McCain's gone negative? So what?

John McCain sure has been catching hell lately for committing the apparent sin of negative campaigning.

After taking a look at some of the hand-wringing among Barack Obama's supporters, I can't help but think one thing -- what the hell did you people expect?

Now, understand that I'm a McCain supporter, but a marginal one. My entire political philosophy has been summed up nicely by South Park co-creator Trey Parker -- "I don't like conservatives, but I f**king hate liberals."

That's a brilliant conclusion that works for me very nicely. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats give a damn about the middle class. We're just supposed to pay our taxes, shut up and let the government do its thing. All that we can really hope for from the federal government is for low taxes and to be left alone. The Republicans at least pay lip service to that ideal.

It's hard to pick a candidate from either party these days as I realize that neither one cares about what's good for my family, anyway. So, once again, I'm going for the lesser of two evils and that candidate, in my estimation, is John McCain. It would be nice to be able to go out and actually vote for a candidate rather than against one, but such is the pitiful state of national politics.

Well, I digress. Negative McCain. So what? OK.

What has been particularly obnoxious about the present election is how much the media has just fawned over Obama. The media loved Bill Clinton, too, but their adoration of Obama has bordered on secular worship. I despise Hillary Clinton, but I almost felt sorry for her as it was obvious during the primaries that the press was joining the true believers in the Obama camp.

All of that Obama worship peaked during the Chosen One's visit to Germany. We were treated to such enthusiasm from the international press that one had to wonder what happened to such buzzwords as "neutrality" and "objectivity." The clamor over Obama was so extreme that I'm a bit surprised we didn't see male reporters openly weeping and female journalists begging Obama to autograph their breasts.

In other words, the press has been unapologetically pro-Obama, leaving McCain with a dilemma -- how could he get some of that attention from the media, too, without going back on his decision to run a "clean" campaign?

So, he went negative. People might be outraged by McCain's shenanigans over the past month or so, but antics such as handing out tire pressure gauges with the phrase "Barack Obama's energy plan" printed on them and running that infamous commercial comparing Obama to the most vapid celebrities in the nation have worked.

McCain's gotten some media attention, of course, but going negative has achieved a lot more than that for crusty ol' Johnny. The media's reaction to McCain's cynical tactics has served to both get the Republicans more in line behind McCain and has gotten the attention of some of the undecided voters out there.

Here's what I mean. After the "celebrity" commercials, some of the attitude from the press has been, "He may be a celebrity, but what's wrong with that?" In the August 18 issue of Time, for example, Joe Klein wrote a column comparing Obama with another celebrity -- Ronald Reagan.

His point was that Reagan was viewed as a lightweight celebrity who could work a room and toss out some impressive rhetoric, but people questioned his substance. However, Reagan whipped Carter in terms of both style and substance in a debate and the election was decided right then.

Klein isn't the only one who shares that view, either, as that Reagan comparison has come up here and there over the past few months. The common thread throughout those comparisons is that Obama, like Reagan, is facing a nation in turmoil and America is calling out for a candidate to attack the mess left by Bush with some innovative, new ideas. Obama, see, is the "candidate of change" just like Reagan was.

There are at least two things wrong with such a comparison. First of all, Reagan outlined his beliefs very clearly early on and didn't waver from them through the primaries, the election or his two terms in office. The Reagan I saw campaining at the Checkerdome in St. Louis in 1980 was essentially the same man who served for two terms in office. Obama is nothing like Reagan in terms of consistency as his views shifted to the center right after the primaries were over and he didn't have to position himself as the liberal alternative to Clinton to court votes.

And, let's not forget that his opinions seem to rather mirror whatever crowd he's talked to last. In other words, what does Obama really believe? Will he turn into a freaky socialist when he hits office, be a wishy-washy moderate or play with a yo-yo for four years while his cabinet runs everything? There's just no way to tell what you're going to get with the guy. You never wondered about Reagan -- if you loved him or hated him, you at least knew where he stood.

Second, don't ever, ever compare Obama to Reagan. There are a lot of us who remember Reagan and still think fondly of those years. Want to drive a Reaganite firmly into McCain's camp? Just compare Obama to Reagan. That ought to do it. What does Obama really believe? What does the man stand for and will he actually improve the sad state this nation is in or enact a bunch of misguided, boneheaded reforms that will just make things worse? It's really hard to feel too comfortable about a fellow who changes his mind more often than most Americans change their socks.

And, so, I've wounded up in the McCain camp after watching the media fawn over Obama and then scramble to defend the man in response to McCain's attacks.

In other words, "I don't like John McCain, but I f**king hate Barack Obama."

You'd better believe I'm not alone.