I have been reading some of the Townhall blogs which are opposed to McCain. Most of them seem to be urging conservatives to avoid voting for McCain and voting for Barr or the Constitution Party. They initially argue that the third parties might have a real chance, but when confronted with disturbing planks in the libertarian party platform, or with Barr's opposition to the war, they admit that they don't think any third party will win. In other words, they are intentionally throwing away their vote to put Obama in office and "send a message".

Let me state that even more plainly. Supposed conservatives, those who claim to love their country and value freedom are ready to put the WORSE candidate in office, to inflict extra suffering on their fellow citizens and risk our nation during war time, all to "send a message"?

These people are not behaving like adults. They claim that they are being "realistic" and working for the best interest of the nation, but they are just being childish. Their party nominated someone who doesn't match their beliefs, so they are taking their ball and going home. The only difference being that when a child does that it doesn't result in Iran getting the bomb or terrorists unleashing nerve gas in downtown DC.

Worse still, these so-called conservatives have worked themselves into such a lather that they really think McCain is WORSE than Obama! They can no longer even look at the situation objectively. They argue, for instance, that his supreme court nominees will be worse than Obama's. Or that he will enact just as bad an economic agenda. And while they obsess on McCain's environmental proposals (admittedly bad ideas), they ignore the fact that Obama has proposed worse.

And on top of all that, thanks to their anger over their party rejecting their views, they are not able to objectively evaluate the risks of their plan. When confronted with the dangerous foreign policy Obama has proposed, they argue that McCain's amnesty proposals are a greater risk! I wrote earlier about the minor impact a president can have on immigration laws, but let us assume they are right, that McCain will simply open the border and grant citizenship to everyone who crosses into the nation. Is that still as great a risk as surrender in Iraq or a nuclear Iran? As replacing military action with weak-kneed negotiation? If so, then Reagan was worse than Carter, as Reagan gave amnesty while Carter was just a weak president.

If anyone is interested in actual arguments and is willing to listen to some thoughts rather than frothing at the mouth in a knee jerk reaction, read my rebuttal of all the usual arguments against voting for McCain in my essay "At Last". I also argue against the idea that Obama will not be able to do much harm in my older essay "Forget Hope, Try Realism". Similar topics are also addressed in my essays "An Alternate Take on McCain", "Sending a Message", and "Principled Voting or Suicide", which are the most recent on this topic. And I discuss the illogic of voting to "send a message" in "Single Issue Voting","Selling Out", "Abandoning the Party", and "Why We Need Adults", some of which also speculate about why so many cling to this futile notion of sending a message.

If you find any of my arguments at all compelling, you can find most of my older essays on the topic cataloged in the blog index under "McCain" and "Obama". And I will be happy to argue any of these points in the comments.

I do not mean to sound so dismissive of those who are opposed to McCain. I understand frustration at the way a strange primary field and open primaries resulted in a candidate who is likely a bit left of the party itself. At least left of the average party member. (And far to the left of my beliefs as well.)

On the other hand, it is delusional to argue that he is no better than Obama. And to choose the GREATER of two evils, simply because one is tired of choosing the lesser of two evils is suicidal.

POSTSCRIPT

I just want to repeat an argument I have made many times.

Back in 2006 many wanted to sit out the election or vote third party to "send a message". At the time I argued against it, saying that if the left leaning Democrats won, most likely the message the party would receive is that the country wants more left wing policies. Then as now I argued we need to fight these things out in the primaries, but then join ranks in the general election.

And we know what happened. many did sit out in 2006 and the Democrats won a number of seats.

What those wanting to "send a message" today forget is that the disappointing candidates of today are the result of the "message" they sent in 2006. So, if 2006 resulted in McCain, why would sitting out this election give us a conservatives? Isn't it more likely, given past results, that rather than a second coming of Ronald Reagan we will get the second coming of Lincoln Chaffee?

POSTSCRIPT II

One final comment on the concept of sending a message.

The premise of those arguing for withholding or wasting a vote is that by doing so the party will recognize that the rank and file want a more conservative candidate. In other words, a sort of electoral operant conditioning.

The problem is that conditioning requires unambiguous signals, and the actions they propose don't give any.

The reason is simple. Those wanting to send the signal have to assume the party will look only at its own results, not those of the Democrats. Why? Because if we look at the whole election, the Republican party will see they ran the more conservative candidate and the Democrats ran the more liberal, and the Democrats were rewarded. If we accept that view, then the reward would seem to reinforce selecting for greater liberalism in future candidates. (As happened after 2006 efforts to "send a message", or so it appears.)

So, those hoping to send a message have to assume the party will not look at the whole election, but only the Republican side. They will see they ran a liberal Republican and lost.

Unfortunately for those proposing this plan, the signal is not clear. There are Republican more conservative than McCain, but there are Republicans more liberal as well. So, the only clear message that can be drawn is not to run McCain again. Beyond that, even in this limited perspective, the message sent by those sitting it out, or voting for Barr, is just not clear, and thus this sort of pseudo-conditioning just won't work.

And should the party look beyond the scope the protest voters hope to use, then they will see the liberal victory I mentioned above, and the results may be the opposite of those the protesters desire.