EDITORIAL: McCain for president

Thank you for rejecting the "kool-aid"

Excellent! One glitch, however, Abraham Lincoln served with a local militia unit in the Blackhawk Wars.

. People chew on this for awhile, you have a week: "A free man is not equal and a equal man is not free". Under a Barack Obama Presidency we will all be equal so kiss our freedom goodbye.

And not a word in defense of Mrs. Palin. That's very telling, isn't it? I can hardly think of anything more frightening than the words "President Palin" so I have chosen the safer course and early-voted for Barack Obama. The Republicans richly deserve and badly need to go down in flames this election day. Hopefully, then they will be sufficiently motivated to return to traditional conservative values - those of Ron Paul.

Once again a completely biased misinformed factually incorrect piece of agitprop claptrap. Republican congress of Jan.2001-Jan. 2007 Federal Debt:Jan. 2001. $5.7 TRILLION Federal Debt:Jan. 2007. $8.7 TRILLION Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

ChuckUPD: The article didn't say anything about Biden, either. This article is about Obama and McCain. So not mentioning Palin in this article is not telling about anything. If you get your wish and Obama is elected, you may soon be doing more than thinking of something more frightening. You will be living it, under Obama and the radical left wingnuts. After this campaign, even if we have to suffer too, it will be fun to watch when you finally realize what you have done to yourselves.

McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, so everybody get ready for your $500 rebate, unless you make over $2million a year, then you'll get a tax cut of $750k McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely, so lets get ready to bankrupt our country to force democracy down the throats of Iraquis who have never had it, dont know it, and dont want it. The middle class is coming back after the corporate fat cats

BannedMonique: I don't believe this piece is misinformed OR factually incorrect. You and those like you are part of the problem, not the solution.

How thoughtful and insightful can this endorsement be when it dwells almost solely within the realm of negativity? It spends hundreds of words detailing why the Washington Times believes that Sen. Obama's views are wrong, but only a handful rebutting in favor of Sen. McCain, and nothing beyond portraying McCain as the "anti-Obama." If you so strongly believe in Sen. McCain, why wouldn't you put your money where your ink is? Why not write hundreds of words detailing why you believe that Sen. McCain is right? That would have made for a much stronger, much more convincing endorsement. As it is, you're just buying into and perpetuating the negative campaigning that has proven so harmful to Sen. McCain's efforts thus far.

bandaid: Well, of course the editorial did not mention Biden, as to do so would only make the omission of any mention of Palin all the more striking. All of the many conservative newspapers nationwide which previously endorsed Bush and which now endorse Obama have emphasized the choice of Palin as being among the most compelling reasons for their switch. She is indefensible. If there were any valid defense then it would have been included here. She's got a voodoo preacher helping defend her from witchcraft for god's sake. She is a lunatic. And you want to put her one frail heartbeat away from the presidency???

There are many republicans out here who would have preferred that one of the other rep candidates had won their nomination. I was one of them. While I think we could have done better, perhaps, I acknowledge McCain's honesty and courage. I think his experience with foreign policy issues far surpasses Obama's. And I don't like Obama's plan for the economy AT ALL!!! Even if I were eligible for an Obama handout I would feel dirty taking it, knowing where it came from. I think a lot of American's feel that way, except maybe the current generation, many of whom been taught a different set of values - or I would even go so far as to say they have been taught few, if any values. They vote for style over substance every time. No, I would much rather have MY money that went away when the dems pulled the switch on this plot to create a bad economy so their candidate would have a better chance of winning this election. I want MY money back! It is laughable how the dems are all pointing the finger at the Bush Admin for the bailout. We hate that it had to be done, but we all know who was responsible for this mess. The thing is, many repulicans are not so much voting for McCain as they are voting against Obama. So it isn't surprising that this endorsement mirrors that fact. The other thing is, many of us feel that the MSM has failed us and has lost their credibility when it comes to telling us the truth. Yet you would denigrate the WT and Fox News because they dare to say what your outlets won't. That is why we listen to what they have to say. So here it is. I would vote for ANY candidate before I would vote for Obama. The MSM has poisoned the well, you can no longer expect people to come there for our news. We've been lied to, too much. A lie of omission is still a lie. And that feeling won't go away when Obama is elected, IF he is elected. We may never know the whole truth about Obama, but we can guess. MSM might have come out better if they had done their job.

Well said, TWT! Thank you for sticking to the nation's first principles in a year when so many -- voters and media alike -- fall for easy solutions and star power.

I keep wondering, despite how good much of what you said sounds, is McCain a big enough change. Our nation is spiraling downward, we need change. i absolutely HATE Obama's stance on abortion but many other things he is talking about sound like positive change. The liberal illuminati have obviously propagated Obama like no other but i can't help but think we might be better off with too much change than not each, a.k.a. McCain.

Articles like these are half the reason I'm voting for Obama. It seems that McCain backers don't really want to talk about what McCain will do, so much as what Obama will do. Not only that, but the facts in this article are grossly misleading. 1)Where in the world do you get the idea that the $250k cited is for gross household income? It's been clearly stated, multiple times, that it's $200k for individuals, and $250k for joint. And that's Taxable, not Gross income. Most people that makes that much have an abundance of exemptions to bring the total down. Same thing with McCain's claim that it hurts small businesses. Frankly, if a business makes over $250k -after- all it's deductions, it can hardly be considered 'small'. 2)A whole paragraph on spending, with Obama's "new spending" cited at $5 trillion. First of all, that's the first time I've -ever- heard that number, so can I ask for a source? Last I heard, straight from even McCain's mouth, was $800 billion, and any fact-checking organizations can show you that even that's misleading, as most of it isn't 'new'. Anyway, a bulk of what actually -is- new spending is for sweeping health care reform. And it's a bad argument to use for the McCain side, since 80% of independent financial analysts say that McCain's health care proposal will cost almost as much to implement. And what's McCain's proposal to deal with all of this? He wants to implement a spending -freeze-. For those of you that thought that sounded like a good idea, that means everything except defense and entitlements. Hence, any money that woul go to research, education, infrastructure, alternative fuels, etc, would be stopped. That's the definition of a freeze. I could simply go on, mentioning that for every two paragraphs you gave to denouncing Obama's plans, you gave a brief sentence describing McCain's view(not plans). However, believe it or not, I have better things to do than waste any more of my time with it. I, for one, will be voting for someone who actually has plans to discuss, instead of someone who constantly belittles the other side. This is what it means to me to be an -informed- voter, instead of giving in to fear-mongering.

bannedmonique--regarding your numbers, there is just one small thing you left off. The earmarking Democrats were in charge of both the House and Senate during the latter part of that period, and THAT is when the major part of the domestic spending took place. The balance was created by the war. Being old enough to remember, during WWII, the Democrats under FDR spent so much on the war that we went into rationing back here. That is something you have never seen, and believe me, it isn't pretty. We had to draw ration tokens for almost everything, gasoline, tires, margarine, bacon, poorly made shoes, etc. We didn't come out from under the deficit until after Eisenhower, a Republican, was elected. Unfortunately, the young people in this country have no idea what a hardship really is. They also have little grip on reality, since for the last 40 years they have been dumbed down by the schools and the government who have opted to have a citizenry who will follow blindly and depend on the Government for everything.