Vote for McCain in 2008 (if you think George Bush deserves a third term)
Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.
Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine
Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?
America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.
Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights
An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.
A sudden change of heart on torture
Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.
A legend in his own mind
McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.
In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.
The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.
It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.
Can’t you see the real me?
We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.
It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain
Last 5 posts by
- In case you're already feeling nostalgic... - January 6th, 2009
- War, Lies (Photos) and Videotapes - December 31st, 2008
- Can somebody help me with this? - December 30th, 2008
- Now the banks are robbers - December 28th, 2008
- Staying on the topic of Rick Warren - December 20th, 2008
Comment by DEMOCRAT on 26 March 2008:
fddp2754 would have use believe that HILLARY or BARRACK either have even the slightest qualifications, background, ethics or honor to be PRESIDENT. Unfortunately the Democatic Party is saddled with two losers who represent all that is wrong and nothing that is right.
Comment by fddp2754 on 26 March 2008:
Responding to DEMOCRAT: Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama are my choice for president. That was Dennis Kucinich, who is no longer in the race. The fact is, however, that both are better than John McCain who, in his desperation to become president, has become a carbon copy of George W. Bush. George W. Bush, I’m sorry, is absolutely the worst president in American history. He is a liar. Plain and simple. He lied to the American people and the Congress about Iraq and started a totally unnecessary and immoral war strictly for political purposes. He claims that God is on his side, but he has no problem violating the Geneva Convention and allowing torture. No god I know would support torture. And I don’t care how you feel about the so-called “terrorists” he’s torturing, if America wants to be the beacon of Democracy, it has to at least function a few steps above the terrorists.If you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama “represent all that is wrong and nothing that is right,” that’s you’re opinion and I respect it. However, I suggest you take a good hard look at Mr. McCain. I have. And as for George W. Bush, his dismal record speaks for itself. I don’t need to look any closer.
Comment by Aaron Truitt on 27 March 2008:
I think it’s almost clever to invoke the well known dislike for Bush as a rallying cry against McCain. But I’m going to vote for McCain because he’s the best qualified candidate for president … and oh yeah, there may well be 2 Liberal vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next 4 years and we finally have an opportunity to discontinue the Liberal tradition of using the courts to legislate.
Liberals are already gearing up their “McCain is the most evil person in the world” campaign, a real tragedy of small minded bigotry.
Comment by Arlene on 30 March 2008:
I would vote for McCain in a minute. Clinton and Obama are both baby killers and putting Bush down when what about Dick and Bill like these presidents had alot to be desired like what about the people of the United States,their presidency was all about how much money they could make while being president. And Obama was born a muslim, raised by a step father muslim, never denied being a muslim,and anti-semtic, everthing says he’s a sleeper cell.
Comment by BLURBER on 30 March 2008:
BARACK OBAMA is a MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. A radical socialist “sleeper” who is glib, charismatic and purposefully deceptive of his real intention.
Comment by Sigh on 1 April 2008:
To DEMOCRAT:
Yes, the Dem candidates are don’t have any ethics or honor yet both of them have never divorced their first spouse at all and in such a disgusting manner that their children refused to attend the wedding of the political bankrolling heiress they next married. And neither of them claim to be influence free “mavericks” while being the most lobbyest connected of all senators to the point of carrying on blatant affairs with some of them or were the central part of the Keating 5 savings & loan scam that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yes, the ethical and honorable standards of the GOP candidate are just impeccable. . .
Comment by DownriverDem on 1 April 2008:
Anyone who votes for McCain is for the continued killing of our soldiers, and Iraqi women and children in huge numbers. How does this fit your pro-life position Arlene?
Folks like you really have blinders on.
Comment by PATRIOT on 2 April 2008:
DOWNRIVER - You are a lunatic.
Comment by fddp2754 on 2 April 2008:
My comment to Patriot: As the author of this article, I can tell you that what I’ve written on John McCain is all a matter of public record and based on fact. Downriver is not a lunatic, since Mr. McCain has stated that we’ll stay in Iraq for 100 years until we win. Guess what? HE’S THE LUNATIC. There is no winning in Iraq, and we do not belong there. Under George W. Bush (and his chosen one, John McSame), we have become arrogant. We are arrogant to think that our way is the right way for everyone. It is not. We have opened up Iraq to Al Qaeda. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. All these right-wing zealots just slay me. You are all so righteous when it comes to abortion, but you have no problem killing innocent people for no good reason at all. You’re all writing on the correct web site: Hypocrisy.
Comment by fddp2754 on 2 April 2008:
Now, in response to Sigh: Morals? Yeah, George Bush has high morals. A coke snorting drunk in college. A deserter in the Texas Air National Guard. An invader of a sovereign nation based out outright LIES (935 distinct lies). An invasion resulting in the deaths of 4,000 U.S. troops and over a million INNOCENT Iraqis. Yeah, great morality. Where do you people actually come from? Now, John McSame: A liar. Yeah, you’re right. He claims to be a maverick who doesn’t take soft money, but he has his hands in every single pocket he can get to. Why? Because he’s 71 and it’s now or never. He changes his position to attract the right wing because he know he can’t get in without them. He’s got no morals either. This is the guy who thought it was funny to get caught singing, “Bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boy’s “Barbara Ann.” Honestly, I don’t think that’s appropriate for the leader of the free world. That the kind of guy you want out there? If it is, you need help.
I suggest that these guys crawl back under the rock they came out from and stay there. They have no more morals than the Democrats, so get off that soap box.
Comment by Daisy on 2 April 2008:
Nobody is perfect and I have never heard or read where someone said President Bush is perfect. The fact is, we all need to focus on who we honestly believe is the best candidate to be our next leader. Our futures and the futures of our children are at stake here with this election. I really don’t think that a lot of people realize how important this is, and if we all did, we wouldn’t be wasting our time bashing each other.
Comment by PATRIOT on 3 April 2008:
fddp2754 - No win in Iraq; surrender; cower under your bed until they come for you, surrender the future, run from Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, radical Islam, abandon the Jews — give up, all but your foolishness.
Comment by fddp2754 on 4 April 2008:
PATRIOT: Hang on, Patriot: This is neither World War II nor about protecting America from Iraq. We were not in danger from Iraq. Give me a break. As for abandoning the Jews? America took its sweet time intervening in the genocide of the Jews. America should have gotten involved sooner. That was an honorable reason to go to war. That is NOT what Iraq is all about. And if you think we should go to war all across the Middle East to eradicate radical Islam, you’re dreaming. We will never achieve that, nor should we. In fact, I don’t see much difference between radical Islam and the Christian fundamentalists in this country. Both of them are over the top. The problem is that we did not go to war in Iraq for an honorable reason: We went for OIL. Nothing more. If there was an honorable reason to invade Iraq, our imperial, war-mongering sad excuse for a world leader wouldn’t have had to lie about the reasons for going.
Comment by fddp2754 on 4 April 2008:
Response to Daisy: Nobody’s perfect? If we were talking about President Bush making an error by going to war in Iraq, that would be one thing. The fact is HE LIED to justify invading Iraq. We’re not talking about a miscue. We’re talking about outright lies. He did it with planning and forethought. What we need is a candidate who can take the tarnish off America’s soul. That tarnish was put there by the Bush administration. Our position in the world is no longer as the moral compass. I do not believe that we should even entertain boycotting the Olympics in China unless WE stop torturing prisoners of war and unless WE get out of Iraq and stop killing innocent people.
Comment by Daisy on 4 April 2008:
To fddp2754: You know all of the allegations you are making are the absolute truth? The ONLY way you would know, is if you were actually serving in our Government in D.C. or, you were living in the White House for whatever reason. Unless you have walked in President Bush’s shoes for even ONE day, than you do NOT have any right to spew venom and poison about him. Too much time is wasted on people hurting one another with words and actions than focusing on what really needs our attention the most at this time. Hmmm..let’s say….the election of our next president? This is the person who takes on the responsibility of running this country AND knowing what to do about this war in Iraq. With wisdom and foresight.
Comment by fddp2754 on 4 April 2008:
To Daisy: Know what? The lies about Iraq are a matter of public knowledge. Yes, the statements were made by President Bush. And no, I do not want to be in President Bush’s shoes. The mess he is in is of his own making. And, for your information, this IS part of the process of electing a new president. I’m looking here at America and where we are eight years later, and I’ve made the decision BASED ON WHAT I SEE that this country cannot have another leader like this guy. He and his administration has destroyed our standing in the world. Seriously, Daisy, you cannot deny what you see. I don’t see President Bush denying any of what he said. He’s too freakin’ arrogant. He’ll just keep breaking the law. He doesn’t have to do anything now but skate to the end of his final term and ensure that Mr. McCain takes the reins. That way he’ll be sure that his misbegotten policies will be continued.
Now, if you choose not to go back and forth with me, I have no objection to that. I have other articles to write and deadlines to meet. You are not going to bring me over to your side, and I’m certain that I’m not going to bring you over to mine. So, good luck in November.
Comment by kimie on 7 April 2008:
fddp: We agree on one thing and one thing only: I will never be on your side. I have no doubt that the appropriate candidate will win in November, I will not be disappointed.