More about McCain

As the campaign for President unfolds I find myself saddened by the devolution of McCain from the “maverick” and “straight talk express” candidate, to one who doesn’t hesitate to lie and who instead of tacking to the middle in the general election campaign, appears to be tacking further to the Right.

In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.

But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.

The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)

She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)

She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)

She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)

She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.

The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.

But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.

Here are some examples:

Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)

At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’

Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?

Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.

“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”

In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.

McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.

“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.

There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.