Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
McCain's Odd Townhall: Woos Clintonistas By Defending "Rights Of The Unborn"
In a "virtual town hall" Saturday fn. designed specifically to boost his standing with independents and disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, John McCain did his best to project a moderate, bipartisan image - but wound up enunciating policy stances that sharply conflict with positions held by Clinton -- and by most women, and by most Democrats -- on such things as women's right to choose, gay rights, the composition of the Supreme Court, America's role in using force overseas, and even the importance of intelligence and academic success in a good President.
Instead of effectively wooing social moderates, McCain has clearly delineated some significant differences between his views and those normally considered "moderate" -- and may have given those voters who were thinking of sitting out the November election, or of crossing party lines to vote for him, some new and compelling reasons to actively oppose his election instead:
McCain on Roe v. Wade:
"Roe v. Wade, we obviously will have a disagreement. I think it was a bad decision."
McCain on abortion rights:
"[W]e have to change the culture of America. We have to convince people of our view that the rights of the unborn are as important as the rights of the born."
McCain on medically necessary late-term abortions:
"I am unalterably opposed to partial birth abortion."
McCain on the two or more Supreme Court appointments the next president is likely to make:
"I would find people along the lines of Justice Roberts."
"I wouldn't have selected Justice Ginsberg or Justice Breyer."
"I believe that interpretation of the Constitution, and only that, should be the criteria for Supreme Court justices."
McCain on gay rights and "don't ask, don't tell":
"Don't ask, don't tell: I want to rely on the advice and counsel of our military leaders. As president ... I will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to go back and review that and other policies to see whether those policies are appropriate, and I do rely on them to a large degree because they're the ones we entrust the leadership of the lives of our young men and women in our military. And I'm sure you may have a disagreement with that policy."
McCain on his own intelligence:
"You don't have to be real smart. I stood fifth from the bottom of my class at the naval academy, which shows in America anything is possible."
McCain's on what makes America great:
"We're the only country in the world that has over time sent our young Americans to shed our most precious asset -- American blood -- in defense of someone else's freedom."
I'll supplement this post later with more details, and with audio when it becomes available -- but for Clinton supporters wondering what the effects on America would be if they either voted for McCain in November or simply stayed home and allowed him to be elected, just the few quotations given above -- again, delivered in a setting designed to woo social moderates, not extreme conservatives -- may be a powerful indication of how deeply reactionary a McCain administration is likely to be.
I tend to think that the DNC talking point that McCain would be "a third Bush term" is oversimplistic. On the other hand, in just one public appearance McCain has announced that he is pro-life, anti-Roe v. Wade (and other privacy rights), would appoint Supreme Court justices just like those appointed by Bush, bases his patriotism on ignorance of history (America is the ONLY country that's ever shed blood in defense of someone else's freedom?), and is dismissive of his own poor grades at a superb university that family connections got him into. If that's not "Bush III," I don't know what is.
Anyone who thinks Obama is running against the pro-choice, fiscally conservative, socially moderate John McCain that we all respected in 2000 had better check behind the house for pods, because the John McCain of 2008 is nothing like the straight-talking "maverick" we used to know. And anyone who feels estranged from the Democratic Party by the unfortunate divisiveness of the primary season should look very, very carefully at John McCain -- the current version 2.00.8, not the archived version 2.00.0 -- before indulging any shortsighted impulse to withhold their vote from the Democratic alternative next November.
fn.: Postscript: this "virtual town hall" was itself an unusual, and unusually insipid, event. It was announced in a press release last Thursday that got little publicity (though I did report it here on OffTheBus). The press release asked members of the public to sign up for the event by filling out a form on the McCain campaign website -- a form that asked them for their questions in advance; and, indeed, the questioners invited to participate only threw slow-pitch. Both before and after the event, I asked the campaign for more information about how it was organized and received no reply.
There was no mention ahead of time that there would be any live component to the event -- it was mainly conducted as a conference call, with press allowed to dial in and listen -- through as it turns out, a small audience could be heard (and, more interestingly, protesters chanting antiwar slogans, presumably outside the room, could be heard in the background as well). Those protesters are to be commended for their investigative abilities, because neither the press nor general public were told where the conference would physically be held, though it appears it was in a room at McCain campaign headquarters in Virginia.
The conference call part was plagued with technical difficulties -- the introduction given by failed Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina was cut off, and the sound quality for those of us listening on the phone was terrible. And those "independent and pro-Clinton" supporters were, almost without exception, as kind a pre-screened audience as McCain could have, one gushing that McCain had been her son's commanding officer in the 1970s and adored him, and another almost tearful over the fact that Cuba was drilling for oil just outside U.S. territorial waters.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The more this guy talks, the more out to lunch he appears to be. He seems to have forgotten, for instance, that young men from France and Poland helped the American Colonists defeat the British. Keep flapping you gums, McSame.
The "pro-life" movement is neither "pro" nor "life." It is a buzzword by a religiously inspired cause to distort reality. It does not care about life. It cares about stirring people up to oppose freedom and to help the Right Wing consolidate power through mindless wedge issues. People believe passionately that they are protecting the "unborn," but their mindless adherence to this idea is founded in nothing but rhetoric and political manipulation.
Amen to that.
I agree. How many Republicans are "pro-life" but hey, the death penalty is fine by them.
Our current POTUS is a glaring example of this. They want it both ways.
Agreed. But not only that, they also don't want to HELP with the child that they are forcing you to have once it is born...and they also don't want you to do anything to PREVENT the pregnancy in the first place! (condoms, birth control, etc.)
How can these neo cons or should I say republicans say that they are pro life when the execution rate in this country is in the top three world wide? An egg is an egg. They go around and picked and chose what they want from the bible but have no clue about the living. They have no cares about sentencing people to death. I'll never forget Bush laughing and joking about Karla Fay when he refused to commute her sentence to life. But he had no problem commuting the sentence of one of the worst serial killers on death row in Texas. Same goes for Jeb. The horrible life Eileen Wournos lived isn't a cause for mercy? She was also mentally impaired. Neither one of them were asking to be release
Hipocrocy at the most extreme. Bush ran on a platform of less goverment intruding on peoples lives. All he has done is put more goverment into MORE peoples lives.
I have had enough of his lies. I have had enough of his shredding the constitution. I have had enough of him making up the laws as he goes along.
If he were the average person, he'd be doing at least a 20 to life. When will it all stop?
And what about Pelosi? Impeachment is off the table?!?
She is either getting paid big time by lobbiests or she is just on a power trip.
When will enough be enough be enough?
The "pro-life" movement is neither "pro" nor "life." It is a buzzword by a religiously inspired cause to distort reality. It does not care about life. It cares about stirring people up to oppose freedom and to help the Right Wing consolidate power through mindless wedge issues. People believe passionately that they are protecting the "unborn," but their mindless adherence to this idea is founded in nothing but rhetoric and political manipulation.
First, fetuses are not people. They go through all the stages from multi-celled organisms to fish (with gills) and reptiles, over which the human organ - the cerebellum - is grown. The idea that they become human - with all human rights and dignities - at conception is ridiculous. If these people were truly "pro life," then they would not be so callous about those children born into poverty, abuse and disease. They would not be so quick to take many of those same children, under-educate them, and then use them as fodder in their wars of convenience and ideology.
No, I'm sorry. Abortion is really a terrible thing, but it has nothing to do with religious or political doctrine, and it needs to be a woman's choice whether to bring another child into the world, and people need all the means to avoid unwanted pregnancies they can safely acquire (meaning contraception) because, let's face it, sex is a lot more powerful and a lot more instinctive in us humans than any dogma will over come.
Hmm, why isn't this comment an, "Editor's Choice?" It's concise, comprehensive, well thought-out & fluidly written. I think it's also fair to say that it expresses the views of HuffPo's namesake.
Just my two cents...
I second that from JohnDewey.
Excellent post - you have hit the nail on the head.
Well said, and thank you for providing the correct physiological information. Many people are confused about when life actually begins. Those who choose to remain uneducated on what pro-life really means, are by default choosing to deprive women and children of their right to health. Professionally and personally, I submit it would be a mistake of such gargantuan proportion to force women to return to the days of the "wire hanger", that it would be the ruin of the health of America's women and make wretched our destiny.
"I am unalterably opposed to partial birth abortion."
And *** I *** am unalterably opposed to males who will never need a late-term abortion (to save their lives) opposing things that don't exist! (There is no such medical thing as a partial birth abortion - the term was invented by right-wingers to evoke an emotional response from the uneducated.)
Cone on you Hillary supporters! Don't screw up the country for the next 50 years just because
you didn't get your way. You have to think beyond yourselves.
I believe a woman has the right to control her own body, but that she waives that right with respect to someone she consents to having intercourse with (quite literally). If a pregnancy occurs, either party should be able to bar an abortion. Neither party should be able to unilaterally terminate the pregnancy. If the man is responsible for the child when it's born, then he's responsible for it while it's being carried, and has the right to say "no you can't kill my baby." If it's the woman's sole right to make that determination, then it should be the woman's sole responsibility to raise and support the child. Right now women get it both ways, and that is hypocritical. Responsibility without authority is not fair to men.
Men can have the "authority" to bar an abortion when and only when they face the possibility of having to have one themselves. Period.
Sorry, "possession is nine-tenths of the law" and all that. I should be consulted, but I am not the one who has to carry, feed, or any other wise nurture and protect the cluster of cells to zygote to fetus. Until it is scientifically possible to remove said potential being prior to birth and it to survive and develop normally under my care (directly or financially) it simply isn't my choice.
I made the consensual choice to donate DNA, of which I understand I will be held at least financially liable for if it carries to term. I don't want "my baby being killed" then I should be more selective bout where I deposit my sperm.
Well, bragging about being a dummy only works if people do not have a clue that there are other avenues to success besides brains and ability. Like marrying an heiress. Like doing the bidding of the rich and powerful, like cultivating connections to those in the power to "help" you become successful. McBush got his pile the old fashioned GOP way, he married it.
You don't have to be smart........ that says it all.
5th from the bottom of the class -- you don't have to be real smart..
How many idiots who's entry into college in the first place was obtained by family ties do we have to endure before we figure this out? When will we stop glorifying the mediocre artificially raised to leadership status must we endure, just so we can have a puppet in the White House. One Howdy Doody is enough. We don't need Mr. Bluster too.
Why is abortion even an issue today?
You have to use protection so you don't contract AIDS.
You can't get an abortion to get rid of AIDS.
Therefore, use condoms---and no issue.
a) people get raped
b) postpubescent children get molested
c) mentally ill people have sex
d) condoms fail
e) the line of "privacy rights" cases that McCain has said he wants to reverse started (and that includes Roe v Wade) began in 1965 with Griswold v Connecticut, where a Connecticut state law making it a crime for anyone (even married couples) to buy condoms was overturned. Supreme Court justice Wm. O. Douglas wrote that even though the Bill of Rights doesn't mention condoms specifically, it does describe a zone of privacy that's just none of the government's god damned business butting into, and that procreative choice is part of that zone of privacy.
That zone of privacy analysis is EXACTLY what everyone from Bork to Clarence Thomas and Scalia to Roberts and Alito to McCain say is "judicial activism" and want to eliminate. So: we're not talking about just losing abortion rights; we're talking about constant, state-by-state battles over whether birth control itself is illegal, who's allowed to obtain it (think "abstinence only"), etc.
Using condoms would be illegal in some places under McCain's judicial philosophy.
May I humbly add:
f) young people are disproportionately likely to have unprotected sex resulting in higher numbers of both unwanted and risky pregnancies as well as higher incidence of STDs. AIDS in America is undergoing a resurgence amongst the young, particularly young people of Colour, and any further restriction of access to abortion coupled with the ongoing lack of affordable health care is likely to be catastrophic.
Somehow, I don't quite see AIDS prevention and abortion as being the same issue....
HRC supporters planning their "protest vote" for McCain as well as down ticket races should think twice because a close election where Obama loses will likely get them blamed and preclude any other important elective national office for HRC.
She will be toast and not even have a chance in future presidential primaries.
Their web sites are shamelessly racist, sometimes sexist, religiously intolerant, brazenly fear mongering, openly lying and smearing.
They are doing more to set back women's rights and issues than any Republican in history.
"You don't have to be real smart. I stood fifth from the bottom of my class at the naval academy, which shows in America anything is possible."
Well you've had nearly 8 years of one b----y idiot - do you really want another ?
Who knows - a little glimmer of intelligence might even help someone in the position of the most powerful man/woman on earth !!
John McCain apparently is unaware that Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 because Germany had invaded Belgium, violating the treaty of neutrality.
Is it possible McCain does not know that Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 because Germany had invaded Poland?
How can McCain consider himself qualified to serve as commander-in-chief if he does not have even an outline undersanding of this history of the 20th Century?
This is America. People look up to and even adore failure and ignorance. Because then they don't look so damn bad. They can even look to the President and realise they don't have to try harder (but try doing so without a Bush-sized inheritance, lol!)...
"Four more years! Four more years!"
Essentially what McCain amounts to.
He is obviously also unaware that there are CURRENTLY British and Canadian forces fighting (and dying) in Afghanistan, and trying to rebuild that country and train their military.
As usual, American forces are the only one's who deserve any recognition.
Shameful; and this guy thinks he will be good at foreign policy? Make me laugh.
Not to mention that it took Pearl Harbor to get us involved in WWII while many people had been looking for us to get involved as early as 1939. And why is it we never get involved in the genocides in Africa? What exactly is the decision making process of when an evil power is so terrible that we need to try to stop them?
OIL
DO they have OILand can we get it?
That is the ONLY decision making policy of Republican party.
The only reason that I can think of for any of Hillary's supporters to vote for McCain, or sit out and allow him to become president is if their reason for voting had nothing to do with the issues. John McCain is against all that she stood for. It would not be a very good way to honor her, or the women's movement.
Loading comments…
Posted June 14, 2008 | 06:26 PM (EST)