I responded once to those who accuse me of selling out for supporting McCain, so I am going to make the case one more time, from a different perspective, defense. I am aware that those who rail against the "neo-cons" and "the American empire" will not agree with me, so if you are part of the group that thinks "blood for oil" is a valid criticism, stop reading now. Otherwise, let me explain why I think sitting out the election is to invite great harm.

At this moment, as at most other moments in history, there are a number of nations which wish harm to the US. Unlike many other moments in history, a number of nations have the capacity, or soon will, to actually carry through on their desires.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran soon will, and either could provide them to terrorists. So could discontented elements in Pakistan if the situation there deteriorates. Though I disagree with those who say it would be "impossible" for terrorists to smuggle a nuclear device into the US, let us grant their argument for a moment. Even if the terrorists can't blow up a target in the US, they could still hurt the US easily by smuggling a device into a nation hosting a US military base, or home to many US industries, or even tourists. Detonating a nuclear device in Cancun during the height of tourists season is far from impossible, and would easily top the September 11 attacks in the number of US citizens killed.

Even discounting nuclear devices, the number of nations that are both sponsors of terrorists and capable of producing biological or chemical weapons is greater than it was at any time in the past. Chemical and biological weapons are even easier to smuggle and have just as much potential for harm as nuclear devices, and an attack using either will also produce a general panic that will also serve terrorist ends. Though we have so far managed to avoid any large scale attacks, I don't think that we will continue to avoid indefinitely a terrorist attack, either domestically or overseas, using biological or chemical agents.

So, though domestic issues are very important, I think at this moment matters of defense are a far greater concern. In the past, I have read from many, especially supporters of Ron Paul, the argument that it is worthless to defend the US from foreign attack if it has been destroyed from within. I would make the opposite argument: who cares what form of government rules over a pile of corpses or a smoking hole in the ground? If we can't protect our nation from foreign attack it won't matter who we elect, as the conquerer will appoint their own rulers. In short, we need to avoid bad domestic policies, but, at times of grave foreign threats, I think we need to concentrate first on keeping the barbarians from the gates rather than wasting time debating whether or not a position is conservative enough.

I know many will respond by saying that we always have foreign threats, or that this is "manufactured fear", but I just can't agree. We have a huge hole in New York City to say that this moment is different. (And please, no truther garbage about an "inside job".) The fact that Iran has both promised to wipe Israel and the US off the map AND is close to developing nuclear refining capabilities (whether civilian or military) is a threat we have not faced before. We also have North Korea, who now has a bomb and has shown an inclination to sell technology in the past. On top of those threats, we have terrorist cells around the world, and in the US, who are more than ever feeling their strength after 9/11. Lastly, we have nations such as Russia and China, who, believing the US weakened, are starting to try to influence and control the nations around them. This time is not like the rest of our history. It is a difficult time, and one where our nation is threatened more directly than at any time in recent memory.

At this time, we just cannot afford a weak president.

But that is what the Democrats (and the Ron Paul supporters) are offering.

Clinton is tainted by her ties to the People's Republic of China. The fact that she has questionable fund raising ties to one of our principle rivals should immediately disqualify her, but on top of that she has a policy of placing opinion ahead of principle. She has flipped back and forth on her support for the war in Iraq. Obviously it was for political gain, rather than any real change of heart, but that is the problem. If she is going to rule by opinion poll, then we are not going to be defended properly. At times defending the nation requires making unpopular decisions, anyone who worries about the polls will not do what it takes to protect us. We cannot elect someone like Hillary (or Bill before her) who rules by popular opinion when we are threatened by foreign aggression.

If Clinton is a waffling politician who will rule by opinion poll, Obama seems to be even worse, a liberal true believer. Of course, this is all just guesswork, as Obama seems disinclined to state anything specific about his beliefs, but as far as I can tell, Obama is a true blue, dyed in the wool, kumbayah singing, hand holding liberal. He seems to think talking can solve all our problems. As Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons during "negotations" and North Korea's willingness to ignore treaties with Clinton show, talking will not stop a nation from pursuing its own interests. Obama may be selling himself as a secular messiah who will cause the whole world to sing with one voice, but I think, if we are stupid enough to elect him, we will find ourselves saddled with the new Neville Chamberlain. And we all know what he managed to create with his negotiations.

All of which brings me to the Republicans, and the man who appears the inevitable Republican nominee. John McCain may be wrong on many, many domestic issues, I may disagree with him on a lot of his past actions, he may have bought into anthropogenic global warming (sadly many on the right have recently), and I may detest  the left-sounding rhetoric he uses to justify campaign finance reform and other bad policies, but I do trust him on defense.  If nothing else, McCain will take an active approach to defending the nation. Of course, we will need to watch him like a hawk on immigration, constantly protesting whenever he brings up either amnesty or "guest workers", but even there he is still better than the alternative. Does anyone think either Obama or Hillary would even be open to argument on the topic? At least McCain needs to appease the base if he wants a second term, the others have no interest in anything but the big block of Hispanic votes.

If we except immigration, McCain is the only possible choice for defense. Obama will try to talk us to peace and security, Hillary will rule by poll with no thought for the outcome, and Ron Paul wants to hide behind the borders and hope that everyone else will observe the golden rule and ignore us if we ignore them hard enough. None of those will work, and it should be obvious they will not work. I just hope enough of my fellow citizens recognize how absurd the alternatives are and can get over McCain's weakness on domestic policies. At this point in history, I think we need to look to our defense first, then worry about whether or not our nominee is of sufficient ideological purity.