McCain = McMore of the Same
Last night was a historic night for political junkies, wasn't it? As Sen. Barack Obama secured the number of delegates necessary to move on as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in the fall, I sat glued to my television, eagerly taking in the three big speeches from Sens. McCain, Clinton, and Obama.
The speech that really sounded like the same tired old rhetoric was, of course, McCain's speech. Now I can truly say that I appreciate what Barack Obama has been saying about needing to change the tired rhetoric of Washington... because believe me, when I heard that old rhetoric, it really made me tired. What am I talking about? Allow me to highlight an excerpt from John McCain's speech:
John McCain can't advocate against government interference in our personal lives while, at the same time, voting anti-choice 125 out of 130 times during his 25 years in Washington. John McCain can't claim to be dismayed by politicians who are "sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people," when he is one of those politicians! Okay, at least he shouldn't do it with a straight face and expect that we won't call him out on it. Please!
We know the truth: John McCain is the kind of politician who supplants his beliefs for the values and freedoms of reproductive choice that he - and his anti-choice friends in Washington - deny women and their families.
John McCain is the kind of politician who: favors overturning Roe v. Wade; favors a domestic and global gag rule that prohibits doctors from giving patients all the information about their choices; and supports unsafe, inaccurate abstinence-only programs instead of real, honest sex education in our schools. So, Sen. McCain, if you're appalled by politicians who have "little faith in the wisdom, decency, and common sense of free people," are you looking in the mirror when you chastise them? Because seriously, Senator McCain, the type of politician you are describing... well, sorry to tell you this, but it's you.
So, if you watched John McCain's speech last night, I urge you - Don't believe the hype! Take a look at the first of NARAL Pro-Choice America's Obama v. McCain comparisons and pass the knowledge on...
The speech that really sounded like the same tired old rhetoric was, of course, McCain's speech. Now I can truly say that I appreciate what Barack Obama has been saying about needing to change the tired rhetoric of Washington... because believe me, when I heard that old rhetoric, it really made me tired. What am I talking about? Allow me to highlight an excerpt from John McCain's speech:
Like others before him, [Obama] seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. [Ed. Note: Emphasis added... by me!]So clearly McCain was using his speech to try to convince voters that he's the candidate of change, but to quote the great philosophers of Grey's Anatomy, "SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!??!!!" You are not McDreamy or McSteamy, you're just McSame. (The same as George Bush, if you're wondering.)
John McCain can't advocate against government interference in our personal lives while, at the same time, voting anti-choice 125 out of 130 times during his 25 years in Washington. John McCain can't claim to be dismayed by politicians who are "sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people," when he is one of those politicians! Okay, at least he shouldn't do it with a straight face and expect that we won't call him out on it. Please!
We know the truth: John McCain is the kind of politician who supplants his beliefs for the values and freedoms of reproductive choice that he - and his anti-choice friends in Washington - deny women and their families.
John McCain is the kind of politician who: favors overturning Roe v. Wade; favors a domestic and global gag rule that prohibits doctors from giving patients all the information about their choices; and supports unsafe, inaccurate abstinence-only programs instead of real, honest sex education in our schools. So, Sen. McCain, if you're appalled by politicians who have "little faith in the wisdom, decency, and common sense of free people," are you looking in the mirror when you chastise them? Because seriously, Senator McCain, the type of politician you are describing... well, sorry to tell you this, but it's you.
So, if you watched John McCain's speech last night, I urge you - Don't believe the hype! Take a look at the first of NARAL Pro-Choice America's Obama v. McCain comparisons and pass the knowledge on...
Tags
Search the Blog
Did you guys really send out an e-mail offering to not send Obama related e-mails to women who were upset by your endorsement?
Wow. New low. You should probably just accept the fact that you've lost members because of your ridiculous and untimely endoresment and start working to keep your new Obama members - you know, the ones you were so excited about right after the endorsement. Yeah, because they're gonna stick around after November...haha!
Not this again.
We will stick around after November, even if you won't.
We will work and fight hard to protect America from the rotting, decrepit agenda McSame will bring, even if you won't.
We will work to make history by electing our nation's first black president, even if you won't.
We recognize that there couldn't be a greater contrast between what McSame stands for and what Obama stands for, even if you don't.
And we know that Obama is going to be a far better president on women's rights than McSame will ever be, even if you don't.
well, for those of us OUTRAGED at the betrayal of women's rights and issues by NARAL PAC's early endorsement of Obama, I must say what goes around comes around. My daughter, a professional campaigner and staffer calls to tell me Obama and the DNC have banned lobbyists and PAC donations. PAC"S are to not have "undue" influence.
Hillary Clinton came to Washington State to fund raise and support NARAL, not Obama. Now Obama and the DNC have lessened MARAL's voice to be heard...Guess you shot yourself in the foot with this one.
Yeah, I'm still not over my "broken heart". Nice job Nancy.
Ahem, what irony for NARAL to quote McCain -- "It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people" -- when NARAL itself had more faith in their OWN leadership's judgment than it did about the wisdom of their own consituents about endorsing Obama over Hillary before the primaries were even over. I don't know who I'm voting for, but I do know Obama certainly hasn't yet earned my vote, and if he doesn't, I'll vote for Nader if Hillary stays out. In Oregon Obama refused to accept Hillary's challenges to debate, knowing that he didn't need to win my vote with the DNC and the superdelegates willing to put him over the top anyways. Now Obama needs to EARN my vote, and the superdelegates and NARAL can't earn it for him. I feel no more loyalty to the Democratic National Party than I do to NARAL because I have felt no loyalty from the DNC or NARAL to me. Obama certainly hasn't won my vote with his beautiful but vague oratorios, his fairly lukewarm actual record on pro-choice and women's rights, and his dismissive attitude toward women (e.g. calling a female reporter "sweetie" not to mention his tacit endorsement of the ridiculous and shoddy charges of racism against the Clintons, and if Hillary Clinton had called a black reporter "sweetie" we would never have heard the end of it). Folks, it'll always be the good ole boy network calling the shots if we just fall into line and march after their appointee. Unfortunately, NARAL did just that, fell into line, and I'm sad that I believe it'll be a march to defeat anyways regardless of whether Obama can personally win me over. I fear Obama is the next McGovern and will fail just as miserably (does anyone even remember who his VP was after Eagleton got notoriety by getting kicked off the ticket?). I pray to God that Hillary has the good sense to not try to save the Dem ticket by agreeing to be Obama's VP. Good luck NARAL, you've lost the money of many of your donors at this critical time.
I am no great supporter of McCain. But when you took him to task for allegedly doing exactly what you did to Hillary, I decided I will pull the lever for him. That was the last straw. I have nothing but contempt for the feckless manipulated fools in your organization who let themselves be led by the nose by the political bosses. Shame, shame, shame.
Shame? More like, it is a shame that you are willing to vote for McSame, who will bring:
- four more years of alienation and disrespect from almost every other country on the planet,
- four more years in Iraq,
- four more years of out-of-control healthcare costs, with more than 40 million Americans uninsured,
- four more years with the U.S. being somewhere around the 30th best country on the planet when it comes to infant mortality,
- four more years of challenges to Roe v. Wade,
- four more years of Republican control over our Supreme Court appointees,
- four more years of a Judicial Branch that's more interested in political thuggery than real justice,
- four more years of virtually nonexistent gun control,
- four more years of irreversible depletion of our ozone layer,
- four more years of lip service--and nothing else--for substantive federal support of alternative energy initiatives,
- four more years of obscene oil industry profits,
- four more years of a financial services sector devoid of regulatory enforcement,
- four more years of welfare for the rich,
- four more years of the rich getting richer while everybody else struggles to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent and to put food on their table (if they are even able to do that now)
All because the candidate you liked didn't win and because NARAL decided to endorse her opponent because HE WAS GOING TO WIN.
Special thanks to bobswern of MyDD for the list.
Unlike Obama diehards who continue the insults and try to make this serious rift in the Democratic party seem about sour grapes, I'm assuming NARAL has some worry that those Hillary supporters might be important after all, and that's why they posted Obama's answer to the generic 45 y.o. woman Clinton supporter who says she won't vote for him? I honestly think NARAL and Obama supporters need to rethink your strategy on this -- scare tactics just won't be sufficient to win over feminist supporters of Clinton that you didn't seem to care to listen to up to now. Frankly, there will likely be enough Democrats in the Senate to thwart any anti-Roe Supreme Court nominees that President McCain might send up, so, no, we actually DON'T need Obama in the White House to protect Roe v. Wade. The brutal truth is that Obama needs us feminist Clinton supporters more than we need him. Obama supporters might keep that in mind because continuing to insult and misunderstand Clinton supporters doesn't help your man. Now that actual electoral votes instead of caucases and superdelegates will determine the election outcome, there should be genuine fear among the Obama camp that Hillary supporters will not automatically come aboad. Obama hasn't yet seriously addressed sexism in this campaign instead of thinking all he has to do is to make McCain seem too scary for feminists to vote for. Frankly, it is far more scary to me to reward this sad travesty of a process, and I hope the outrage that just won't go away like it was supposed to will result in serious reform.
[originally posted at http://katiehalper.com/ and Living Liberally
**Although McCain and Hagee have since un-endorsed each other, that was not until Hagee's controversial Holocaust speech was discovered. McCain didn't think Hagee's position on gay people (or women of Muslims, for that matter) warrant his disavowal.