Not yours, McCain. (Uploaded by jocieposse.)
I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
As Marc points out, McCain lost what little credibility he should have mustered as a decent Republican when he “compromised” on torture. He has no respect for basic human rights, and the President should have that, bare minimum. Like I said in comments there, while a scattering of anti-abortion Democrats might be acceptable to get the majority in Congress*, a President must absolutely be pro-choice because the duty of appointing judges is so important. Plus, anyone who is anti-choice isn’t demonstrating the bare minimum understanding that all people are equal in the eyes of the law that is required of the supposed protector of our democracy.
It’s not like McCain ever showed the minimal respect for women’s human rights, however. He has a 0% rating from NARAL. Which leads us to the next point, which is that McCain is a sleazy lying motherfucker. He claims to oppose Roe v. Wade on some bullshit “federalism” ideology that he possesses. As Scott Lemieux points out, even if you buy the bullshit idea that conservatives have some sort of ideological commitment to shifting the issue to the states, McCain fails you.
It’s more than that: nothing in McCain’s own record suggests that he thinks abortion should be left to the states. He had voted for nation-wide “partial birth” bans at least 6 times. He voted to deny the use of military facilities for women in the military who needed abortions. He voted for this year’s Fugitive Uterus Act. Indeed, given his 0% NARAL rating, he apparently has yet to meet a federal regulation of abortion he doesn’t like. So while I suppose it might be possible in the abstract to oppose Roe on “federalist” grounds, in McCain’s case it’s a pathetically disingenuous dodge. The brutal truth is that McCain clearly, unambiguously opposes abortion rights, and has no objection to federal restrictions of these rights, no matter what his centrist fans try to project onto him.
Few things get on my nerves than this myth that conservatives have some sort of affection for “small government”. (As I’ve said before, the only evidence-based way you could think that conservatives are actually for “small government” is if you understand the word “small” to reference the size of the number of people the government actually cares about.) If they actually cared about limited government, they’d be demanding that the courts be aggressive in establishing the rights citizens have that the federal government can’t touch. Some** libertarians grudgingly admit that women and possibly even racial minorities have rights that the judiciary protects, but as a general rule, the “leave it to the states” crap is nothing but a euphemism for a desire to attack people’s freedom without coming right out and saying that you believe that women don’t deserve to be free.
Regardless of the issues of “states’ rights” vs. human rights, if you do believe there’s a reason for a federalist ideology, then McCain fails you. He’s willing, like most wingnuts, to abandon the anti-federal government thing in a New York minute if he can pass a law restricting women’s rights. He’s no moderate, nor is he a ideological conservative in any meaningful sense. He’s a wingnut, a right wing authoritarian who wants to merge government power with corporate power and mislabel that “freedom” while cracking down on the basic rights of ordinary Americans. The only reason he got a positive reputation in the first place as a “maverick” is because he spearheaded a campaign finance reform bill and getting the money out of politics is a big issue for Americans. However, his commitment to campaign finance reform is another line of bullshit. The McCain reforms were not motivated by a genuine desire to clean up politics—it was a partisan move to deprive the Democrats of the kind of fund-raising they excel at while carefully preserving the preferred ways that Republicans raise money. What most people want is reform to stop lobbyists from buying politicians. What they got is a restriction on funding that makes elections about parties and issues—you know the important stuff—while preserving the ability of politicians to sell their souls out to the highest bidders on K Street.
So, here’s the action item on McCain, because, as Marc points out, spreading the truth about McCain is the big task for the next two years for genuine progressives. Find out who you know that is generally liberal and still has some weird affection for John McCain. And here’s the three things to tell them to clarify what a nightmare he is:
- John McCain is to the right of all Democrats in Congress and many of the Republicans.
- He is an anti-choice extremist with a 0% rating from NARAL.
- His campaign finance “reform” amounted to banning the money the parties get for raising awareness of issues, getting out the vote, and registering people to vote. In other words, McCain banned the money that made elections about the issues while protecting the right of lobbyists to buy individual politicians.
Three simple talking points that make is super-clear that John McCain’s reputation as a “maverick” is a media myth that has no basis in reality. We’ve got two years to spread the word.
*And even then, I expect most or all their efforts to go towards improving birth control access and improving the living situation of poor women so that those who don’t want abortions feel less pressure to get them.
**My esteem for “libertarians” falls by the minute. How can you claim to be against “big” government authority and then troll around the blogs supporting police brutality?
22 Responses to “Reports of John McCain’s differences from Dick Cheney and James Dobson are greatly exaggerated”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
[…] Update: Amanda at Pandagon has lots more on McCain, including detailed talk of McCain’s hypocrisy on reproductive rights, which was apparent in his interview yesterday w/George Stephanapoulous (discussed below). […]
So McCain doesn’t think a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would pass, so he intends, if president, to appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn the settled law of the land.
Isn’t that the definition of activist, make-law-from-the-bench, judges? Stare decisis is no longer conservative? And if his defense is that liberals did it first, then he still has come to decide that we need activist judges.
Enough with the mainstream media covering for the radical positions of the right wing. Out McCain. Ask him over and over: Would you prefer a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?
Want abortion banned and more troops in Iraq? McCain’s your man.
Isn’t that the definition of activist, make-law-from-the-bench, judges?
Nonono, they’re only activist judges if they ‘make laws’ that wingnuts hate. So, y’know, interpret laws to give basic rights to people wingnuts think should just shutup and go burn in eternal fire, already. Or something.
“……is a sleazy lying motherfucker.”
I like that.
Bears repeating…a lot.
And fuc*k their tender ears.
‘Nother thought…if it is.
‘States Rights’ insofar as …at least…. as they establish government as laboratory have value.
Oregon & Mass. as bellwether state for (e.g.) dignified dying and homosexual marriage and other stuff too
or California for weed and environmental standards or even SD (hypothetically) as a totally forced-birth state (blessedly not) bring information to the table.
Sometimes that information is actually regarded (a little) by an unfortunately dulled (dullard?) electorate and sometimes goes to encouraging good decisions therefrom.
So maybe some value (entirely aside form some appropriate diffusion of authority).
I think so.
[…] the handmaidens of the corporate media think he’s a lot of fun. So there’s that. Permalink| […]
‘States Rights’ insofar as …at least…. as they establish government as laboratory have value. - has_te
But when it comes to actually matching the rhetoric of “States being labortories of democratic governance”, except (and this exception is arguable) when it comes to vouchers, many of the so-called “States’ Rights” supporters (at least in the GOP … the Libertarians are at least consistant here) are either silent or actively oppose the “States’ Rights” position.
Since before the Civil War, “States’ Rights” has been used more often as a justification for having the individual states be mini-dictatorships un-constrained by a more liberal federal Constitution; i.e. as y’all no doubt all know, “States’ Rights” has long been a rallying cry for the ability of states to restrict liberties (except the liberty of the gentry to remain above social obligations) rather than explore new ones.
[…] Get this through your heads, John McCain is not a moderate. He’ll try to look like one for campaign purposes, but he is still the guy who won’t miss an opportunity to hug President Bush. He’s still the guy who thinks torture is bad, except that the bill he wrote to ban it doesn’t apply to Guantanamo. Nice loophole, there. Maybe he should run a Craigslist ad to the effect of “Lost: credibility. If found please send to Senator McCain’s office.” […]
McCain’s demonstrably been a sleazebag since his Keating Five days, and you know, I don’t think we talk enough about his membership in the Keating Five. The man’s politics are knuckle-dragging wingnut, and he’s entirely consumed by his own twisted ambition, and I think we could do a lot worse with our time than to spend the next couple of years pounding on McCain.
Amanda’s got it exactly. Is anyone even aware of ONE member of Congress who expresses opposition to Roe on the ground that the issue should be left to the states but who also puts his votes where his mouth is and votes against federal restrictions on abortion rights? I am not saying that nobody in the world holds that position, but when politicians say it, it’s nothing more than a phony pose adopted by people who think that stating their position honestly may cost them votes.
While I think the idea that “small” government re: conservatives signifies their desire for government to protect fewer people is indirectly true, the overlap between political and fiscal federalism should instead be delineated. When conservatives promote “small” government, they do so not in a “federalist” sense with the national government providing less, but in an economic sense: leave the government out of market matters. And yes, this does unequivocally ignore redistributive and welfare needs - however, this is less the purported intention than the belief in the efficiency of markets. Liberals, on the other hand, perceive, acutely and obviously, the vagaries of free and unfettered markets and desire “more government.” This could be more government at the national and state levels - it just so happens that the national government is more suitable for carrying out redistributive policies.
I guess I just think it’s misleading to use “small” government as a definition without considering the economic reasons that at least mildly inhabits conservative ideology.
Also, if McCain supports the partial-birth abortion ban yet argues against Roe v. Wade on federalist grounds, he is disingenuous: the partial-brith abortion ban applied a blanket, national ban on certain kinds of abortion - states have had to go to the courts to overturn the decision within their own states. So yes, he is full of it.
It says something for the clusterfuck that the GOP has become, that this man is thought of as “moderate.”
Repeat this mantra every day: McCain is not a moderate maverick…
As John said right after the last election: Besides picking our candidates and races, I think the most valuable thing most of could do is to help shape the conventional wisdom. We blog, we write letters to the editor, we……
My esteem for “libertarians� falls by the minute. How can you claim to be against “big� government authority and then troll around the blogs supporting police brutality?
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the spinning of the Chao
It is hovering o’er the table where the Chiefs of Staff are now
gathered in discussion of the dropping of the Bomb
Her Apple Corps is strong!
oh, right, this system doesn’t recognize “end pointlessness” tags.
Seems to me that McCain’s position is basically the same one he had when he opposed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. When that Ammendment to the US Constitution was being considered, McCain opposed it as he felt it was an issue for the states to decide. Many of those who would criticise him now praised him then. His stance hasn’t changed, the only thing that changed was that these critics don’t like it when the same principles work against their preferences.
I’m pro-choice, but I believe in the rule of law and state’s rights. McCain has held true to those concepts even if his critics will waver on them due to the issue in question. To me that makes McCain worthy of more respect than those who would put issues before process.
My first reaction to this post was, “Man, bellybuttons are really weird.”
Then, once I got beyond the picture, my second reaction was, “Who hasn’t figured out that McCain’s an asshole?”
Then, my third reaction was, “Hmm…bellybuttons kind of look like assholes…”
Then, my fourth reaction was, “OK, time to leave the office after a very loooong day.”
“When conservatives promote “smallâ€? government”
But not so small that it can’t control whether you give birth or not.
[…] Amanda writes about McCain’s support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. McCain is a long-term opportunist - he doesn’t flip-flop incessantly the way Kerry does, but instead builds a persona in line with what is popular. When Bush was popular, he was a maverick in order to capture pro-Bush independents; then when it became impossible, he started shoring up the base. […]
I don’t really see it as an issue of “small” versus “large” goverment in this case. The fact is that some things, particulary certain freedoms pertaining to human rights (the right to choose, the right to marry) should be protected NATIONALLY. These rights should be protected by federal laws. Legal abortions and legal same-sex marriages do nothing but offend those that disagree with them. If you don’t like the idea of abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like seeing same-sex couples married - turn the other cheek. Seriously, what does it matter? This is not a state issue. Not one state’s population 100% wholeheartedly opposes abortion. Those that want choice must be protected in ALL states. These are basic freedoms. You can’t ignore that, whether you agree with them or not.
Thanks for blogging my photo!
[…] Here’s the delightful and fetching Amanda of Pandagon weighing in. […]
Well, I guess one could argue that everything is a state issue unless a single government actor policy affects the entire nation. Otherwise, in a federalist system, people vote for political representation and issues in their state and the nation, and the majority rules. I completely agree that no one should tell a woman what she can and can’t do - or anyone for that matter, as long as it’s not hurting someone else. Some do view abortions as harming the “a life” depending on views on validity. If a majority in a state decides (less that the “woman doesn’t have a choice”) - in the pro-life lexicon - that the fetus is a life, then if the system functioned properly, that person(s) could move to a state in which their values are more closely represented. The federal government certainly has the responsibility to ensure all rights, but the argument if you believe pro-lifers, is that the fetus is a life, and not that women are being denied a choice. Due to the contentiousness of this view and the diverging views on what is the human rights violation occuring, states might more closely approximate the views of its citizens. And until there is a wider consensus on it (or until politicians stop sneaking in divisive national legislation) it does - and I believe should - remain a state issue. I only believe that because of the potential for the national government, with the Supreme Court as it is, to chip away at Roe v. Wade. And I believe the states more responsibly and less politically can oppose national bans on certain kind of abortions at this point. The partial-birth abortion ban displayed the pernicious nature of leaving abortion policy to national legislatures far removed from their constituents.