Sen. John McCain has earned Americans' trust during a period measured in decades, from his valiant service in the military to his time in Congress. For a variety of reasons involving both domestic and foreign policy, The Intelligencer endorses McCain and urges voters to elect him as our next president.

In 2005, McCain and three other senators attempted to correct major flaws in policy regarding "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac." Liberals, including Sen. Barack Obama, defeated the measure. Had it passed, the current economic downturn probably would have been avoided. At the very least, it would have been less severe.

On other critical issues, McCain was working for change before Obama adopted the word as his slogan. McCain, a Republican, has worked well with Democrats in Congress. Obama has marched in lock step with the Senate's most liberal leaders.

McCain has worked to cut waste in federal spending. He has supported a practical energy policy, including more use of coal. He has supported lower taxes for Americans.

But the difference between McCain and Obama is most stark - and most worrisome - in regard to national security. Obama has made it clear that he is more concerned about the views of other nations' leaders than about the interests of Americans.

This week, Obama provided a preview of what foreign policy would be like if he wins the presidency. He called for "moving America in a new direction, by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology ..." There have been many occasions, on issues ranging from trade to national security, on which rejection of unilateralism would have been dangerous. Yet Obama would rather get along with foreign leaders than defend Americans. His belief that ideology doesn't matter will not - and should not - impress voters favorably.

During a period in which Americans face threats to our security from both terrorist groups and rogue nations, Obama has promised that, "I will slow our development of future combat systems." With new powers obtaining nuclear missile technology, he wants to end development of missile defense and space-based intelligence gathering.

McCain's policy is just the opposite. He has summed it up with the comment that, "In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military."

In fact, Obama counters his own pledge against unilateral initiatives: At a time of great peril, he plans to launch a unilateral program to reduce our defense capability.

In contrast, McCain wants to cut wasteful defense spending - but boost our military's ability to respond to threats all over the world. He understands both diplomacy and defense, and has demonstrated that many times. While al-Qaida leaders were referring to Iraq as a key battleground against the West, Obama and fellow liberals were calling for withdrawal from that country. McCain helped lead the fight for a new military strategy that is winning the war in Iraq. While Obama was making excuses for Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain was demanding that it withdraw its forces from that country.

And while McCain was taking a no-nonsense stance against nuclear weapons in Iran, Obama maintained that he could talk with fanatics there who have said that nothing will prevent them from building nuclear arms.

McCain as commander-in-chief will keep our nation strong - and safe. Obama and ultra-liberals in Congress would reduce our ability to defend ourselves against mortal enemies. The comparison really is that simple.

Again, we endorse McCain for president - and urge voters to cast their ballots for him.