LEFT OF DAYTON

WHY DO WOMEN GIVE JOHN McCAIN A ZERO???

June 10, 2008
Leave a Comment

“If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”  —John McCain

Despite his media generated image as a “maverick”, John McCain is anything but. His historical record as a legislator, while showing some slight deviation from the basic conservative Republican philosophy, has been of a social and economic right winger.

McCain’s political philosophy is fundamentally anti-choice and comes from an anti-self empowered woman perspective. It is unfortunate that some women who supported Hilary Clinton now are saying that they will vote for McCain due to her loss in the democratic primaries to Barack Obama. Ms Clinton put up a strenuous campaign advocating positions that are at the heart of progressive feminist political perspective, and for that she is to be commended. However, for any of her supporters to argue for a pro McCain candidacy is to turn their backs on all the reasons they held so important in her campaign as they related to women issues.

As Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films. creator of numerous progressive video shorts about McCain, points out…”We’re talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn’t require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women’s rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.”

McCain has consistently received a ZERO rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League]

Access the Website THE REAL JOHN McCAIN AT THIS URL>>

http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail

John McCain is no friend of feminism….

Advertisements

DON’T BOMB IRAN>>>AGIT-POP VIDEO

May 14, 2008
Leave a Comment

The All-White Elephant in the Room/By FRANK RICH

May 8, 2008
Leave a Comment

The New York Times


May 4, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The All-White Elephant in the Room

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”

Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptiveholy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.

Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.

Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.


REV HAGEE, LUNATIC McCAIN SUPPORTER, COMPARES ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO HITLER

May 5, 2008
2 Comments

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, has manged to so far escape reprisal from voters for his connections to some of the most scurrilous members of the right wing christian evangelical movement . He “made up” with Jerry Falwell, has visited and made supportive public statements about that hot bed of evangelical indoctrination other wise known as Bob Jones “University”. He has been ecstatic about the support of megachurch preachers like Ohio’s Ron Parsley, who says, speaking about Islam,

  • The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Or Pat Robertson of the “700 Club” another “much apppreciated”right wing evangelical McCain supporter/endorser::

  • “I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant on — bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world to their way of thinking.”

Link to Media Matters documentation… http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090011

But really, none of this is particularly fresh news.

But what is disturbing is how little attention continues to be paid to Senator MCain’s ongoing pandering to far right wing evangelicals.


Frank Rich, my favorite NY Times columnist, wrote about Hagee’s views this past Sunday and provided a url address to one of “pastor” Hagee’s outrageous rantings on YouTube, shown below. You have to see it to believe it. As a very lapsed Catholic I have no great fondness for the Catholic church’s positions on many issues, from gay’s to abortion…but when I viewed this video the hair on my neck literally stood up.

This guy is a complete NUT JOB, A WACKO LUNATIC FRINGER...who happens to have very large following. And John McCain refuses to disavow Hagee or any of of the other racist, homophobic, war mongering preachers, while his seemingly Teflon coated status insulates him from the same kind of media firestorm surrounding Barack Obama’s relationship with Rev Wright. Rev. Wright never had the unmitigated gall to come even close to the vitriolic and malignant statements made by Hagee in this much under viewed video. McCain desperately needs the pro-life Catholic vote, wider exposure of Hagees rantings will help to undermine that strategy.

It isn’t enough to just watch the video, that is far too passive. As offended as I??

Tell Mr McCain:

You can contact the Senator at

DC Address: The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0303
DC Phone: 202-224-2235
DC Fax: 202-228-2862
Electronic Correspondence: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?
FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
WWW Homepage: http://mccain.senate.gov/

\

This is a link to an extensive interview that the Buzzflash bloggers conducted with Cliff Schecter, the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn’t. Schecter has collected real evidence regarding McCain’s temper tantrums, his vitriol, his flip flop position changing and much much more.

Read this interview and you will want to get the book.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/107


McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: “Bring Them All Home” [FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP…]

April 29, 2008
Leave a Comment

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.

Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan — something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign — the senator offered nothing short of a categorical “no.”

  • “I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”
  • Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, .keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German…the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?”
  • McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain’s current rhetoric.

They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq — and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the “realist” camp, who believe McCain is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.

Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism the senator has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.

On the campaign trail, for example, McCain has accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of a “failure of leadership” by advocating a policy of drawing down troops. But in the MSNBC interview, McCain was arguing that U.S. “visibility” was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America’s presence – positions held by both Obama and Clinton.

Somewhere along the way, McCain’s position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was “exactly” the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself.

“Do you think that this – Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be,” Rose asked in November 2007.“Even if there are no casualties?” Rose chimed in.

“No,” said McCain. “But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.”

Then, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, the senator famously said that he wouldn’t mind seeing the U.S. in Iraq for a hundred years, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And when his political opponents used that statement against him, McCain responded by saying he was drawing an analogy to the current military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

And yet, when he was asked by Matthews in 2005, if he “would you be happy with [Iraq] being the home of a U.S. garrison” like Germany, McCain again said no.

The McCain campaign did not return a request for comment.


10 Things you should know about John McCain

April 24, 2008
Leave a Comment

FROM MOVEON.ORG:

  • John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
  • According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”2
  • His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
  • McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”4
  • The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.5
  • He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.6
  • Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”7
  • McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
  • McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”9
  • He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

SOURCES: (more…)


McCain Shows Us How to Kill an Army/By Sara Robinson

April 17, 2008
Leave a Comment

McCain Shows Us How to Kill an Army

By Sara Robinson, TomPaine.com
Posted on April 17, 2008, Printed on April 17, 2008

John McCain, who from the early 1980s worked hard to establish himself as one of the Senate’s shining champions of Vietnam veterans’ issues, completed his betrayal of the Iraq-era troops today. Brandon Friedman of vetvoice.com has the details:

Yesterday VoteVets.org delivered a petition with 30,000 signatures to the office of Sen. John McCain. Through that petition, we asked him to support Sen. Jim Webb’s new GI Bill. And less than 24 hours later, we have an answer:

“Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill …”

The reason for McCain’s refusal to support the bill is about the most disturbing rationale one could imagine. … Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

Friedman observes that McCain’s no-college-for-grunts position essentially says to the troops: “Thanks for your service and your three combat tours in five years. Now get back to work.” (more…)


Looming Threat for Dems: People Against the War Prefer McCain as President

March 12, 2008
Leave a Comment
“…But when the question is which candidate will do best handling the war, McCain wins every time….What could change the outcome is a strategy that faces up to the irrational facts. That might mean starting right now to shift the focus from war to economy. It might mean re-framing the war as an economic issue…”

AlterNet

By Ira Chernus, AlterNet
Posted on March 12, 2008, Printed on March 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79351/

We don’t know who will carry the Democrats’ banner onto the political battlefield this fall. But we do know the kind of attack the Dems will face. The McCain campaign has little in its arsenal beyond two words: “No Surrender” — no surrender anywhere, but especially in Iraq. Its strategy is merely to hurl that phrase over and over again, in every form imaginable.

Can it work, with public opinion still so firmly against the war? Frank Rich, a liberal stalwart of the New York Times op-ed page, doubts it. He claims that “the mere mention of Iraq is dangerous to Mr. McCain. … It will be a slam-dunk for Democrats to argue that it’s long past time for the Iraqis to stand up on a sensible timetable that will allow the Americans to stand down.”

But when the issue is war and peace, Democrats should be as wary as George Tenet about predicting a “slam dunk.” Frank Rich, like so many others, assumes that voters who are against the war will choose the candidate who is against the war. Ah, if only our fellow citizens were indeed so logical, how much easier it would be to forecast elections — and what a different nation this would be. (more…)


Will Clinton Spoil the Party? by Robert Reich

March 11, 2008
1 Comment

Will Clinton spoil the party?

US elections 08:

By claiming a Republican would be a better president than her
Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton is on dangerous ground

By Robert B Reich

March 10, 2008, The Guardian (UK)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robert_b_reich/2008/03/will_clinton_spoil_the_party.html

I’m thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the
country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats’
two candidates. But I’m also becoming anxious at the prospect
of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of
them entering the White House in January of 2009.

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton willing to sacrifice that
possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that
she’ll get the nomination? With her primary wins in Ohio and
Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and
Texas primaries, we had HRC’s statement that both she and
McCain have the experience to be commander-in-chief but Obama
doesn’t. This is the first time in my memory that a major
candidate in a primary has said that the other party’s
nominee would be a better president than his or her own
primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative
advertising from her campaign that both candidates had
largely managed to avoid up to this point. (more…)


Shadows On High: It’s 3 am; Fear & Ohio’s Swing Voters

March 7, 2008
Leave a Comment
Shadows On High: It’s 3 am; Fear & Ohio’s Swing Voters

[Note: I started this column on Tuesday while polls were opened. This is meant as an analysis piece and not in support of any candidate.]

It’s a dirty little secret. The thing most folks don’t understand about Midwesterners.

We whisper about those things that make us uncomfortable.

You saw no knock-down drag out discussion about race and gender politics in Ohio’s primary as you did in South Carolina. But it’s there. It may not be correct – but Midwesterners are no different in their inner psychology than southerners. We just don’t talk about it. We whisper our irrational fears and true prejudices. We talk behind closed doors – or worse – we hold the deepest darkest of unpopular thoughts under lock and key. We don’t show our fears, but we sure as hell vote them.

Fear – not change – is once again the root of Ohio’s 2008 zeitgeist. Without fear there is no hunger for change. Fear is the underlying neurosis of our inner dissatisfaction with our government, the energy which makes us crave change. Without fear, there is no neutron in the chemical reaction of political change.

Fear of terror. Fear of the cost of the War in Iraq. Fear of the bloodshed and uncertainty of radical Al Qaeda. Fear of the politicians without answers.

Like it or not, if there is a turning point in our national dialogue for change, it was in the Hillary Clinton “It’s 3 a.m. ad’’ released in Ohio on the eve of our primary election. (more…)


Next Page »

About author

61 Y/O VIET VET WORKING FROM THE LEFT OF CENTER

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds