WND has an essay from Joseph Farah explaining, from a conservative's point of view, why a McCain presidency would actually cause more damage to the country than an Obama presidency. Some excerpts:

• Both Barack Obama and John McCain are unqualified and unfit for high office because they do not have a foundational commitment to the U.S. Constitution's strict limitations on the federal government's power.
  
   
• By playing an active role in accepting either of these deeply flawed candidates, we set a new low standard for presidential candidates of the future – choices will actually get worse.
  
   
• Choosing between two candidates who have, in the final analysis, very little difference between them on the most important issues of the day is no choice at all – and the American people should demand better.
  
   
• By actively rejecting both candidates, Americans can make their voices heard in a powerful new way in 2008 – by demonstrating a serious demand for more and better political choices in the future.
  
   
• No matter who wins between these two candidates, presidential policy is sure to be worse than under President Bush, who, in my opinion, represented objective failure in the White House. No American should choose to vote for a candidate who promises to take America in the wrong direction.

Of course, the choice in this election is not just between McCain and Obama.  We started the campaign with a full slate of candidates from both parties, and both parties had candidates with better credentials (from the point of view of understanding jihad) than either McCain or Obama.  From whom are we "demand[ing] ... more and better political choices"?  We had choices, and we made our choice, for better or (much more likely) for worse.  We can't blame "them" for only giving us McCain and Obama.  "They" are "us".  Farah then draws a now-familiar analogy between Obama and Jimmy Carter.

But the change he promised was not the kind Americans had wanted. Jimmy Carter was a pushover for America's enemies. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, on a march they expected to make right into the Middle East, Carter's impotent response was to boycott the Olympics. When Iranian radicals took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, kidnapping U.S. personnel and holding them hostage for 444 days, Carter's response was his famous "Rose Garden strategy" – he would not leave the White House until the enemy capitulated. Needless to say, the enemy never did give up during Carter's term of office. Instead they watched an ineptly planned rescue effort go up in flames and praised Allah for their good fortune.

Meanwhile, during those four years of Jimmy Carter's presidency, Americans, for the first time in history, began measuring their distress and suffering. This may seem like satire for those too young to remember these days, but the Carter administration prompted something called "the misery index" to measure Americans' woes and anxiety.

For his part, Carter blamed the American people for being in a "malaise." Of course, they were in a malaise. They had to wait for another election to be rid of the bumbling rascal who had fooled them into thinking he had real answers to America's problems.

I present this history to you to make a point. I believe the best way to get another choice like we had in 1980 is for Americans to have the opportunity, if you want to call it that, of seeing someone very much like Carter back in the White House and working with a House and Senate dominated by his own party.

Farah is hoping that Obama is elected, causes destruction to the country, which can then be used to political advantage by the Republicans to elect a new Ronald Reagan, whom Farah does not yet see on the horizon.

I can almost promise you Barack Obama will not be elected to a second term. He will, in all likelihood, just like Jimmy Carter, pave the way for a real Republican president in 2012 – if indeed there is one in the wings.

[...]

Some will undoubtedly ask if I am suggesting a Barack Obama presidency will actually be better for America than a John McCain presidency. The shocking answer to that question is "yes." I do believe America will be better off with Barack Obama in the White House for the next four years rather than John McCain. Please understand I am not advocating voting for him. I could never do that. I could not affirmatively participate in that kind of evil. But I point this out simply to illustrate that voting for what appears to be the lesser of two evils can actually be detrimental to the health of the country.

Perhaps conservate NER readers will find Farah's argument more convincing and palatable than I do.  I would instead point to the horrific costs in the short term that McCain's promised policy of continuing the Iraqi Light Unto the Muslim Nations project, no matter what the cost in lives and money for the generous and naive kufirs, will be in the short/mid-term.  I would instead point to the consequences of ignoring our fossil-fuel based energy policy, and of denying the effects of anthropogenic global warming until it is too late to stop it.

 I agree with Farah that neither candidate is acceptable, from the point of view of being educated on jihad, or taking steps to protect kufirs from jihad. 

I DISagree that the solution is to vote for "None of the Above", or to disengage from the messy and imperfect method of choosing a leader that is democracy.  I DISagree that we should hope for damage to the country for the sake of partisan political gain.