During the last US election I supported John McCain after Fred Thompson pulled out as I thought that he was the best of the candidates left at that time, and I recalled the incredible impact he had on the 2000 campaign prior to being destroyed by the dirty tricks element of the Bush effort.
After he secured the nomination I watched with growing disquiet as he tended to display himself as increasingly out of his depth, at which time I seriously considered throwing my effort behind the Libertarian Party campaign which I was lending some support to anyway. At that time he made the only really good decision of the entire campaign, selecting Sarah Palin as VP nominee, which brought me back onside.
I then watched with growing disquiet as the entire Democrat campaign turned their guns on her, figuring that they could afford to dismiss him while she was the real danger. By the end of the campaign we only had one dog left in the fight, but she carried it to the end, despite treachery from the McCain campaign, which he made no attempt to stop. He at no time in the entire effort made any effort to support her even as her children were attacked.
McCain is less competent than the guy with a knife in a gunfight.
Nothing has changed since the election as his latest effort shows. Answering a question at a town hall he made the rather incredible claim that Obama is a man who respects the constitution. Any passing analysis of Obama’s statements clearly indicates that he is a total statist with little understanding of the reason or purpose of the constitution and no respect for its contents. Nobody with any understanding of the concept of liberty would rail against it being a charter of negative liberties, as seen here:
(2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio)
… And to that extent, I think, as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was, because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, ah, in some ways we still suffer from that."Obama criticized the Supreme Court for only granting black Americans the same rights as white Americans, yet to listen to McCain you would think he was the leader of the Constitution Party, not the Democrats.