Election Thursday: Maverick
Hey folks! It's Thursday, and that means two things: tomorrow's Friday, and today's the Fly's day to vent his thoughts on the election. I'm going to post an article that I wrote under self duress for my parallel writing endeavour, but first I have a couple of thoughts about recent election developments.
First off, a couple of thoughts about the Democrats and their convention in Denver. I'm obviously not a fan of the Democrat party, and most of my thoughts about their convention are negative, and unworthy of posting here - you can find negative remarks about the convention in many places online or on talk radio, so I don't need to repeat them here. The one positive item I'd like to note is that it was great to see Senator Kennedy speak. I have a lot of issues with Senator Kennedy, both in his personal life and as a politician. I think that his political positions are a colossally bad reflection of his brother's legacy, which, let's face it, is the only reason he's in office today. That having been said, I'm exceptionally happy that he's in such good health that he was able to address the conventioneers.
I don't think I've ever talked about this on the blog before, but I'm a cancer survivor. I didn't have cancer myself; my mother was diagnosed with brain cancer when I was thirteen, and we lost my grandfather to cancer when I was fourteen. The person who's diagnosed with cancer isn't the only one who survives or becomes a victim of cancer. I know how devastated my family was when my grandfather died, and how devastated we would have been had it taken my mother. As incorrect in his political philosophy and personal life as I may think Senator Kennedy is, I believe that he's sincerely trying to do his best for the United States, and he deserves credit for that. So, on that note, I wish continued good health to Senator Kennedy, and I'll get off of the cancer soap box and continue the rest of Election Thursday.
Okay, the second item I wanted to address is Senator Obama's choice of Senator Biden as his running mate. To be honest, I only know of two nice things to say about Joe Biden: he's apparently well-liked by most of his colleagues in the Senate, and he's a true story of success from modest beginnings. That having been said, he's the third-most liberal members of the Senate (Obama being numero uno), he went straight into Congress after finishing school, he never served a day in uniform, he never had a real job after college, and he's never run anything. For a candidate who's so committed to change in Washington, a rich white guy who's been in office since the Nixon Administration is a bizarre choice. To be quite honest, despite his desire to woo working class Roman Catholic voters, I'm fairly certain that Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate hinders the Democrats without affording much benefit. Oh, yeah, and Biden has a history of being a gaffe machine.
This could be entertaining.
[Late Breaking]
Of course, Uncle Bill has to get his two cents in.
Yeah, because if there are two things we remember President Clinton for, it's for A) using military force as a last resort and B) setting an outstanding example for the rest of the world.
This is late breaking, and the McCain campaign just added this video in the last few hours.
What's that? President Clinton changed his mind on something for popularity purposes? Yeah, that's credible.
[/Late Breaking]
Anyway, here's my article.
* * *
The Difference Between "Maverick" and "Moderate"
I've admired Senator John McCain for a number of years now, ever since someone I continue to profoundly respect told a story (that a concerted Google search indicates may have been apocryphal) in which McCain, fresh from his release from the Hanoi Hilton, was questioned by a reporter, something to the effect of: "What did you think about all of the reports of anti-war protestors while you were imprisoned?" The gentleman who told me the story said that then-Lieutenant Commander McCain answered, "I thought that's what we were fighting for." Whether apocryphal or not, to this day I have no doubt that whether the exchange happened or not, such an answer is in perfect harmony with the character and personal philosophy of the senior senator from Arizona. Such an answer would also be in keeping with McCain's lifelong maverick attitude.
After the 2000 election, I read Senator McCain's book, "Faith of my Fathers". However, my respect for the Arizona senator was challenged by yet another respected elder who pointed out several reasons why McCain wasn't as golden as I thought. Upon his return from Vietnam, McCain had eventually divorced the disabled wife who had waited for him throughout his captivity. He had also sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, which had resulted in perceived restrictions on First Amendment rights during elections. Several years later, there were even rumors - unfounded, but rumors nontheless - that McCain was considering jumping ship and becoming a Democrat. Facts and rumors such as these were troubling, but I managed to retain at least some respect for McCain.
While team players are valuable, and have their place, there remains a place for mavericks in American society, and in American politics. Unfortunately, Senator McCain's infamous maverick streak has led to a mistaken perception among conservative, liberal, and moderate voters. With only one notable exception (Michael Medved), every major conservative talk show host was squarely against Senator McCain during the primary season, and called him names like "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Some claimed at the time that if McCain were nominated, they might have to vote for the Democrat nominee. I even remember Sean Hannity referring to the "real conservative candidate, Mitt Romney" - as if someone's conservative credentials could be flawless when that individual had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and ushered in a massive government entitlement program while governor. While every voter, even a conservative talk show host, has the right to vote for whomever they choose, the confusion of a "maverick" with a "moderate" or even a "liberal" is both troubling and inaccurate. So, why has Senator McCain received this inaccurate press? There are a handful of examples, most of which are taken out of context.
Congressman McCain, a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, exercised his maverick streak in 1982 and opposed President Reagan's decision to send the Marines to Beirut. It was McCain's estimation that the United States had no compelling reason or interest to deploy American military forces to intervene in the Lebanese Civil War. McCain's maverick streak was right: the benefit to the Lebanese situation was negligible, and there was no temporary or lasting benefit to the United States. The deployment itself ended after the precursor to Hezbollah killed more than two hundred United States Marines with a massive car bomb, giving America little more than an anti-terrorist talking point for its trouble. In this early episode, McCain's maverick streak was right, even in opposition the most prominent conservative icon of the last century.
One of the most frequently cited examples of John McCain's centrist tendencies is his position on the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The bill was influenced in large part by the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, known by many as "McCain-Kennedy". McCain's cooperation with Senator Ted Kennedy is enough for many pundits to label McCain a liberal, despite the fact that Kennedy authored the No Child Left Behind bill that defenders of President Bush continue to champion.
The core argument of those who actually bother to debate the substance of the proposed legislation is that it was a so-called "amnesty bill". In reality, the bill combined three common sense measures: border enforcement, a guest worker program, and a path to legalization. These proposals incorporated the conservative values of encouraging both national security and international free trade. Contrary to the angry rhetoric, the so-called "path to legalization" included both punitive and compensatory measures aimed at penalizing those who had been here illegally, and bringing them in from the shadows for the purpose of documentation, accountability, and legalization. When Presidents Ford and Carter waived criminal charges against Vietnam War draft dodgers, that was amnesty. When President Reagan made a sweeping allowance for illegal aliens to stay in the United States without fear of legal reprisal, that was amnesty. When a legalization process requires admission of guilt and payment of both fines and fees, those conditions preclude the assignment of the term "amnesty".
In fact, comprehensive immigration reform provided legitimate, reasonable, practical solutions for a complex and pressing issue that continues to pose economic and security risks for the United States. Locating and shipping every last illegal immigrant out of the country is simply impossible, and a more complex and multi-pronged approach is necessary to address these intricate problems. As it stands now, little has been done to address the problem. What's more conservative: Senator McCain's proposal of a pragmatic and realistic solution to address real aspects of a complex problem? Or an unyielding demand to deliver an impossible fix that would have had the added benefit of simultaneously alienating of a growing moderate voter demographic? Like it or not, Senator McCain's disagreement with the supposedly mainstream conservative position didn't make him a moderate, it made him a realist.
Another frequently cited reason why Senator McCain is allegedly a moderate or liberal is his opposition to the famous Bush tax cuts. Because of this infamous opposition to what is seen as an overwhelming benefit to the American economy, McCain is labeled a tax raiser and a fiscal liberal. Did you know that since his election to the House of Representatives in 1982 (filling the seat of a retiring Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern conservative movement), Senator McCain has never supported a tax increase? Many cite McCain's opposition to the tax cuts, while completely ignoring his clearly stated reasoning: because they weren't coupled with cuts to federal spending. Given that one of the central tenets of conservative philosophy is limited government and fiscal responsibility, is it honest to claim that McCain is a moderate or a liberal because he pushed for spending cuts to match the tax cuts? Can anyone deny that today's troubled American economy would be in better shape if a Republican president and a Republican Congress had slashed billions of dollars of wasteful and redundant federal spending when they had the opportunity?
There are indications that Senator McCain probably wouldn't have opposed the tax cuts if his had been the deciding vote. McCain has also gone on record saying that the tax cuts worked, and that he opposes eliminating them because doing so would be a tax increase - remember, he has never voted for a tax increase. In fact, Senator McCain's fiscal policies have always been responsible and conservative. In this case, as in others, McCain's so-called "maverick streak" forced him to err on the side that was both truly conservative, and truly responsible. America's recent economic woes would seem to exonerate McCain's reservations.
Yet another incident cited by uninformed anti-McCain pundits is the infamous "Gang of Fourteen" incident, in which McCain and thirteen other senators negotiated a bi-partisan solution to a political impasse. Once again, accusations leveled at McCain are based on incomplete information. The incident in question, which happened in 2005, involved the use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to block President Bush's judicial appointments.
The Constitution affords the President the responsibility of appointing judicial nominees. The appropriate Legislative Branch check on the Executive Branch obligates the Congress to give a timely up or down vote - if one party has earned a majority in legitimate elections, they have the Constitutional authority to confirm the nominees. The action by the Democrats was contrary to the intended purpose of the filibuster. Had the Democrats won the issue entirely, America's courts would still be waiting on the justices that the Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to appoint. Had the mainstream Republican view won out entirely, the filibuster would have been eliminated altogether - the Republican majority of 2005 would have effectively hamstrung the Republican minority of 2008.
It was Senator McCain and the "Gang of Fourteen" that won what was effectively a total victory for the Republican party. The mature foresight of Senator McCain and his colleagues of both parties resulted in the retention of the filibuster for legislation, the elimination of the filibuster for the purpose of blocking judicial appointments, and the approval of such conservative justices as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Can this really be considered liberal? Or even moderate?
Conservatives need to overcome the mistaken impression that the ability to compromise and negotiate with political opponents equates to weakness or inconsistency. Particularly in an era when the Democrats enjoy a majority in both houses of Congress, compromise is the only way to get anything beneficial accomplished for the sake of the United States. Furthermore, American voters have grown tired of empty partisan bickering. The presumptive nominees of both parties arrived in those positions precisely because of this national fatigue at the polemic and stasis of the last several years. Senator Obama, though his voting record has yet to show any signs of bi-partisan cooperation, campaigned on a pledge to work with Republicans for the common good of all Americans. Senator McCain has the actual record to back this up; and in virtually every case of cooperation with political opponents, not only have his conservative values won out, but he has left Democrats praising him for his wisdom, experience, and resolve.
As Americans, we praise our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in two theaters of war for working with former terrorists of different nationalities, ethnicities, and faiths than their own - people with whom our service personnel have literally nothing in common. This cooperation with former mortal enemies is almost universally acknowledged to be both a great strength, and an excellent political and military strategy that is in America's best national interest. Why, then, do we have such difficulty acknowledging that the ability to cooperate, negotiate, and compromise with individuals whose only differences are party affiliation and overall political philosophy is a strength, and not a weakness or liability?
Did you know that Senator McCain has supported safe, clean nuclear energy for his entire political career? Or that his record is so ardently pro-life that he has a ninety-six percent disapproval rating from NARAL? Or that he has a lifetime rating of eighty-two percent from the American Conservative Union? Were you aware that Senator McCain has never inserted an earmark for his home state in any bill? Or that McCain lost the Iowa primary because he was "maverick" enough to talk straight to Iowa farmers and tell them that farm subsidies were bogus, and that he didn't support continuing to unnecessarily redistribute American tax dollars to them? McCain also has a long history of fighting corruption, even when doing so involved difficult circumstances - like launching a probe of a questionable contract that eventually sent a top Air Force officer and Boeing's CFO to prison. Do these sound like the actions of a man who lacks conservative credentials?
This doesn't mean that Senator McCain deserves a carte blanche pass. For example, McCain has voiced opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although based on the change in conditions, he now favors immediate and extensive off-shore drilling. Also, even though his position on climate change is far more conservative than the Democrat opposition, it still leaves much to be desired. However, do a mere handful of less-than-perfectly-conservative positions equate to McCain the Moderate, or McCain the Liberal?
Come November, plenty of American voters will exercise their God-given right to self determination and vote against Senator McCain's candidacy for America's highest office. If these voters truly disagree with Senator McCain on the issues, or question his character, or his military record, or his voting record in Congress, so be it - that's the essence of American democracy. However, voting against Senator McCain - or worse, not voting at all - because he's a "moderate" or a "liberal" is as juvenile and ignorant as voting against Senator Obama because he's a "secret Muslim". America's Founding Fathers established a system whereby educated and responsible citizens would periodically wield controlled political violence. That controlled political violence - voting - only works for the benefit of this great nation when it is practiced in an informed and responsible fashion.
As many legitimate and informed reasons as there are for liberals to oppose a McCain presidency, or for conservatives to oppose an Obama presidency, Americans have no good excuse for basing their electoral decisions on hokey catch-phrases, drive-by sloganeering, and baseless accusations, no matter which candidate they're leveled at. So, as you prepare to go to the polls, remember: whether you vote for Senator McCain or not, there's a difference between "maverick" and "moderate". One means "maverick", and the other means "moderate". That's why they have those names!
* * *
Alright, folks, tune in tomorrow for some lighter subjects, and have a happy Thursday!
First off, a couple of thoughts about the Democrats and their convention in Denver. I'm obviously not a fan of the Democrat party, and most of my thoughts about their convention are negative, and unworthy of posting here - you can find negative remarks about the convention in many places online or on talk radio, so I don't need to repeat them here. The one positive item I'd like to note is that it was great to see Senator Kennedy speak. I have a lot of issues with Senator Kennedy, both in his personal life and as a politician. I think that his political positions are a colossally bad reflection of his brother's legacy, which, let's face it, is the only reason he's in office today. That having been said, I'm exceptionally happy that he's in such good health that he was able to address the conventioneers.
I don't think I've ever talked about this on the blog before, but I'm a cancer survivor. I didn't have cancer myself; my mother was diagnosed with brain cancer when I was thirteen, and we lost my grandfather to cancer when I was fourteen. The person who's diagnosed with cancer isn't the only one who survives or becomes a victim of cancer. I know how devastated my family was when my grandfather died, and how devastated we would have been had it taken my mother. As incorrect in his political philosophy and personal life as I may think Senator Kennedy is, I believe that he's sincerely trying to do his best for the United States, and he deserves credit for that. So, on that note, I wish continued good health to Senator Kennedy, and I'll get off of the cancer soap box and continue the rest of Election Thursday.
Okay, the second item I wanted to address is Senator Obama's choice of Senator Biden as his running mate. To be honest, I only know of two nice things to say about Joe Biden: he's apparently well-liked by most of his colleagues in the Senate, and he's a true story of success from modest beginnings. That having been said, he's the third-most liberal members of the Senate (Obama being numero uno), he went straight into Congress after finishing school, he never served a day in uniform, he never had a real job after college, and he's never run anything. For a candidate who's so committed to change in Washington, a rich white guy who's been in office since the Nixon Administration is a bizarre choice. To be quite honest, despite his desire to woo working class Roman Catholic voters, I'm fairly certain that Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate hinders the Democrats without affording much benefit. Oh, yeah, and Biden has a history of being a gaffe machine.
This could be entertaining.
[Late Breaking]
Of course, Uncle Bill has to get his two cents in.
A President Obama will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example, than by the example of our power!
- former President Bill Clinton, 27th August 2008
Yeah, because if there are two things we remember President Clinton for, it's for A) using military force as a last resort and B) setting an outstanding example for the rest of the world.
This is late breaking, and the McCain campaign just added this video in the last few hours.
What's that? President Clinton changed his mind on something for popularity purposes? Yeah, that's credible.
[/Late Breaking]
Anyway, here's my article.
The Difference Between "Maverick" and "Moderate"
I've admired Senator John McCain for a number of years now, ever since someone I continue to profoundly respect told a story (that a concerted Google search indicates may have been apocryphal) in which McCain, fresh from his release from the Hanoi Hilton, was questioned by a reporter, something to the effect of: "What did you think about all of the reports of anti-war protestors while you were imprisoned?" The gentleman who told me the story said that then-Lieutenant Commander McCain answered, "I thought that's what we were fighting for." Whether apocryphal or not, to this day I have no doubt that whether the exchange happened or not, such an answer is in perfect harmony with the character and personal philosophy of the senior senator from Arizona. Such an answer would also be in keeping with McCain's lifelong maverick attitude.
After the 2000 election, I read Senator McCain's book, "Faith of my Fathers". However, my respect for the Arizona senator was challenged by yet another respected elder who pointed out several reasons why McCain wasn't as golden as I thought. Upon his return from Vietnam, McCain had eventually divorced the disabled wife who had waited for him throughout his captivity. He had also sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, which had resulted in perceived restrictions on First Amendment rights during elections. Several years later, there were even rumors - unfounded, but rumors nontheless - that McCain was considering jumping ship and becoming a Democrat. Facts and rumors such as these were troubling, but I managed to retain at least some respect for McCain.
While team players are valuable, and have their place, there remains a place for mavericks in American society, and in American politics. Unfortunately, Senator McCain's infamous maverick streak has led to a mistaken perception among conservative, liberal, and moderate voters. With only one notable exception (Michael Medved), every major conservative talk show host was squarely against Senator McCain during the primary season, and called him names like "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Some claimed at the time that if McCain were nominated, they might have to vote for the Democrat nominee. I even remember Sean Hannity referring to the "real conservative candidate, Mitt Romney" - as if someone's conservative credentials could be flawless when that individual had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and ushered in a massive government entitlement program while governor. While every voter, even a conservative talk show host, has the right to vote for whomever they choose, the confusion of a "maverick" with a "moderate" or even a "liberal" is both troubling and inaccurate. So, why has Senator McCain received this inaccurate press? There are a handful of examples, most of which are taken out of context.
Congressman McCain, a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, exercised his maverick streak in 1982 and opposed President Reagan's decision to send the Marines to Beirut. It was McCain's estimation that the United States had no compelling reason or interest to deploy American military forces to intervene in the Lebanese Civil War. McCain's maverick streak was right: the benefit to the Lebanese situation was negligible, and there was no temporary or lasting benefit to the United States. The deployment itself ended after the precursor to Hezbollah killed more than two hundred United States Marines with a massive car bomb, giving America little more than an anti-terrorist talking point for its trouble. In this early episode, McCain's maverick streak was right, even in opposition the most prominent conservative icon of the last century.
One of the most frequently cited examples of John McCain's centrist tendencies is his position on the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The bill was influenced in large part by the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, known by many as "McCain-Kennedy". McCain's cooperation with Senator Ted Kennedy is enough for many pundits to label McCain a liberal, despite the fact that Kennedy authored the No Child Left Behind bill that defenders of President Bush continue to champion.
The core argument of those who actually bother to debate the substance of the proposed legislation is that it was a so-called "amnesty bill". In reality, the bill combined three common sense measures: border enforcement, a guest worker program, and a path to legalization. These proposals incorporated the conservative values of encouraging both national security and international free trade. Contrary to the angry rhetoric, the so-called "path to legalization" included both punitive and compensatory measures aimed at penalizing those who had been here illegally, and bringing them in from the shadows for the purpose of documentation, accountability, and legalization. When Presidents Ford and Carter waived criminal charges against Vietnam War draft dodgers, that was amnesty. When President Reagan made a sweeping allowance for illegal aliens to stay in the United States without fear of legal reprisal, that was amnesty. When a legalization process requires admission of guilt and payment of both fines and fees, those conditions preclude the assignment of the term "amnesty".
In fact, comprehensive immigration reform provided legitimate, reasonable, practical solutions for a complex and pressing issue that continues to pose economic and security risks for the United States. Locating and shipping every last illegal immigrant out of the country is simply impossible, and a more complex and multi-pronged approach is necessary to address these intricate problems. As it stands now, little has been done to address the problem. What's more conservative: Senator McCain's proposal of a pragmatic and realistic solution to address real aspects of a complex problem? Or an unyielding demand to deliver an impossible fix that would have had the added benefit of simultaneously alienating of a growing moderate voter demographic? Like it or not, Senator McCain's disagreement with the supposedly mainstream conservative position didn't make him a moderate, it made him a realist.
Another frequently cited reason why Senator McCain is allegedly a moderate or liberal is his opposition to the famous Bush tax cuts. Because of this infamous opposition to what is seen as an overwhelming benefit to the American economy, McCain is labeled a tax raiser and a fiscal liberal. Did you know that since his election to the House of Representatives in 1982 (filling the seat of a retiring Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern conservative movement), Senator McCain has never supported a tax increase? Many cite McCain's opposition to the tax cuts, while completely ignoring his clearly stated reasoning: because they weren't coupled with cuts to federal spending. Given that one of the central tenets of conservative philosophy is limited government and fiscal responsibility, is it honest to claim that McCain is a moderate or a liberal because he pushed for spending cuts to match the tax cuts? Can anyone deny that today's troubled American economy would be in better shape if a Republican president and a Republican Congress had slashed billions of dollars of wasteful and redundant federal spending when they had the opportunity?
There are indications that Senator McCain probably wouldn't have opposed the tax cuts if his had been the deciding vote. McCain has also gone on record saying that the tax cuts worked, and that he opposes eliminating them because doing so would be a tax increase - remember, he has never voted for a tax increase. In fact, Senator McCain's fiscal policies have always been responsible and conservative. In this case, as in others, McCain's so-called "maverick streak" forced him to err on the side that was both truly conservative, and truly responsible. America's recent economic woes would seem to exonerate McCain's reservations.
Yet another incident cited by uninformed anti-McCain pundits is the infamous "Gang of Fourteen" incident, in which McCain and thirteen other senators negotiated a bi-partisan solution to a political impasse. Once again, accusations leveled at McCain are based on incomplete information. The incident in question, which happened in 2005, involved the use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to block President Bush's judicial appointments.
The Constitution affords the President the responsibility of appointing judicial nominees. The appropriate Legislative Branch check on the Executive Branch obligates the Congress to give a timely up or down vote - if one party has earned a majority in legitimate elections, they have the Constitutional authority to confirm the nominees. The action by the Democrats was contrary to the intended purpose of the filibuster. Had the Democrats won the issue entirely, America's courts would still be waiting on the justices that the Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to appoint. Had the mainstream Republican view won out entirely, the filibuster would have been eliminated altogether - the Republican majority of 2005 would have effectively hamstrung the Republican minority of 2008.
It was Senator McCain and the "Gang of Fourteen" that won what was effectively a total victory for the Republican party. The mature foresight of Senator McCain and his colleagues of both parties resulted in the retention of the filibuster for legislation, the elimination of the filibuster for the purpose of blocking judicial appointments, and the approval of such conservative justices as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Can this really be considered liberal? Or even moderate?
Conservatives need to overcome the mistaken impression that the ability to compromise and negotiate with political opponents equates to weakness or inconsistency. Particularly in an era when the Democrats enjoy a majority in both houses of Congress, compromise is the only way to get anything beneficial accomplished for the sake of the United States. Furthermore, American voters have grown tired of empty partisan bickering. The presumptive nominees of both parties arrived in those positions precisely because of this national fatigue at the polemic and stasis of the last several years. Senator Obama, though his voting record has yet to show any signs of bi-partisan cooperation, campaigned on a pledge to work with Republicans for the common good of all Americans. Senator McCain has the actual record to back this up; and in virtually every case of cooperation with political opponents, not only have his conservative values won out, but he has left Democrats praising him for his wisdom, experience, and resolve.
As Americans, we praise our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in two theaters of war for working with former terrorists of different nationalities, ethnicities, and faiths than their own - people with whom our service personnel have literally nothing in common. This cooperation with former mortal enemies is almost universally acknowledged to be both a great strength, and an excellent political and military strategy that is in America's best national interest. Why, then, do we have such difficulty acknowledging that the ability to cooperate, negotiate, and compromise with individuals whose only differences are party affiliation and overall political philosophy is a strength, and not a weakness or liability?
Did you know that Senator McCain has supported safe, clean nuclear energy for his entire political career? Or that his record is so ardently pro-life that he has a ninety-six percent disapproval rating from NARAL? Or that he has a lifetime rating of eighty-two percent from the American Conservative Union? Were you aware that Senator McCain has never inserted an earmark for his home state in any bill? Or that McCain lost the Iowa primary because he was "maverick" enough to talk straight to Iowa farmers and tell them that farm subsidies were bogus, and that he didn't support continuing to unnecessarily redistribute American tax dollars to them? McCain also has a long history of fighting corruption, even when doing so involved difficult circumstances - like launching a probe of a questionable contract that eventually sent a top Air Force officer and Boeing's CFO to prison. Do these sound like the actions of a man who lacks conservative credentials?
This doesn't mean that Senator McCain deserves a carte blanche pass. For example, McCain has voiced opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although based on the change in conditions, he now favors immediate and extensive off-shore drilling. Also, even though his position on climate change is far more conservative than the Democrat opposition, it still leaves much to be desired. However, do a mere handful of less-than-perfectly-conservative positions equate to McCain the Moderate, or McCain the Liberal?
Come November, plenty of American voters will exercise their God-given right to self determination and vote against Senator McCain's candidacy for America's highest office. If these voters truly disagree with Senator McCain on the issues, or question his character, or his military record, or his voting record in Congress, so be it - that's the essence of American democracy. However, voting against Senator McCain - or worse, not voting at all - because he's a "moderate" or a "liberal" is as juvenile and ignorant as voting against Senator Obama because he's a "secret Muslim". America's Founding Fathers established a system whereby educated and responsible citizens would periodically wield controlled political violence. That controlled political violence - voting - only works for the benefit of this great nation when it is practiced in an informed and responsible fashion.
As many legitimate and informed reasons as there are for liberals to oppose a McCain presidency, or for conservatives to oppose an Obama presidency, Americans have no good excuse for basing their electoral decisions on hokey catch-phrases, drive-by sloganeering, and baseless accusations, no matter which candidate they're leveled at. So, as you prepare to go to the polls, remember: whether you vote for Senator McCain or not, there's a difference between "maverick" and "moderate". One means "maverick", and the other means "moderate". That's why they have those names!
Alright, folks, tune in tomorrow for some lighter subjects, and have a happy Thursday!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home