his being “good with words,” “eloquent,” etc. What a joke! His “aaaaaands” and “uuuuuuughs,” his terrible cadence, and his weird pronunciations make President Bush look like Cicero! We keep being told that he is “sexy,” “good-looking,” “eloquent,” “charismatic.” Baloney. He is an invention of some powerful leftists and the media elite. They keep telling us what they want us to think of him, but the reality is that the emperor has no clothes!

  2. October 8, 2008 at 8:47 am

    Bro. Mitchell,

    I agree. He’s got that clipped delivery and his facial expressions are manican-esque. When he stepped close to people with the microphone, he sounded as natural as a computer synthesizer. I loved how they said, “He stared at McCain, never took his eyes off him.” OK. He can win a stare down contest. We’re setting the bar pretty low. McCain was writing notes on a yellow legal pad (because he doesn’t know how to use a computer). If he had stared down Obama, well, no one could have resisted that tactic of, um, fervent staring. If Obama smiles, it’s radiant, and if he scowls, he is angry with corruption, and if he wrinkles his brow, he’s showing compassion to the underprivileged. And Chris Matthews feels a chill up his leg.

  3. reglerjoe
    October 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

    It is ironic that conservatives are doing what liberals did in ’04: we’re voting against a candidate by voting for a candidate that we do not fully support.

  4. October 8, 2008 at 10:47 am


    Between the two candidates that can win, I fully support McCain. I could have put more evidence for McCain. Why do jobs go overseas? Corporate tax makes it too expensive to do business in the United States. This is a point that McCain isn’t making very well, but he is against raising corporate or capital gains tax. Picking the exact guy that we want, who can get less than one percent of a vote—that doesn’t make any sense unless there is no way that McCain could win in your state. I recognize that McCain deserves what he is getting to some degree, because of his self-defeating campaign finance bill, but voting for someone who can’t win is self-defeating too. Everybody is free to do that, but if so, why vote for one of the third parties. Vote write in. I would need a satisfying argument that would show me how we would be helped with an Obama election.

  5. Dave Mallinak
    October 9, 2008 at 8:22 am

    Your arguments here are probably the best that can be made for voting McCain. I still say that if I voted for McCain, it would be more of a vote for Sarah Palin.

    And (importing some thoughts that Thomas had over on my post), Thomas is right about Utah. I just saw on Zogby that McCain’s lead in Utah is somewhere in the thirties. So, whatever I vote probably won’t make a huge difference.

    All things being equal, I will probably end up voting for McCain. If I didn’t, I was already intending to vote for Pastor Brandenburg. I figure if he won the Presidency, I might get to tour the White House — maybe even stay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

    But I still think that the issue of voting for the candidates that have been imposed on us, when we wouldn’t consider voting for them in a Primary, needs to be addressed and discussed. When we approach an election, is it our duty to vote our conscience, or are we supposed to make sure that the worst candidate does not get in? When we vote for the “lesser of two evils,” are we then approving a candidate that God does not?

    As I see it, because we have been voting for candidates like Bob Dole and George Bush the elder and (now) John McCain, we have gotten ourself into a spot where our Republican candidates are ALL of the “hold your nose and vote” variety. And the longer we continue to vote with one hand firmly clamped over our collective noses, the longer we are going to have to vote this way.

    The Democrats and the Republicrats are driving us towards the pit. The Democrats are in a race to get there first. The Republicrats are using the brakes to keep from getting too much momentum. But they are all headed in the same direction. When do we get off the truck?

  6. Gary Johnson
    October 9, 2008 at 9:32 am

    Just for discussion.

    How evil will you tolerate the lesser of the two evils and continue to vote for that candidate?

    Is a socialist preferred over a communist, therefore we vote for the socialist because he is the lesser of two evils.

    When both candidates won’t close the borders, and when both candidates are against free market capitalism, and when both candidates believe in global warming,… should I keep going?

    A comparison of the founding fathers with our current elected officials shows that we are no longer even close to what this country was intended to be.

    Do I dare approach the subject of fatalism, and just say, well lets just speed towards a one world government, encouraged by the fact the trumpet may sound all the sooner?

    (VOTE OBAMA!) Of course not seriously.

    Dan 4:17 is being shown clearly to us
    “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.”

    Just some thoughts.

  7. October 9, 2008 at 10:20 am

    I just can’t agree with you Pastor B on this. I have thought about it and prayed about it. We will live with the choice of our nation, but I will give an account to God with my vote and I choose to vote for the one I believe the Lord would have me vote for whether he can win or not. It might just be what the Republican party needs…a serious split to help clean it out and refocus.
    Our churches, our Bibles, our standards, our music, our entertainments, our views, our doctrines…none are ever going to win a poplularity vote, but I must continue to stand for what I know is right. Thanks for letting me add my thoughts.

  8. October 9, 2008 at 12:22 pm


    Disagreement is fine on this. I don’t think it is cookie cutter. We all believe we should vote; it’s the right thing to do. I’m going to answer any questions I see in comments on this. We’re differing on this one and we have to think about what we’re going to do. Questions.
    1. What are trying to do with our vote? That is, what is the goal of our vote?
    2. How much can a candidate differ from what we believe and still be acceptable to vote for?
    3. Will we really be better off in the big picture with Obama versus McCain?
    4. Why a third party who can’t win anyway and still doesn’t take the exact same positions we do?

    For 1. God either allows or causes these men to be in authority to be ministers of God for good. I think we have to rate issues. Protection of life, due to Genesis 9, is the number one responsibility of government. We would have capital punishment and anti-abortion with McCain. Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments. When you look at the court presently, we have an incredible opportunity, because the conservatives are young enough to be there for a little while longer. My goal with my vote is the best government we can have. We are going to get a McCain or Obama government. We know that. McCain would be better than Obama. I believe we can only talk about a matter of degree with elections. I could probably get behind a wave of support for third party candidate so as to actually make a statement. You won’t make that statement right now with their microscopic poll results. Also, I do believe the “vote against” is a use of the vote, reaching a goal with the vote.
    For 2. Ron Paul believes in drug and prostitution legalization. He has no problem with legal gambling. He isn’t even going to stop homosexuality. Chuck Baldwin doesn’t take a position on drugs because “state’s rights.” I believe drug enforcement is a federal and moral issue. I believe a president should take a stand on them. You can vote for them because they have party affiliation or vote for your home church pastor and you’ll get the same net result.
    3. I don’t see the purify the party scenario. I see an Obama becomes president and everyone has a hard time. It’s true that what we believe is not a popularity vote, but who wins the election will be the most popular.
    4. It is still a matter of degree with a third party guy. I think it is a matter of degree. Therefore, win-ability should become another factor, especially in light of my post’s four main arguments for McCain.

  9. Travis Burke
    October 9, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    hmmmm, still don’t agree, but not a divisive issue to me. Carry on Hammering Away!

  10. October 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    speaking from the socialist paradise to your north, I would suggest that a protest vote against McCain is not in your best interests. I live with the results of socialism every day. I would take 100 John McCain’s over the alternative.

    In Dave’s case, the protest vote wouldn’t make much of a difference, as he says. However, there may come a time when following that procedure will give you the worst possible outcome.

    In this particular election, it appears that the House and Senate will remain in Democrat hands. Do you really want an Obama in the White House in that circumstance?

    However… I’m quietly pessimistic. You all are going to become more like us! Hurray, I guess.

    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  11. October 10, 2008 at 5:36 am

    Brother Kent,

    I agree with your arguments in the last comment you made. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think we have a Biblical mandate to keep socialists out of power, nor do we have a Biblical mandate to preserve our nation with all her traditions. We do have the mandate to do what is right at all times. The issues that matter to God are those spelled out specifically in His word, i.e. the protection of life, the punishment murderers, the upholding of marriage, etc.

    While McCain’s views on some issues bother me greatly, on these issues I “trust” him more than the opposition.

    Another thought: does any of us think that we are going to save or destroy America with this election? Does any of us believe that we are either going to “slow down” or accelerate the last days in this election? Isn’t it interesting that the Apostle Paul never gave instructions concerning our responsibilities toward government other than praying for them, respecting them, and obeying them unless it means disobeying God.

    How about this thought: how does Sarah Palin (who claims to be a Christian) submit to her husband in “all things” if she is the second most powerful person in our land? I have already stated that I am voting for McCain, but this really “gnaws at me” just a little.

    Oh well, enough for now.

  12. October 10, 2008 at 8:58 am


    I agree with you. I don’t think I have a corner on this, but I want the most biblical outcome. That would mean having a guy, who on the most plain Scriptural social issues, is doing what government should do, being a minister of God for good. Regarding Sarah Palin, I also agree. Did you read the article by Kevin Bauder over at Sharper Iron, where he advocates a social egalitarianism with the woman, that women are regulated scripturally to subservient positions only in the home and in the church? Deborah is often the example given. This would be a controversial and interesting theme for a month at Jackhammer sometime. I take a position, as most people know here, in which I don’t believe a man (not a boy) should never be under authority of a woman in authority. I’m a societal complementarian.

  13. Don Heinz
    October 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    I am in agreement with the McCain fans here. He’s not “strong” on the issues most important to right-wing religious fanatics like me, but he is at least in agreement. And as for voting, I think McCain has voted much more in agreement with what he is saying while in the senate. Can’t say the same for “that one.” Obama is a truly dangerous man. As president, he will be a disaster.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: