Welcome to GOP Convention week, when the Republican Party meets in one of the whitest cities in the nation, St. Paul, Minn., and turns it even whiter. Ah yes, GOP, diversity is thy name. The quadrennial gathering of America’s financiers-and-fundamentalists collective will be topped off by the nomination of the white-haired, though perpetually red-faced, John McCain as its candidate for President.
There’s neither time nor space for beating around the Bush administration, so let’s get right to the point: You couldn’t pay me enough to get me to vote for John McCain. Here are four reasons. Later in the campaign season, I’ll give you a few more.
1. Women’s Issues. Any woman thinking of voting for McCain better be ready to head back to the dark ages. McCain strongly opposed this year’s Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which, if it had passed, would have restored protections for pay equity in the Civil Rights Act that were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the central women’s rights issue of the past 30 years, reproductive freedom and health, McCain has noted, “I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision. … I’ve been pro-life, unchanging and unwavering.” McCain goes so far as to solemnly pledge that if he’s elected President, he’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe. In addition, he has repeatedly voted against measures to provide access to contraception and sex-education, and also voted six times against legislation to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program’s (SCHIP) coverage of low-income children and pregnant women. He even voted against a bill that would have required health plans to cover prescriptions for birth control. Viagra? OK. The Pill? No way.
2. The “New,” Devious McCain. Unless you pay close attention to the ins and outs of politics, you may still believe in McCain’s old image as a “straight shooter,” a “maverick” — even a “moderate” — who often bucks his fellow Republicans’ wishes in pursuit of compromises with the Dems. McCain used to be pretty independent, working with Democrats on a couple of initiatives and speaking his mind regularly, but he changed his tune after being whacked by the Bush machine in the 2000 primaries. Since then, McCain has veered sharply to the right, changing his positions on issue after issue, in order to court favor with Bush-supporting conservatives. A quick example: in 2001 and 2003, McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts for the ultra-rich, saying they were a giveaway to the wealthy and “budget busters,” but now he supports making the cuts permanent. As a result of his brazen flip-flopping, McCain voted in line with President Bush’s position 95 percent of the time last year. Did you agree with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007? If so, McCain’s your man.
3. Phil Gramm. The former U.S. senator from Texas was co-chairman of McCain’s campaign before being fired in July for calling Americans “a nation of whiners.” Behind the scenes, however, according to several reporters, Gramm has eased his way back into his role as McCain’s economic brain. Nothing reveals McCain’s abysmal judgment on economic matters more than his reliance on Gramm for policy advice. Why? The short version is that, as the former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Gramm rammed through the repeal of Depression-era regulations, greasing the rails for the unregulated speculation which led to both the disastrous subprime mortgage scandal and the soaring price of oil. (For more info on Gramm’s pivotal role in our current economic woes, link to these in-depth articles by David Corn and James K. Galbraith: www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil and www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/09/exit-strategy-how-to-burn-the-speculators.html. Just last week, MSNBC broke the story that during the mortgage crisis Gramm helped create, he was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress regarding the crisis — at the same time that he was advising McCain on economic policy. How do you spell “massive conflicts of interest”?
4. The Prisoner of War Hype. Never mind that the McCain campaign seems to answer every criticism of its candidate by jumping up and down and yelling, “You can’t say that! He was a POW!” And never mind that McCain himself got into the act, using his POW experience (during which, as he reminded everyone, he “didn’t have a kitchen table”) to deflect charges that he’s too rich to be in touch with ordinary Americans. What’s wearing thin is the relentless POW drumbeat coming from the McCain campaign. Only a cold-hearted person wouldn’t empathize with the experience endured by McCain and more than a thousand other American POWs, but at what point does that experience become cheapened by constantly referring to it as if it were a legitimate qualification for being President? He caught hell for saying it, but former Gen. Wesley Clark, I feel, was right on the money when he stated, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” That’s not questioning McCain’s service to the United States, it’s simply pointing out what should be an obvious fact. McCain, though, seems caught up in his own mythos to the point of delusion, claiming during debates that, “I know how to win wars.” Really? What wars have you won, Senator? Hmm, didn’t think so.
This article appears in Sep 2-9, 2008.
