Maverick My Ass

I'm sick of this "John McCain is a maverick" bullshit. He is a political opportunist who embraced his party orthodoxy in exchange for embracing the far right-wing agenda. This week, for instance, he hinted that he might be willing to choose a running mate with non-traditional beliefs, but there were limits to how far a potential running mate could stray from the Republican Party line.

"I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a -- albeit strong -- but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far more so than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues."

Asked about it today, Bloomberg predictably dodged jumping into the mud by praising McCain as someone who's done great things for this country but then added this dig, "I think that choice and gay rights are personal things -- particularly if you are a conservative, the government should get out of the bedroom."

Let's put this issue in Republican words so we can get the full effect of his statement. John McCain is open to choosing a running mate who believes that it should be legal for women to murder their babies, but not a candidate who believes in equal treatment of heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. In his eyes, being pro-gay is worse than be pro-baby-killing.

Why is pro-gay worse than pro-choice? Deep down, they hate gays more than they hate doctors who "kill" babies. The former is perceived as a "threat" to themselves, while the latter is not.

As the LA Times noted this week, anti-gay marriage advocates try to frame their arguments in terms of preserving traditions and protecting families. Despite this front, when given the opportunity to speak freely about their beliefs, the anti-gay affect comes to the surface. Before announcing it's opposition to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, the editorial board met with supporters and opponents to allow them to make their case.

The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.

At one point, the conversation turned to the "activist judges" whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.

In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers.

It's not clear that John McCain agrees with the anti-gay activists who push the homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory, but many of his anti-gay positions fly in the face of current social science research.

For example, despite the fact that study after study after study after study has shown that children raised by same-sex parents turn out no better, no worse, no gayer, no straighter than children raised by heterosexual parents, John McCain still believes that it is better for children to grow up without parents than it is for them to be raised by gays and lesbians.



And despite research which shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm readiness, John McCain still supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell.



John McCain is not a maverick. He's a conservative Republican adn a bigot. And if he'll sell homosexuals down the river to pander to the right-wing lunatic fringe, what do you think he'll do to the "McCain Democrats" once he's gotten your votes?

Don't fall for it!

Government Fail: The Planet

(Proudly cross-posted at Clark Community Network)

I think we all know by now how horrible George W. Bush's environmental record has been. He's denied the climate crisis, pushed millions of acres of protected public land to be opened to private developers, and called for reckless oil drilling off our coast. Basically, this President has been a complete disaster for our planet. He's failed to be a good steward of our natural resources, and our children will soon pay the price of these Bush failures if we don't act now to reverse them.

So do you know what can make our current crisis worse? As bad as Bush is, there's someone who will only worsen our environmental problems... If we let him.

John McCain wants us to believe he's a "Friend of the Earth". He's green washed his web site. He's fine tuning his "green message" to sway voters. He's doing everything he can to convince us he's the real "green" candidate.

However, all we need to do is his record to see for ourselves that McCain is no friend of our planet. McCain always manages to say the right thing, but his actions are something completely different. He's really no different from George W. Bush in his laissez-faire attitude when it comes to requiring big polluters to clean up their act.

Oh yes, and here's an inconvenient truth about McCain that he doesn't want us to know. He may sound "green", but that's all talk. The only green he actually cares about is the "green $$$$" the oil companies are giving him.



Come on, now! Haven't we had enough of Bush doing nothing to solve the climate crisis while doing everything to allow big oil & big developers to ruin our natural resources? Now why the heck would we want more of the same ignoring our planet in peril? Why do we want another President who ignores us to placate his Big Oil bosses?



We need real change. We can't allow our government to continue to fail on protecting our planet for future generations. Let's make sure we have a President who will end the "epic government fail".



Let's support someone who will clean up this epic fail for a change. :-)

The McCain Myth: The Economy & Fiscal Matters

As we've all heard, John McCain is described by the corporate media as a "maverick" and a "moderate". And for some reason, we are actually expected to believe this BS. One major example is with economic issues.

We've been told that McCain isn't an extreme right-wing ideologue who messes with working people and only promotes tax cuts for the super-rich to solve everything. And once upon a time, this might have been true. But as seasons change, so has McCain.

Let's take a look at McCain's current economic proposals. Let's examine how Mccain has gone from Bush critic to "Bushonomics" lover. Let's examine what McCain is actually planning to do as our next President. Do you believe me now?

Just like Bush-Cheney, McCain's economic proposals are nothing more than tax cuts for the ultra-rich, unnecessary corporate welfare, and laissez-faire deregulation that undos the regulatory system that has made American capitalism so strong. The kind of "change" McCain is talking about on the economy isn't the kind of change we want. Rather, he's just relying on the already discredited "supply-side economics" to justify screwing over working-class people some more.


So are you convinced now? John McCain isn't our friend on the pocketbook issues that matter to us so much these days. He won't do anything about unemployment. He won't fix our broken trade regime. He won't forego additional needless tax cuts for the über-wealthy to help struggling working people. He won't protect Social Security from dangerous privatization schemes. He's simply another Republican pandering to Wall Street while he ignores the cries for help on Main Street.

Oh, and before I go, let me show you these videos. When I saw them, they helped me see the big picture. And yes, they also shoe what John McCain is all about. Do you want this guy deciding how to steer our economy?

Gay Marriage in Norway!

From the Associated Press:

Gay couples in Norway will be granted the same rights as heterosexuals to marry, adopt and undergo artificial insemination under a new equality law passed Tuesday.

Norway's upper house of parliament voted 23-17 in favor of the gender-neutral marriage law on the same day that gay couples were marrying in California.

The law replaces 1993 legislation that gave gays the right to enter civil unions similar to marriage but did not allow church weddings or adoption. It takes effect Jan. 1.

Norway joins Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa, and Spain as the only six nations in the world where gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. California recently began allowing gays and lesbians to marry as a result of a court decision. The state of Massachusetts passed a gay marriage law in response another court decision. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, these marriages do not get any of the 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections afforded to married heterosexual couples.

Since this is an election season, let's review where the candidates stand on this issue. The research on John McCain--analyzed by atdnext last week--uncovers some very uncomfortable facts. Although John McCain voted against the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, he signed a petition for a referendum on an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Arizona state constitution. Senator McCain seems to believe that states should be allowed to make their own decisions on gay marriage. So while he opposed the federal ban, he supported the state ban and even cut an ad:



He discussed his personal views at the Hardball College Tour in Iowa in 2006:

"On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it's a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I`m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected."

In this video, McCain explains that while he doesn't have problem with gay marriage, in that he doesn't have a problem with the ceremony, the marriage should not confer any rights.



If that doesn't send a chill down your spine, maybe this will. In the fall of 2007, a judge in Iowa struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. Fox News wrote this about his response to that ruling:

Republican White House hopeful John McCain called the ruling "a loss for the traditional family."

"I have always supported the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman," he said. "The ruling of the court only reinforces my belief that we must have a president who is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the bench."

Last week, I discussed the polling data for Senate races and the history of judicial nominations. Given the likely make-up of the Senate in 2009 and the Democrats’ history of capitulating to Republican presidents, electing John McCain will ensure that he will follow through on his threat promise to appoint more “strict constructionist judges” to the Supreme Court.

Senator Obama has a much gay-friendlier position. He discussed the importance of same-sex couples receiving the same benefits of marriage as married heterosexual couples at a 2007 forum on gay issues sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC):



This week, Jack Trapper (ABC News) asked Senator Obama about his pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, in light of the California Supreme Court decision. Would he reconsider his position in light of this ruling?

"No," said Obama. "I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. . . . As president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law."

Asked "does it bother you, what California is doing," Obama again answered, "no."

Given the very painful personal price I am currently paying for our nation's marriage laws, I cannot in good conscience do anything but join Hillary and support Barack Obama.

John McSame

Great news today from The Fix at the Washington Post. For months, even before the end of the primary battle, Democrats have been working hard to make the case the John McCain is running for George Bush's third term. New polling data indicates that the message is beginning to stick:

It's hard to miss the message. And, according to a new poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News voters are internalizing the message. Thirty eight percent of those surveyed said McCain would take the country in a "new" direction, while 57 percent said a McCain administration would mostly keep America on the "same" course.

In a New York Times/CBS poll conducted earlier this month, 43 percent of respondents said McCain would "continue Bush's policies," 28 percent said McCain would be less conservative than Bush, and 21 percent said McCain would be more conservative.

Given the current mood in the country, this can only be good news for Democrats. Last month, a Washington Post--ABC News poll found that Americans had their gloomiest outlook since 1992 when Americans elected a man from a town called Hope. A record 82% of Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

When I heard that the Obama campaign was moving much of the DNC's political and organizing operations, I was justifiably concerned about the party becoming so entangled with the campaign that it was unable to act independently of Senator Obama. If, however, this move and other efforts to limit independent efforts by 527s keep Democrats on message, the campaign could be setting us up for a big victory in November.

But we should not get complacent. Looking at the daily tracking polls, Rasmussen has Obama up 45-41 and with leaners are added in, Obama is up 48-45. Obama is carrying 79% of Democrats while McCain is carrying 85% of Republicans. Among independents, Obama is leading 46-41. Even though Obama is not doing as well amogn Democrats as McCain is among Republicans, he still holds a (statistically insignificant) lead. Efforts to unite the party must begin continue.

Other polling data has found a big opening--and a big potential weakness--for Demcorats. A report just released by Rasmussen indicates that impression of both candidates are fluid:

In December, before the Iowa caucuses launched Obama’s successful campaign for the nomination, the Illinois Senator was seen as politically liberal by 47% of voters nationwide. By April, that number had grown to 54%. Today, 67% see him as politically liberal including 36% who say he is Very Liberal.

A similar pattern is seen for John McCain. The presumptive Republican nominee was seen as politically conservative by 31% of all voters in December, by 41% in April, and by 67% today. Just 19% say he is Very Conservative.

Given that John McCain has been in the public arena for some time, these are stunning numbers. They indicate that public attitudes toward the so-called Maverick have not hardened and that Democrats have the opportunity to shape his image just yet.

These numbers also indicate that Senator Obama is just as vulnerable. Indeed, Rasmussen issued a report last week that showed that 41% of voters believe he does not have enough experience to be president.

We are starting strong, but we have our work cut out for us. Just in case you forgot, this is the mentality that we are fighting against:

T-shirt designs from a conservative website echoing the arguments that VRWC is making right now.

The McCain Myth: Environment & The Climate Crisis

As we've all heard, John McCain is described by the corporate media as a "maverick" and a "moderate". And for some reason, we are actually expected to believe this BS. One HUGE example is with the environment and the climate crisis.
We've been told that McCain is "pro-environment", and that he understands the severity of global warming. But upon further observation, this whole notion of "McCain the Lovable Greenie Maverick" comes into question. Just how "maverick" is he on environmental issues?


When he actually judge McCain's actions against his rhetoric, he falls short. Go ahead, take a look at what McCain has actually proposed this year. Why won't he even support the Warner-Lieberman "Climate Security Act", the most watered down and pro-polluter climate change bill currently in the Senate? And why won't he even propose to do as President what the Lieberman-Warner bill proposes? McCain's current "plan" would set in place a very weak cap-and-trade system with hardly any mandate to lower carbon emissions, no guarantee of 100% auctioning of carbon credits, and no plan to build a "greener economy". McCain currently opposes the Boxer-Sanders plan in the Senate that most climate experts believe is the best legislation in Congress now that's tackling the climate crisis, and his proposals fall far short of what Hillary Clinton proposed as a Presidential Candidate and what Barack Obama is proposing now.


And wait, it gets worse. In case you haven't heard, McCain now supports offshore oil drilling! Now how the heck does offshore drilling lead to a cleaner and greener energy future? Oh yes, and if McCain didn't look like enough of a pushover for oil companies, get a load of this: He recently announced that he opposes any windfall profits tax on Big Oil that would help raise the revenues needed to invest in real clean energy solutions! Now how in the world is that "eco-friendly"?! I don't get it.

So go ahead, compare and contrast what McCain thinks on environmental issues to what Barack Obama thinks. Don't you see a rather BIG difference? McCain talks tough, but doesn't deliver. That's why the League of Conservation Voters gives McCain a lifetime green score of 26%, a full 70% lower than Obama's lifetime score of 96%. Now who really sounds like the earth-friendly candidate in the race? Need we ask Al Gore?

For me, for "The Goracle", for Hillary, for the environmentalist community... For all of us, the answer is clear. John McCain may be better on environmental matters than much of his Republican Party, but he's still not much different from Bush & Cheney. He's all talk, but little action. And when we have an entire planet in peril, we don't need any more nice talk... We need real action.

What Would Hillary Do?

Would Hillary approve of all this talk about voting for John McCain?



Hillary ran for president because she loves this country. She loves the United States of America and she doesn't want to see us fall behind. As she said, we need to "reverse" our course immediately. Would John McCain bring that change?

Factcheck.org examined Barack Obama's claims that John McCain is not the maverick he claims to be. According to their analysis, John McCain voted with the president 95% of the time in 2007:

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

So he voted against his party until he started running for president. Is that leadership "we can believe in?"



We here at Clintonistas for Obama have been trying to make the case that John McCain does not share Hillary Clinton's values. He does not support universal health care and his record on women's issues is delporable. This analysis by Factcheck.org makes clear that if McCain ever were a maverick, it ended when he began running for president. So these calls by McCain supporters such as Joe Lieberman to put "country before political party" reaks of hypocrisy.

Many of us are justifiably upset about the events of the campaign season, but supporting John McCain is not the answer. This is an argument Hillary has been making for some time:

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

For many of us, myself included, casting a vote for Senator Obama will be difficult, but it is the right thing to do. The McPanderer doesn't share our values. I submit that he will toss us aside after we cast our votes, just as he abondoned his "maverick" voting record to win the GOP nomination.

Join Hillary. Vote for Barack Obama.

Not a McModerate

I am a long-time member of the Facebook group Hillary Clinton for President – One Million Strong. When I visited the group last night, I was disappointed to learn that the PUMA wing of the Democratic party had highjacked the group. In a forum discussing John McCain’s virtual townhall with independents and disaffected Democrats, an angry Clintonista said that I was wrong to call John McCain a conservative:

McCain isn't as liberal as the two Republicans I mentioned, he's a moderate and has a long history of working with Democrats and pissing off his party.

Over the last few days, we here at Clintonistas for Obama have been de-bunking some of the myths that support John McCain’s image as a moderate. Our research on gay rights, women’s issues, health care found that John McCain is, indeed, a conservative.

Our efforts aside, one need only look at John McCain’s own words. Throughout this and previous campaigns, he has called himself a conservative. John McCain at the CPAC conference in Washington, DC in January:

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens.

During his 2000 “maverick” presidential campaign, in the famous speech when he called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance”, he also said:

Thus, I have always felt quite comfortable describing myself as a proud conservative, a proud Reagan conservative, and as a member of Congress I have compiled a record of a proud conservative.

SNIP

I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense…

In response to his victory in the Florida primary in January:

My friends, in one week we will have as close to a national primary as we have ever had in this country. I intend to win it, and be the nominee of our party. And I intend to do that by making it clear what I stand for. I stand for the principles and policies that first attracted me to the Republican Party when I heard, in whispered conversations and tap codes, about the then Governor of California, who stood by me and my comrades, and who was making quite a reputation for standing by his convictions no matter the changing winds of political thought and popular culture. When I left the Navy and entered public life, I enlisted as a foot soldier in the political revolution he began. And I am as proud to be a Reagan conservative today, as I was then. I trust in the courage, good sense, resourcefulness and decency of the American people, who deserve a government that trusts in their qualities as well, and doesn't abrogate to its elf the responsibilities to do for the people what the people can and want to do for themselves.

You can watch the entire speech here.

From Fox News on Super Tuesday:

McCain struggled to close the sale with his party’s base after coming strikingly far without its solid support. He said he would extend his hand to Democrats, but “I will preserve my proud conservative Republican credentials.”

A Web ad of John McCain declaring that he “enlisted as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution”:



And here is John McCain’s tribute to Ronald Reagan where he talks more about his conservative values:



If Sen. Tom Coburn’s endorsement of Senator McCain’s conservative record—specifically mentioning his vote against the Medicare prescription drug benefit—isn’t enough to persuade you, perhaps George Bush’s endorsement will:

He Hearts You Not: Another McMyth

Last week, I wrote about Republican efforts to capitalize on divisions in the Democratic Party, created in the wake of Senator Hillary Clinton's defeat. The McCain campaign has announced that Senator McCain will hold a virtual town hall to reach out to independent and Democratic voters. Participating in the conference is former Hewlett-Packard CEO and John McCain supporter Carly Fiorina.

A few days ago, Fiorina cut a web ad for Women For Fair Politics:



The title of the ad is Carly Fiorina on Why She Supports John McCain, but she spends 1:30 out of a 5:30 ad praising Hillary Clinton, expressing admiration for her campaign, and empathy for the unfair treatment she received. Around 2:30, she finally starts talking about why she supporters John McCain, at which point you see images of Senator McCain with his wife and talking to older women. Meanwhile, Fiorina talks about how Senator McCain is an authentic leader who seeks her counsel and takes it seriously.

While Senator McCain tries to convince women that he really does heart them, groups such as Emily's List, which endorsed Senator Clinton the day she announced and spent $1 million on her campaign, have been pushing back. On Wednesday, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report on McCain's history on women's issues.

According to this report, although women only make 77 cents for each dollar a man earns, John McCain opposed legislation to make it easier for women to file equal pay lawsuits:

But earlier this year, McCain opposed critical legislation needed to advance women’s right to equal pay. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act responded to last year’s Supreme Court decision preventing Ledbetter from recovering damages for years of discriminatory pay. The Court required lawsuits to be filed within 180 days of the day the discrimination began, rather than within 180 days of the most recent discriminatory act—even if the victims of discrimination had no way to know they were being paid less at the time the discrimination began.

When asked about his opposition by a teenage girl, he said that the bill was too friendly for trial lawyers. He proposes to address the unfair pay issue by encouraging women to pursue more education and training. He also opposes increasing the minimum wage and nearly 60 percent of minimum wage earners are women.

Although John McCain claims to be pro-family--don't they all--he doesn't offer any legislation to help families with two working parents. He offers no proposals on expanding family leave, sick leave, or childcare. However, he will appoint plenty of strict constructionist justices to the United States Supreme Court to ensure that Roe v. Wade is overturned. And according to this report, these justices could do even more damage:

McCain is likely to appoint justices who oppose a woman’s right to choose. McCain says, “I happen to view life to begin at conception, and that is a moral belief I have. And, therefore, I think that Roe v. Wade was not only a bad decision but a flawed decision.” He has publicly taken the position that he “believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned.”

But the effect of a conservative judiciary is not limited to choice and privacy. Over the past two decades, there have been a large number of 5-to-4 decisions limiting the reach of civil rights statutes. In 1989, the Court’s 5-to-4 holding in Wards Cove made it more difficult for employees to challenge discriminatory treatment, a holding that Congress overturned in its last civil rights legislation in 1991.

In another 5-to-4 ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court ruled that victims of discrimination could only enforce the law through a private lawsuit if they suffered intentional discrimination, but not if they were victims of disparate treatment. And in Buckhannon, the Court ruled 5-to-4 to limit a victims’ right to recover attorney’s fees when their rights were vindicated voluntarily, not by court judgment or consent decree.

Unfortunately, at the same time organizations are pushing back on the McCain "charm" offensive, liberal commentators and mainstream media types have been vehemently pushing back against accusations of sexism in the media. After Katie Couric gave a speech denouncing the unfair treatment Senator Clinton faced in the campaign, Keith Olbermann denounced her as the Worst Person in the World:



I submit that John McCain's concern for women began during the contentious primary and that it will end the morning after the general election. A vote for John McCain is not a vote against sexism. It's a vote against women. It's a vote against families. It's a vote against America.

The McCain Myth: LGBT Equality

As we've all heard, John McCain is described by the corporate media as a "maverick" and a "moderate". And for some reason, we are actually expected to believe this BS. One example is with equal rights for LGBT people.

We've been told that McCain generally "favors" LGBT rights and is not as extreme as the rest of his Republican party. But hold on, how much of this is true? Is John McCain really a "maverick" on gay rights?

Well, let's take a look at McCain's real record. Let's not forget what's he's actually said and how he's actually voted. Let's not forget what McCain has been advocating this campaign season. Here's a hint, he hasn't been all that supportive of our community.

OK, so are you convinced now? No? Well, take a look at this.



OK, so are you convinced now? John McCain is no friend of the gays... Or lesbians or bisexual people or transgendered people for that matter. John McCain is just as homophobic as the rest of his beloved GOP. So really, can we afford four years of this guy as President?

Think about the Supreme Court. Think about what Congress needs to do. Think about all that legislation that will end up on the President's desk. Do you want John McBush there ready to veto all that good legislation? Or worse yet, do you want John McBush signing discrimination into law if we're dealing with a GOP-controlled Congress in addition to McBush?

We can prevent this disaster from happening. All it takes is for us to choose wisely. And come on, the facts are readily available for us to make a wise decision. YES. WE. CAN. :-)

Another McMyth: The McCain Health Care Plan

When reading certain blogs and forums I have identified four basic reasons that some Clinton supporters refuse to support Senator Obama. First, he was not democratically chosen. Second, he hasn’t officially become the nominee. Third, he doesn’t have enough experience. Fourth, a vote for Obama is a vote for sexism. Underlying all of these reasons is a myth that John McCain is moderate enough on the issues.

This week, I wrote a piece on the very real danger that John McCain poses to the Supreme Court and atdnext debunked the myth that John McCain is pro-choice.

Today, I’m going to focus on an issue that disproportionately affects those most marginalized in society, those whom Hillary Clinton described as “invisible” to the ruling class. Today’s post is about the uninsured:

The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And there are clear disparities in how different racial and ethnic groups are affected. Only 13 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans is uninsured, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of Native Americans, 22 percent of blacks and 17 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.

John McCain’s health care is available on his website. Several news sources— MSNBC, The New York Times, and CNN—covered John McCain’s health plan when he released it in October 2007. These are the uses I have used for my analysis.

In an interview with NPR, John McCain made it clear that he just doesn’t get it:

"The problem is not that most Americans lack adequate health insurance — the vast majority of Americans have private insurance, and our government spends billions each year to provide even more," McCain has said. "The biggest problem with the American health care system is that it costs too much."

John McCain’s health care plan emphasizes using the private sector to lower health care costs and tax credits to provide buyers with more purchasing power. He would provide buyers with a $2500 refundable tax credit to “low-income” individuals to purchase their own insurance and $5000 for “low-income” families. Note that this won’t help families who have insurance from the employers but have significant gaps in their coverage.

In reforming the private sector, John McCain claims that allowing people to buy insurance across state lines will increase competition and lowers costs, but Slate argues that insurance companies would then move their operations to states that had weak consumer protect laws.

He would also lower costs by emphasizing more preventive care and better treatment for chronic illnesses. To that end, he even suggests linking Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors to their performance in treating disease. As if doctors weren’t already motivated to treat their patients to the best of their ability?

While Barack Obama would not allow companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, John McCain’s free market would not force companies to accept everybody. As Elizabeth Edwards once said:

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, said she and John McCain have one thing in common: “Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy.”

Put short, McCain’s plan involves tax credits and deregulation. He does not require the medical insurance industry to cover anybody. He will not support health care mandates for children. In fact, he supported President Bush’s veto of the expansion of a health insurance program for poor children. Just for fun, he even throws in a little more tort reform. Most importantly, universal coverage isn’t even a goal for John McCain. To John McCain, health care is still a privilege, rather than a human right.

Senator Obama would go much further, requiring businesses either to provide insurance or contribute to a public fund for the uninsured. He would also create a public nonprofit plan for the uninsured to compete with the private plans. And under President Obama’s plan, covering children would be mandatory.

Many of us—including Paul Krugman—are justifiably angry about Senator Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s health care plan. Although Prof. Krugman may well be right when he argued that Senator Obama undermined the chances for reform when he attacked Senator Clinton’s—and Senator Edwards’s—health care plan, is the most appropriate response for those of us who embraced her health care plan to turn to the man who supported President Bush’s veto of the legislation to expand health coverage to poor, uninsured children?

My view on this issue is guided by Senator Clinton who best articulated her position in South Carolina in January:

I think that the whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I've been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I'm not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

Hillary will do whatever it takes. Will you be there with her?

Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH?

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Beware, all progressives! There are wolves in sheeps' clothing among us. They claim to be Hillary Clinton supporters, but they're really not as of now. They claim to be standing up against sexism, but they're really not. And they claim to be standing up for voters' rights, but they're really not.

So who are these tricksters that we should watch out for?

I got an email this morning from "JustSayNoDeal.com". They claim to be disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, but I suspect they have a hidden agenda that Hillary herself would vehemently reject. Here, why don't you read the message I was sent?

[...] On the evening of June 8, 2008, dozens of grassroots organizations and political activists convened a conference call and formed a coalition: Just Say No Deal. Its goal? : To turn the current race on its head and remind voters that all options are on the table this November.

Just Say No Deal is an umbrella organization giving voice to over 80 grassroots organizations, blogs and millions of self- professed PUMAs (Party Unity My A_ _) intent on one mission: NOBAMA! Coalition members are pushing varying agendas and voting strategies, but the factions are united in their unwavering decision to not “fall in line” by supporting Barack Obama.

Concerned citizens have come out of the woodwork to express their distaste for and frustration with party leaders and the outcome of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal website offers those voters an array of choices to assist in their decision-making process. The coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.

OK, so they don't like Barack Obama. But hold on, aren't these people supposed to be Democrats? Don't they care about the issues that Hillary cares about?

The more I think about this, the more one question pops into my head. Really, ask yourself this. Why are they going against what Hillary herself has said?



Why would anyone who has supported Hillary now throw support to this guy? Why would Hillary's LGBT supporters help this guy who is so strongly opposed to equal rights for all? Why would Hillary's blue-collar supporters help this guy who's so virulently anti-worker and anti-middle class? Why would Hillary's women supporters help this guy who's so extremely anti-choice and anti-women? Why would any of Hillary's supporters do anything to help elect John McBush (McCain) this fall?



Let's remember some important details about Barack Obama. He's pro-worker, pro-civil rights, pro-equal rights, pro-environment, and pro-peace. Oh yes, and he has the full support of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.

So when you get any email from "Just Say No Deal" claiming to be something Hillary Clinton supporters should pay attention to, just don't. If we should say no to anything, we should really just say no deal to John McBush (McCain).

Get it? Got it. Great! :-)