• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Time To Unmask John McCain's Record

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
This is what baffles me when I watched Hillary supporters at the DNC meeting yesterday declaring they would vote for McCain. Are they stupid, ignorant, or both? Have they read so little about the candidates positions to know that McCain represents the opposite of everything that Hillary stands for, most notably the cornerstone woman's right to choose? This issue is clear cut, black and white: McCain wants to make abortion illegal, PERIOD.

John McCain

We've seen the exit polls. We've read the unequivocal quotes. Many women who are avowed Hillary Clinton supporters are declaring they won't vote for Barack Obama in the fall.

I get the anger and the disappointment. But to quote SNL's Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers: Really? You'd rather vote for John McCain, a man who has a 25-year history of voting against a woman's right to choose? A man who over the last eight years that NARAL has released a pro-choice scorecard has received a 0 percent rating (in his time in office, Obama has received a 100 percent rating)? A man whose campaign website says he believes Roe v. Wade "must be overturned"? A man who has vowed that, as president, he will be "a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement"?

Really?

In Clinton vs. Obama, the policy differences were minor (hence the overriding focus on minutiae like flag pins, Bosnian sniper fire, and the real meaning of "bitter"). In McCain vs. Obama, the differences are enormous. Staying the course in Iraq vs. ending an unnecessary and immoral war. Universal health care vs. less regulation for insurance companies. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts vs. making them permanent.

And nowhere is the difference more profound than with reproductive rights.

For anyone -- male or female -- who cares about reproductive rights, family planning, and women's health issues, the choice this fall is not even close.

And yet many voters have no idea how extreme McCain's position on these issues is.

I was in Seattle last week giving a speech at a fundrasing lunch for Votes! Washington, the political arm of Planned Parenthood in Washington State. At the event, the group's CEO Elaine Rose told me about a poll that Planned Parenthood had commissioned of women in 16 battleground states [pdf]. The results are startling:

Over half of all women in these states have no idea what McCain's positions are on reproductive health. Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

The good news is, 36 percent of pro-choice McCain supporters are less likely to vote for him after learning that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and favors making most abortions illegal. That number hits 38 percent when those voters learn that McCain has also consistently voted against expanding access to programs that reduce pregnancy and the need for abortion, consistently voted in favor of abstinence-only programs, and against legislation requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.

The poll's encouraging conclusion:

The simple arithmetic of these findings suggests that just filling in McCain's actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points.

Clearly, when it comes to this key issue, the more voters learn about McCain, the less they like him. So let me add to the educational process:

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice [pdf]. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent," proudly adding: "And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL" through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."

What's more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big judicial speech earlier this month was filled with coded buzz words that make it clear that, if given the chance, he'd replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

That's why the unmasking of John McCain is job Number One between now and November.

The only way John McCain can win is if his reactionary views on choice and women's health issues remain obscured by his faux maverick reputation and the blinding disappointment of Clinton die-hards.

There is too much at stake to let that happen.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
what kind of crazy world is this when the candidate of the right is anti-abortion? :laugh:

I ignore most of this crazy Clintonista v Obamite posturing. the campaign has been incredibly personal so far, and it's become hard to *not* take attacks on your candidate as attacks on yourself... but expect to see McCain's poll numbers plummet after Hillary's voters have some time to think about it without being attacked every day.
 

Isaiah

Senior member
May 31, 2000
453
0
0
I'm always confused when people on either "side" say they will switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win. The different between Obama Hillary is very small compared to McCain or the current administration. I've been a Hillary supporter, however I can't think of anything that would make me vote for McCain over Obama in the general election.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,360
2,961
126
Originally posted by: Isaiah
I'm always confused when people on either "side" say they will switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win. The different between Obama Hillary is very small compared to McCain or the current administration. I've been a Hillary supporter, however I can't think of anything that would make me vote for McCain over Obama in the general election.
Empty-suit

Anyway, I can't see why others are making a big stink about dragging out this nomination process. Obama and Hillary are so close on positions, it's just idiotic to say you'd vote for the real opposition just in spite. Overall, it's just a ridiculous notion that people are having. Kind of like when your team doesn't win in football, you root for the team that will beat the team that beat yours.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Supreme court appointments are the #1 reason why voting for the other party out of spite is an extreme form of political suicide this time around. Yes, we could probably survive 4 years of McCain's brand of conservative lawmaking, taking a bitter pill for the upside of campaign finance reform and reduced earmarking (maybe), but the impact of a few new conservative minded justices replacing the last remaining moderate/liberal justices would last much longer than the next 4 years. Bottom line, if the Republicans pull this one off this cycle, they'll have a de-facto victory on most of the big constitutional/rights fights that the two parties have sparred over the last half-century.

Anyone who lets that happen by becoming a "swing vote" and still calls themselves a democrat/progressive/liberal is pretty delusional.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Might as well be hidden, CSG, if his campaign can get enough people to look the other way. Remarkable what people can't see when they have their mind made up in advance.

And then there's you, playing the innocent naif when you started this thread-

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=NARAL
:roll:

What of it? I started that thread and it has nothing to do with this one. My comments here were that McCain is not "hiding" so there is no "unmasking". Do you really think I care if NARAL gives someone a "0"? Hells no, but I was curious as to why they'd skip a dedicated known quantity for the new guy besides bandwagoning. I got acceptable answers in that thread.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
I kinda think McCain has been in the public eye long enough that most anyone can look at his record without too much effort.

I'm sure there may be something in his past he isn't proud of.

Hiding his stance on political issues is rather difficult though.

Oh, wait, is he flip-flopping. ;)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,097
880
126
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!

Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Scare tactics from the left? Making a lot of hoopla out of nothing? There isn't anyone who has heard his name that didn't know McCain's stance on this issue. If the idiots want to vote for him, so be it. It is just more proof of why this country is struggling: its people have become stupid.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
21,097
880
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Scare tactics from the left? Making a lot of hoopla out of nothing? There isn't anyone who has heard his name that didn't know McCain's stance on this issue. If the idiots want to vote for him, so be it. It is just more proof of why this country is struggling: its people have become stupid.
Thats right. Because wanting to not kill a fetus is just plain stupid.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thats right. Because wanting to not kill a fetus is just plain stupid.
Wow, you really are an idiot, aren't you? I've probably posted more threads in opposition to abortion than anyone else in this entire forum. Now you take something I said completely out of context to make me look like a baby killer. :cookie: Now either go work on your reading comprehension or DIAF.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thats right. Because wanting to not kill a fetus is just plain stupid.
Wow, you really are an idiot, aren't you? I've probably posted more threads in opposition to abortion than anyone else in this entire forum. Now you take something I said completely out of context to make me look like a baby killer. :cookie: Now either go work on your reading comprehension or DIAF.
While I respect your position on this issue CW, a lot of those abortion debates where years ago on the forum.

As for the baby killer comment I would like to think you're more mature than that.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!

Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.
I never understood the fear of calling a ban on abortion what it is: forced morality. We use words like "Right to Life", "Pro Abortion". Call it what it is! What a crock of SHIT. Right to life means having control over your life. Let's call it what it is: "You do what we tell you when we tell you"!

See how easy it is to make a counter argument to a position that shouldn't be anything other than a decision made by a mother, father, their physician and anyone that they feel needs to be consulted?

I would never, ever advocate an abortion of any child but I also realize that I don't want government guiding my choices in life and or in death so I should stay off of the slope before it gets even slipperier.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,364
14,616
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!

Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.

HOGWASH. A president's views on the subject and the degree to which he's beholden to anti-choice constituencies will radically affect his judicial nominee choices, particularly wrt the SCOTUS. It will also affect what bills he will and won't sign wrt related matters, as we saw w/ Bush and stem cell research.

Don't try to piss down my leg as you attempt to tell me it's raining, and I won't call you on it, OK?
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Anyway, I can't see why others are making a big stink about dragging out this nomination process. Obama and Hillary are so close on positions, it's just idiotic to say you'd vote for the real opposition just in spite. Overall, it's just a ridiculous notion that people are having. Kind of like when your team doesn't win in football, you root for the team that will beat the team that beat yours.
I think that's a good analogy.
:thumbsup:

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!

Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.

HOGWASH. A president's views on the subject and the degree to which he's beholden to anti-choice constituencies will radically affect his judicial nominee choices, particularly wrt the SCOTUS. It will also affect what bills he will and won't sign wrt related matters, as we saw w/ Bush and stem cell research.

Don't try to piss down my leg as you attempt to tell me it's raining, and I won't call you on it, OK?
the supreme court will never overturn RvW, especially when a democratic congress would have to confirm his judges.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I never understood the fear of calling abortion what it is: abortion. We use words like "Right to Choose". "Reproductive Choice". Call it what it is! The only real difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is abortion! "Reproductive Rights"? What a crock of SHIT. Reproduction has ALREADY HAPPENED! Lets call it what it is: Termination rights!

Anyway. I dont even know why this is an issue. A presidents view on abortion has ZERO bearing on ANYTHING. It has about as much effect as what flavor of ice cream he prefers.

HOGWASH. A president's views on the subject and the degree to which he's beholden to anti-choice constituencies will radically affect his judicial nominee choices, particularly wrt the SCOTUS. It will also affect what bills he will and won't sign wrt related matters, as we saw w/ Bush and stem cell research.

Don't try to piss down my leg as you attempt to tell me it's raining, and I won't call you on it, OK?
the supreme court will never overturn RvW, especially when a democratic congress would have to confirm his judges.
Why elect a president that would veto pro-choice legislation?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: loki8481
what pro-choice bill does congress need to pass?
He's voted 125 times against such bills:

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,615
25,609
136
The problem isn't specifically Roe v. Wade (although I do not agree that the USSC would never overturn it). Cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey and others have chipped away at Roe v. Wade in significant ways. These types of rulings could certainly continue or get worse with whatever justices McCain would appoint. So... a candidate's stance on abortion very much matters.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Uhm good. I'm glad that is his stance.

I don't see the issue as a woman issue at all. I see it as a life issue. And since so many people in America are against abortion, I have a huge issue with American's tax dollars subsidizing abortion. I do not want my tax dollars paying for something I am very much morally against.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY