1) Iraq: Were such a need to arise, judged by the US President, that we needed the assistance of Canadian military troops on US soil (for whatever reason), how long would you trust this President and his administration while the foreign military forces maintained a presence in our country? If after 5+ years and they still hadn't left, and Canada's government was publicly dictating US policy, would you be united under the leadership of this President, or would you be working against him and for the expulsion of the foreign forces?
The US military presence must be removed from Iraq for any Iraqi government to have credibility with the people of Iraq.
2) Abortion: Mirroring your question, if 66% of Mississipians believe that slavery should be legal, the federal government should stay out of it? The "federal mandate" of which you speak is also referred to by some as Constitutional rights, which the federal government is mandated to uphold.
3) "Death tax": If you wish to present yourself as someone open to unity and compromise, then you need to start shelving some of the divisive, misleading, and disingenuous rhetoric purchased from Frank Luntz et al. If it were a "death tax", then everyone would pay it. If the movement were "pro-life" then they would, by necessity, be anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-stem cell research, anti-poverty, etc.
The "estate tax" is a healthy tax, wisely instituted long ago in part to preclude an aristocracy of inheritance from effectively becoming American royalty.
4) Energy/market decide: If you haven't noticed, the free market has failed miserably to position the country for the needs of the future. This is the basic problem with the free market, it is reactive, not proactive. A problem as large as our energy independence is not going to elicit necessary funding without government mandates that lessen the risk to investors. "Free market" is another term that should discarded, along with "death tax", "pro-life", etc, as there is no such thing as a free market.
Brazil is almost entirely energy independent now, and not because the free market led the way to fueling their automobiles on ethanol. It was government regulation, government mandates, taxation, and prolonged commitment. Ironically, Brazil and the US were headed in the same direction at one time, until Ron Reagan nixed the energy independence initiatives of President Carter. (Ask yourself where we'd be as a country, today, if we'd continued down Carter's path towards energy independence.)
---
Re: McCain/Obama points... I don't see the pro-McCain points as based on reality or on specific policies; they're just general fear-inducing talking points we've heard for years -- and note that none are really detailed specifics of why to vote FOR John McCain, as opposed to reasons to not vote for Obama. Your Obama points were somewhat more policy-based, but then we get a list of what you don't like about Obama without a similar list for McCain. Again, if you're looking for unity, this is an aggressive approach, rather than the conciliatory approach the Right *should* be offering, given the Right's ultimate and almost sole responsibility for our current situation.
Oh, as for Supreme Court justices, add "strict constructionist" and "judicial activist" to the list of talking points to retire. It's been documented that Scalia, Thomas et al, have been the MOST activist of Supreme Court justices, based on their records of overriding legislation -- putting aside the travesty that was Scalia's halting the vote-counting on December 9th, 2000 and the court decision on the following Tuesday.
