Disclaimer

Some parts of this blog may contain adult-oriented material. (It is NOT porn or erotica, but some of the content is inappropriate for children). If you are under your country's legal age to view such material or find it to be "objectionable", please leave this page now. Reader discretion is advised...but if you couldn't infer from the title that this may be an adult-oriented blog, then you shouldn't be on the Internet at all.

Everything on the Evil Slutopia blog is copyrighted by the E.S.C. and ESC Forever Media and may not be used without credit to the authors. But feel free to link to us as much as you want! For other legal information, disclaimers and FAQs visit ESCForeverMedia.com.

February 4, 2008

John McCain's Maverick Suckage

So, John McCain. Let's just get this out of the way first. The history of his military service is amazing, and the fact that he has even had such a long career in the Senate after overcoming such crazy ridiculous obstacles is incredible. We've got mixed feelings about the military and our country's wartime history, but we can respect his sacrifice and his service.

With all of that said, we don't think he would be a good president and we're going to have to go ahead and tell him to suck it. Here's why.

He's As Anti-Choice As You Want Him To Be

We've already been through this drill with Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney, so we're sure you won't be surprised to learn that John McCain is anti-choice. Let's see what our friends at NARAL Pro-Choice America have to say about Senator McCain.
Sen. John McCain served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1986 and in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to present. During his four years in the House, then-Rep. McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. Ten of these votes were anti-choice. In the Senate, Sen. McCain has cast 117 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues, 113 of which were anti-choice.

In addition to his solidly anti-choice record, Sen. McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion.

Then there are his scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice. These scores are directly based on his voting record, which, as Senator McCain will remind us a couple of paragraphs from now, is really important to look closely at since rhetoric can be misleading.

2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent
2004: 0 percent
2003: 0 percent
2002: 0 percent
2001: Because only one choice‐related vote was taken in 2001 – to confirm John Ashcroft as United States Attorney General – no numerical score was given for the year. Sen. McCain voted anti‐choice.
2000: 0 percent
1999: 0 percent
1998: 10 percent
1997: 5 percent
1996: 0 percent
1995: 0 percent
1994: No numerical scores were given this year; of the three choice‐related votes taken in 1994, Sen. McCain voted anti‐choice on all three.
1993: 5 percent
1992: 10 percent
1991: 0 percent
1990: 0 percent
1989: No numerical scores were given this year; of the two choice‐related votes taken in 1989, Sen. McCain voted anti‐choice on both.
1988: No numerical scores were given this year; of the 14 choice‐related votes taken in 1988, Sen. McCain voted anti‐choice on all 14.
1987: No numerical scores were given this year; of the two choice‐related votes taken in 1987, Sen. McCain voted anti‐choice on both.


Okay, well, this is NARAL we're talking about. Maybe they're misrepresenting or exaggerating a little bit here. So we thought we should research the voting record a little just to verify.
Sen. McCain: Could I take a moment? Back 25-years now voting record of pro-life, whether it be federal funding for abortion, or whether it be, no matter what it be, I have many, many votes and it's been consistent. And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all of those years. I may have had some other policy differences with some people in the pro-life community, but my record is clear. And I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little ... misleading.

Ponnuru: You started out your political career as a pro-lifer.

Sen. McCain: Yes, absolutely. I campaigned in the first primary for Congress in 1982 as a pro-lifer and my voting record over all of those years, and there are many, many votes that are pro-life votes that I've taken. Never once has there been a non-pro-life vote.

Oh. Thanks for saving us a bunch of research time, Senator. Also, very impressive usage of the multi-hyphenated term "non-pro-life", like he's so anti-choice that he won't even say the word choice. Take that, Huckabee!

McCain has said repeatedly during this campaign that he believes that Roe v. Wade should be repealed. Interestingly, he made a statement back in 1999 that acknowledged what might happen if it were repealed.
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
How refreshing to see an anti-choice politician actually admit that repealing Roe v. Wade could be a threat to women's health and lives, and that making abortion illegal doesn't make it automatically disappear. Of course, this moment of reflection didn't last.

Q: In 1999, you said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."

A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.

Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?

A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

So, he's replaced his belief and concern about the fact that repealing Roe v. Wade would "force" women to seek out "illegal and dangerous" abortions with "hope" that those same women will choose instead to "bring those children into life". So is he saying that the "culture" in America has totally changed, so much that American women are no longer at all interested in having the option of abortion? Or does he believe that his vague promises of 'whatever I can do to assist' will be enough to convince every unexpectedly pregnant woman that having a child is the right thing for them to do? (Or is it that he's running for president and trying hard to reassure his party's conservative base?) It's really unclear, and that's really unfortunate.

We should note that McCain breaks with many anti-choicers and supports federal funding for stem cell research. Also, the last time he ran for president he faced a question from a reporter about whether he would prevent his then 15 year old daughter from having an abortion if she became pregnant. He answered that he would discuss it privately with his wife and daughter and encourage her to have the child, but that the final decision would be up to his daughter. Of course, he later had to backpedal and spin and clarify and retract and it got all political and crazy, but still his first reaction was to say that he would talk it through with her and support her in the process of making her choice.

It seems as though McCain might be (slightly) more moderate on reproductive health issues if he felt that he could get away with it and still achieve the level of success that he wants within the Republican Party. But as the Senator said himself, his voting record matters more than anything he could say in an interview or debate or any theories that we might have about his personal beliefs, and his voting record on choice just plain sucks.

He's "Effectively" Anti-Gay

Some people consider John McCain to be less anti-gay than the other Republican presidential candidates, which doesn't mean much considering that he's running against Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. He has made some statements in the past that would seem to support this, but when pressed on it he will generally backtrack into Anti-Gay Land.

In 2004, he broke with his party and refused to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Although he said that he opposed the amendment because he felt that it was unnecessary and that gay marriage was an issue that should be decided on the state level and not because it's, you know, stupid and wrong, it still seemed like a tiny step in the right direction.

McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

He also once said that he believed that gay couples should be allowed to have private commitment ceremonies. He later clarified his position to say that this did not mean that he thought gay marriages should be legal.
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that," McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as "commitment ceremony" or "civil union." "I don't have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman." It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it's easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all.

And a few questions later: "Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."
I think it's a sad comment on the state of the Republican party that we were actually a little bit happy to hear that McCain at least thinks that gay couples should be able to have private commitment ceremonies, which seems to indicate that he doesn't think that being gay is a horrible abomination or whatever else right wingers might say. And in fact, McCain did say during a 2006 appearance on ABC's "This Week" that he did not believe homosexuality was a sin. We're not sure that candidates like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney would agree. Still, it's not saying much.

Back to the suckage. In 2006, McCain supported Arizona's Proposition 107, a ballot initiative that would have added an amendment to Arizona's constitution banning both gay marriage and civil unions. Proposition 107 was defeated, and it was the only ballot initiative of its kind to fail in the country that year.

On ABC's "This Week", George Stephanopolous asked McCain about Proposition 107 as well as his stance on gay marriage and civil unions. Maybe this will help us understand.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you believe that marriage should be reserved for between a man --

McCAIN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and a woman. You voted for an initiative in Arizona that went beyond that and actually denied any government benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships. Are you against civil unions for gay couples?

McCAIN: No, I'm not. But the -- that initiative I think was misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others. I think there was a -- I think that there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of that constitutional amendment in Arizona.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're for civil unions?

McCAIN: No. I am for ability of two -- I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into.

Well, that clears up everything.

It kinda seems like McCain may not personally have many issues with gay people. but he's decided that he'll be as anti-gay as he has to be to get the support of the right wing. Like Mitt Romney claiming that when he became governor of Massachusetts he was "effectively" pro-choice, meaning that he was against abortion personally but pledged to uphold the laws as they stood, McCain seems to be "effectively" anti-gay.

He Criticized Members Of The Christian Right After 9/11, Then Later Sought Their Support

During McCain's 2000 presidential run, he criticized George W. Bush for his association with Christian conservative leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, calling them "agents of intolerance".

McCain, campaigning earlier yesterday in in Virginia Beach, Va., accused Falwell and Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, of distorting his pro-life position on abortion and seeking to "smear the reputations of my supporters."

Robertson won Washington's Republican precinct caucuses in 1988, and his followers have emerged as a major force in GOP presidential politics.

In the harshest words yet spoken in the Republican campaign, McCain labeled Bush a "Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore." The TV evangelist, whose broadcast empire is headquartered in Virginia Beach, is a Bush supporter.

"The politics of division and slander are not our values," McCain said in Virginia. "They are corrupting influences on religion and politics and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country."

We agree that conservative leaders like Robertson are agents of intolerance and negative influences in politics, although obviously not for the same reasons that McCain does. Or did, we should say, since he's changed his tune. Fast forward to 2006 and McCain is delivering the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University, with Falwell saying “he is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups”. Apparently "healing the breech" also involved "expressing a willingness" to support a federal amendment banning gay marriage, something McCain had not previously supported.

When asked by ABC News if he thinks Falwell has changed, McCain said: "Rev. Falwell came to my office and said that he wanted to put our differences behind us. I was glad to do that." When asked if he takes back his earlier statement that Falwell was an agent of intolerance, McCain said, "I will continue to have disagreements with Rev. Falwell, and I hope that there will be areas where we can agree."

Since McCain denounced him in 2000, Falwell has said that Jews can't go to heaven unless they accept Christ, that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist and that gays and feminists bore responsibility for 9/11.

McCain said speaking at Liberty University does not mean he endorses Falwell's views. He's also speaking at liberal universities despite disagreeing with their policies that bar military recruiters. "I'm not trying to make up to anyone, either liberal or conservative or anyone else," McCain said.

But political watchers -- and even Falwell -- say McCain is trying to repair relations with the religious right to boost his chances of winning the Republican Party's nomination.

"I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances," Falwell said.


Now, is any of this particularly earth-shattering? Not really. In 2000, leaders like Falwell and Robertson were backing George W. Bush, so McCain knows well how important the Christian right can be to a Republican candidate. And I'm sure we've all heard enough about "values voters" during the last few elections to last us a lifetime. So now McCain is running again, and he wants to win this time, bad enough to go crawling back to the agents of intolerance for a little right wing sugar. (Did that sound too gay? Sorry boys.) It's politics, it's understandable. It's just so surprising from the "maverick" politician who's a straight talker and not like all those other Washington insiders. But I guess if the man who was the mayor of New York City on 9/11 can accept an endorsement from the man who agreed that liberals and gays and feminists and pro-choice people were partly to blame for our country being attacked, then John McCain can be fairly guilt-free about selling out by comparison.

He Allegedly Has An Extremely Bad Temper

Rumor has it that Senator McCain is a bit of a grumpy old man. Investor's Business Daily looked into the rumors.
John McCain claims his temper is not an issue. "I don't think I would have the support of so many of my colleagues if that were the case." Who are these supportive colleagues?

They certainly do not include Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. Over the weekend, he announced he cannot endorse his colleague for the White House and is endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney instead. "The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Perhaps Cochran can't appreciate the maverick in McCain. But the same can't be said of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a noted reformer and friend of whistle-blowers. Grassley said in a recent interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him "for a couple of years." McCain got in his face and shouted an obscenity at him.

He got in the grille of Sen. Richard Shelby — an inch away from the Alabama Republican's face — after Shelby voted against the 1989 nomination of John Tower as defense secretary. "I was madder than hell when I accosted him," McCain admits, half boasting.

"In his world, it's very difficult to have a simple policy disagreement," said American Conservative Union chairman David Keene. "Everything becomes personal. His position is right, and everyone else's is basically evil."

Lest anyone think McCain, now 71, has mellowed, he got in another altercation just last year. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, got full frontal McCain over an immigration bill, according to reports in Roll Call and the Washington Post. McCain, who supported amnesty for illegals, accused his colleague of making a "chickensh**" argument to try to sink the bill. "F*** you!" McCain shouted at Cornyn during the negotiations. "I know more about this than anyone else in the room.

"Idiot" and "liar" are among his other favorite put-downs. McCain's "finger-in-your-eye" style has alienated even allies on the Hill.
A few more stories:
In 2000, Newsweek dubbed him “Senator Hothead” for his vicious temper. Some examples of McCain lowering the level of America’s political dialogue:

– In a “heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul” last year, McCain screamed at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), “F— you!” He added, “This is chickens- - - stuff. … You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.” [5/19/07]

– In a discussion over the “fate of Vietnam MIAs,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked McCain, “Are you calling me stupid?” “No,” replied McCain, “I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

– Discussing his recent trip to Iraq on The Daily Show in April, McCain told host Jon Stewart, “I had something picked out for you, too — a little IED to put on your desk.” [4/24/07]

– After Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) criticized McCain for his comment to Stewart, McCain told ABC News, “And all I can say is, to Murtha and others, Lighten up and get a life.” [4/26/07]

– Speaking to Fox and Friends in March, McCain noted that he allows “jerks from the media” to come on board his bus, the “Straight Talk Express.” [4/28/07]

– At a GOP meeting in fall 1999, McCain “erupted” at Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and shouted, “Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.” When Domenici expressed his outrage, McCain responded, “I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]

– In September, a high school student asked McCain whether the senator was “too old to be president and too conservative to be respected.” McCain “jokingly” responded by calling the student “a little jerk” who ought to be drafted. [9/4/07]

After the dust-up between McCain and Domenici, a senator told Newsweek that he didn’t want McCain “anywhere near a trigger.”

We thought about not including this section. Then we thought about all of times over the years that we've heard comments, joking and otherwise, about how we can't possibly have a woman president because she's liable to start World War III on a bad PMS day. Well, how about a president with a serious anger management problem? It's interesting to think about what the reaction might be if some of these stories were coming out in the media about Hillary Clinton or another female Senator. Would she be considered a maverick and a straight talker...or just an unstable bitch?

He Thought It Was Funny To Refer To Hillary Clinton As "The Bitch"

We talked about this on the blog back in November, but we thought it was important to mention it again here. (And we get to quote ourselves, which is always fun.)

John McCain answering a question about Hillary Clinton at a recent campaign event, amid lots of laughter:

Dumb Bitch: How do we beat the bitch?

John McCain: That's an excellent question.

It is? Really? See, I thought it was a fucking stupid, offensive, sexist, ridiculous question. Obviously I'm not as politically savvy as that bunch of fun-loving Republicans.

As a bonus, McCain went on to claim "I respect Senator Clinton". Yeah, for sure. Just, you know, not enough to say that it might not be cool to refer to her as "the bitch". But he totally respects her.

We have to wonder how Senator McCain would have reacted if the question had been something like "how do we beat that Mormon douchebag Romney?" or "how do we beat that black asshole?" We can't really say that John McCain doesn't respect women (or Democratic women, or Democrats, or anyone who opposes him) just based on this one incident, but from our research it seems like his first reaction to a question is often the most honest one and he just 'clarifies' from there. So like we said, we have to wonder.

He Hopes For 100 Years In Iraq

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain had an exchange with a man who was questioning him about the war in Iraq and how long the United States might maintain a military presence there.
Question: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years..."

McCain: "Make it a hundred...we've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day."

McCain was later asked about this statement during an appearance on Face The Nation.

SCHIEFFER: You said at one of your town halls recently that it was OK with you if we stayed in Iraq for 100 years. I mean...

Sen. McCAIN: You know...

SCHIEFFER: That requires some explanation, I think.

Sen. McCAIN: It requires some explanation, because I had a--at a town hall meeting, we go back and forth. There was a man there who was very well informed about Iraq and firmly disagreed with me, and we had this exchange. He said, `How long do we have to stay there?' My point was, and continues to be, how long do we have to stay in Bosnia? How long do we have to stay in South Korea? How long are we going to stay in Japan? How long we going to stay in Germany? All of those, 50, 60-year period. No one complains--in fact, they contribute enormously, their presence, to stability in the world.

The point is, it's American casualties. We got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of this strategy take over more and more of the responsibilities and then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is the sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is, look, if Americans are there in a support role but they're not taking casualties, that's fine. We're in Kuwait now, as you well recall there. We had a war, we stayed in Kuwait. We didn't stay in Saudi Arabia. So it's going to be up to the relationship between the Iraqi government and the United States of America.
First, it's simply untrue to say that Americans will be fine with 1000 years in Iraq as long as there are no casualties. There are Americans who never believed we should be there in the first place, who believe that we should leave immediately or as soon as possible, who believe that we should also leave Japan and Korea and Kuwait and so on. (Not to mention the Iraqis and Japanese and Korean and Kuwaiti people who also believe that we should leave.) There's a whole spectrum of opinion on this issue. Of course the violence and the casualties (and not just the American ones) are the most critical issues, but they're not the only issues.

We can understand the argument that McCain is making, that history tells us that it's unrealistic to think that we could or would just quickly pull all of our troops out of Iraq, that we're there and we have to deal with the situation, and that it would be an entirely different story if our troops weren't suffering casualties every day. But you can say 'we have to face up to the fact that we may be there for a long time' without also essentially saying 'let's stay there forever, that would be fine, no need to rush or even think about ever leaving'. Even if you believe that we need to maintain a long-term presence, shouldn't the goal be that it's the shortest possible long-term presence? Is one million years in Iraq really something to strive for?

He's Not The Straight Talking Maverick He Claims To Be

"Yes, he's a social conservative, but his heart isn't in this stuff," one former aide told me, referring to McCain's instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. "But he has to pretend [that it is], and he's not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can't fake it well enough."

He has to pretend. Why? To get elected. To become President. To stay as powerful as possible. Otherwise, he could switch parties or become an independent or leave the Senate and go work for what he believes in from a job in the private sector or retire and hang out with his family. If he’s compromising his personal views on social issues in order to achieve his political goals, that’s fine. Well, it’s not fine, but it’s just playing the game in our screwed up political system. (And it isn’t somehow less harmful to young women or children or gay people or anyone else harmed by his policies if he’s ‘just pretending’.) If this is the case, it definitely doesn’t make him a “maverick” or a “straight talker”. It doesn’t make him special. It makes him just one more candidate who can suck it.





Wait, we almost forgot! There is one point in McCain’s favor—Ann Coulter can’t stand him. If Ann Coulter hates you, you’re probably doing something right.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I heard that Ann Coulter came out in support of Hillary Clinton. Doesn't that just make your head explode?