McCain a Moderate? Not Even Close!!

The press portrays John McCain as a moderate. However, check this record.

  1. McCain has literally never shown up for any vote on the environment. This has given him a well-earned score of zero from the League of Conservation Voters and the moniker McWho from me.
  2. McCain has shown up for ? out of ? votes on a woman’s right to choose. In each of the cases where he showed up, he voted against this basic constitutional right. This has gotten him another well-earned score of zero, this time from NARAL.
  3. McCain has stated that he would keep the U.S. in Iraq for another hundred years. By this time, the U.S. would be long since bankrupt and there would be no one left alive in Iraq.
  4. McCain’s idea of health care for the U.S. is to ensure that millions have the freedom to choose to die outside of emergency rooms if they cannot afford the ever increasing entry fee. Yes. I know, somewhere in that long laundry list is a statement that we can and must provide care for everyone. However, the rest of the list is contradictory with this and there is no mention of how he intends to cover everyone. In fact, the list mostly reads as a way to make health insurance corporations richer and Medicare cover less. Coverage for all? It’s not going to happen this way. This Fox Street Journal article on the subject agrees with my assessment. He is looking to cut costs, not cover everyone. How is a $2500/yr tax cut going to help someone who is below the poverty line and not paying any taxes going to give them the $10,000/yr that a family health care plan costs? The math just doesn’t work.

This partial list of McCain’s policies demonstrates clearly that he is no moderate. In fact, he is a radical right wing nut job. He is huddled against the right wall with the rest of the neocon nut jobs in this country … and he’s reaching for a jackhammer.

Looking for a moderate? Try either of the middle of the road, right leaning candidates in this election, Clinton or Obama. Both are right of center. Both are very much mainstream.

McCain is not mainstream or moderate.

Where do I stand? I’m way over on the left and hoping that one day I might get a candidate who represents my views. Kucinich is quite good. However, without being bought by corporate America, the corporate media will never give him fair coverage. They’ll just call him “unelectable” and we the idiots will drink the Kool-Aid.

If you believe McCain is a moderate, please post some of the issues on which you believe him to be moderate here.


9 Responses to McCain a Moderate? Not Even Close!!

  1. Higghawker says:

    McCain a moderate?………………….How about McCain the hack that, if elected, will carry on the absurd Bush administration way of thinking. I’m a conservative, and McCain’s nomination baffles me? I mean a vote for this guy would be like voting Bush in for another term……………….Aahhhhhhhhhhhhh the insanity!!

    My vote will be for Ron Paul. I will at least have peace of mind that my vote was for change.

  2. Higghawker says:

    One more thing whle I’m ranting………………………the health care idea is…………well, just like everything else. A rediculous attempt to further the problem with no real fix in sight. Par for the course when it comes to these rich people trying to understand how we live.

  3. Misanthropic Scott says:


    I believe that view just makes you a conservative rather than a neocon right wing nut job.

    BTW, you do know that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, right?

    Other than that he has a pretty decent libertarian, freedom to starve view of the world. It’s not a view with which I agree. But, it is a view I can respect.

    The current repugnican platform is so self-contradictory that I could not possibly have any respect for anyone that truly believed all that it entails. A good summary of today’s repugnican party would be “Life begins at conception … and ends at birth.”

    Note: I should add that “freedom to starve” is an expression I picked up reading a lot of Heinlein in my younger days. I’m not sure if libertarian was even a term during his era. However, I am sure that he would fit today’s definition very well. So this is not intended as an insult.

  4. Higghawker says:

    Are you saying, you have more knowledge about abortion than Ron Paul? I think you know where I stand on this issue.

    Freedom to Starve, I’ll have to remember that one.

  5. Misanthropic Scott says:


    Yes. I’m saying I have more knowledge of the evils of making abortion illegal than Ron Paul and the entire religious right. I’m saying that as an atheist I am better equipped to deal with the issue on the merits of the science of the procedure and state of development of the fetus combined with statistics of human suffering. Religion does not permit questioning. Religion does not permit intelligent discourse.

    Further, under no circumstances should religion ever factor into law. Every time it does, it is a complete and utter violation of Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state.”

    Of course, I should add that if you believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, you should definitely vote for Paul. He is far better than the rest of the neocon radical right wing nut jobs of the repugnican party. If enough people do it, perhaps it will send a strong message to the powers that be.

  6. Higghawker says:

    Scott, Concerning Jefferson’s writ:

    Never mind the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even found in the Constitution! (Thomas Jefferson used the term in a private letter to reassure the Baptists that the government would not interfere in the free exercise of their religious beliefs [Jefferson, 1802]). In fact, labeling the phrase a “misguided analytical concept,” and noting “the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation,” the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist insightfully observed:

    It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years…. The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38[1985], 92,106-107, emp. added).

    Is it true that the Founding Fathers and the Constitution intended for Christianity to be kept out of the public sector? Did they desire that references to God, Christ, and the Bible be excluded from public life? Or were they, in fact, actually more concerned with preventing the government from interfering with public expressions of the Christian religion? Did they, themselves, appeal frequently to God in political and public settings? Did they (and their descendants for the first 180+ years), in fact, recognize and subscribe to the critical principle: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12)? Indeed, they did. I invite you to consider but a small portion of the massive amount of available evidence from the withered roots of America’s forgotten heritage.

    I realize as an atheist you will whole heartedly stand against this, but I oppose your beliefs. Higghawker

  7. Misanthropic Scott says:


    You are correct. The phrase does not appear in the constitution. Instead, it appears in a letter by the author of the constitution explaining his own intent when writing the constitution.

    So, it’s kind of like having a cheat sheet. Well, the author wrote (blah) what did he mean by (blah)? Oh look, here is a letter by the author explaining exactly what he meant by (blah). Well, that was nice of him to clear that up for us.

    Don’t believe me though. Check some mainstream sources rather than your religious apologetics morans. (Sorry, I’ve read a book on apologetics. The level of blatant stupidity made me ill. I gave it back to the guy that lent it to me with large lined post-it notes on every page detailing where the author was misunderstanding science. I have therefore read more than I care to on apologetics.)

    Here are a few good mainstream sources of information.

    U.S. Constitution Online
    Library of Congress

    Interestingly, unlike today’s religious nut jobs that want to make this The Democratic People’s Republic of the Christian States of America, the religious individuals of Jefferson’s time were concerned that the wrong religion might get into power and minority religions would suffer.

    You would do well to worry about this too.

    So, yes, it is a metaphor. Yes. It is not found in the constitution. However, it is also a metaphor used by Jefferson, remember Jefferson wrote the constitution, to explain what he meant when he wrote the constitution. So, it is extremely relevant. And, if you don’t watch out, the wrong religion may take over this nation and you may be worshiping the wrong god when all is said and done.

  8. Mister Fusion says:

    It has been a few years, like about almost 40, but I spent a whole semester with a course on the Writing of the Constitution. I’m writing this from memory and every time I read it over I added something.

    The issue at the time wasn’t so much religious freedom. The official religion in England was the Anglican Church but the majority of America were either separatist or dissident groups or disappointed in the English Bishops sent to govern them. Since most of the Bishops came from either nobility or the wealthy classes, the “peasant Americans” were beneath them. Ordinary people were not elevated to Bishops in those days. The same practice held in the Military and civil service as well.

    (Standard European practice was, while the oldest son would inherit the nobles title, the younger sons would be enlisted in the military, civil service, or Church in that order of preference. Almost the entire officer corp was made up of untitled nobility. Most titled military commanders were either given titles as a reward or their older brother died.)

    The Church of England was very powerful and held considerable sway over the colonial assemblies. After the Revolution, several States were in favor of retaining a State religion but with American elected Bishops. Others saw the future and ramifications of State religions. (The Europeans were a great example of State Religions) There was also the argument put forward that a State religion would mean appointments of Church officials to Senates as done with the British House of Lords.

    The one point most people today don’t understand is who led the American Revolution. It wasn’t Joe Blow, poor dirt farmer or Sally Blow, indentured scullery maid. It was the American leadership; the merchants, the landed gentry, and the traders that wanted the revolution the most. The lowest classes were ambivalent for the most part. In short, it may be best regarded as a power play between the American leaders who could not compete with England and the English leaders who wanted to retain their roles. Taxes? Shit, only those with money paid taxes. Most of the Revolutionary Armies were landless men looking to earn enough money to make a down payment of some land, most of the officers were landed gentry with little money. After the Revolution most farmers and workers found their lot less well off because now they had to pay taxes with scarce money.

    (This is also a large reason for the Second Amendment. The farmers were the ones who “donated” a few days a year in lieu of cash taxes to build / repair roads. They did the same as the militia to defray that cost as well.)

    So, the States that were for NOT retaining a State religion did it more for their own power sharing (or grab) than to put up a barrier between the Church and State. They did not want to allow others to share their power that they had no control over. As I recall though, much of the early Congress were members of the Church of England, at least in name. During the colonial era, the laws had required membership in the Church of England to hold any type of office and it was the same people who went from the Colonial Assemblies to the State Legislatures.

    That is not to say that there were no early politicians that didn’t see the big picture. Obviously there were. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Munroe were all relatively ambivalent to religion. Most though were for the advancement of their own particular area of interest. So while I agree with “the separation of church and state”, the reason it evolved is different than what most people believe. Any student though doesn’t need to look very hard to see that the very group that fomented the American Revolution and led it are still in power today and for the same reasons.

    Damn it is hard to comment on one area without mentioning how it touches or was touched by other areas. Sorry for the length.

  9. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Mr. Fusion,

    Please don’t apologize for giving a lot of good and detailed information. This is very interesting stuff. I’d never heard most of it before. One minor point though. At the very least, Jefferson was not ambivalent about religion. He actively opposed Christianity quite strongly.

    One of my favorites is this one:

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

    -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    I love the concept of a “priest-ridden people”. Personally, I have used the phrase “god-infested country”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: