The Wrath of an American Voter

There’s a GOP e-mail smear campaign that’s been going on for months, spilling all sort of lies about Barack Obama. If you don’t like the guy, that’s one thing… but dislike him for who he actually is, not what the smear artists made up about him.

The e-mail I received today (which was not the first) provides a nice little chart breaking down the various positions of McCain and Obama… framing each one in a way designed to pander to the fearful and lying outright about most of the things in the “Obama” column, and even a couple of the things in the McCain column.

Bearing false witness is a sin, guys. Don’t bother to bring your sunscreen.

At any rate, let’s break some of these particular lies down.

ISSUE: Favors New drilling offshore US.
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

This clouds the issue, in that McCain’s position seems to be that allowing offshore drilling (but not drilling in ANWR, which he opposes but which Governor Palin supports,) will rid us of our dependence on oil from terrorist sponsor-states like Saudi Arabia.

It won’t; it’ll take several years to gear up production in either ANWR or offshore. Oil rigs do not build themselves, nor do they magically appear overnight. By the time oil from new rigs starts trickling into the market, who knows what the situation will be? Aside from that, there are millions of oil-bearing acres in the continental US which oil industries are already allowed to drill on, but the fact is that their profits are higher when importing the stuff from countries where the workers make pennies an hour, and besides, Republican-led government offers them tax breaks for doing so.

Even if the oil allegedly in these areas were to suddenly appear on the market, it would be at best a short-term solution. The supply of oil is finite, and when it runs out, it runs out. It’s important for a thousand reasons to wean our country off of this dependence before that happens, not to use it all up and then look around wondering what we’re going to do next.

Also, this characterization of Obama’s position is an outright falsehood. He has stated his openness to the idea as part of a comprehensive energy policy. Increasing domestic supplies of oil is good common sense; writing energy policy as dictated by the oil industry (bearing in mind their opposition to competition like nuclear and solar power,) is just stupid. Indeed, Obama will be far more receptive to alternate energies like nuclear power and wind energy than McCain, with his deep ties to oil industry lobbyists and his VP candidate from corrupt Alaska.

ISSUE: Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it.
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

It’s highly questionable whether McCain will nominate anti-abortion judges, which is what the whole “judges legislating from the bench” nonsense is code for. Yeah, I know that he’s saying he’ll appoint “strict constructionists,” but, and I wish well-meaning pro-lifers would catch on to this, he’s telling you that so you’ll vote for him. Just like George Bush did.

Abortion is a thorny ethical issue and the real debate has been glossed over on both sides in favor of sound-bite rhetoric. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy and until abortion foes come to grips with the fact that abortion is only a symptom of that, the Republican Party will continue to string them along. Their cause may have a better chance of making progress under Obama, whose party does not have a political interest in keeping abortion foes voting for them year after year.

ISSUE: Served in the US Armed Forces.
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

As I recall, George W. Bush didn’t serve in the armed forces either – he used his daddy’s connections to buy him a cushy seat in the National Guard, in which he served with a lack of distinction at best. Yet the smear artists who peddle this kind of thing wanted you to vote for him anyway. And they peddled the same kind of lies about decorated war hero John Kerry, when he ran for President against chickenhawk coward George W. Bush.

Make no mistake, military service is a highly positive qualification when running for office. But it’s not the only one, and if you’d vote for a man who was in the Navy but has provably bad judgement and is beholden to special interests and lobbyists over a capable thinker who’ll appoint competent people instead of cronies who pass loyalty tests, then, by all means, cast your vote for John McCain.

ISSUE: Amount of time served in the US Senate.
McCain: 22 YEARS
Obama: 173 DAYS

Obama has been in the US Senate since January 4, 2005. As of today, that’s 1,341 days. Not only are these people the lowest form of mudslinging political filth, but they can’t even do basic addition. They must have been home-schooled.

Obama actually has eleven years of experience serving in government, including his time in the Illinois state legislature. Against John McCain’s time spent in politics, that’s not so bad, especially remembering that Obama didn’t have an Admiral father and grandfather to help him with political connections or a beer heiress wife to finance a US Senate run.

Oh, and John McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years, not 22. Even if you assume that the e-mail is just out of date, the numbers don’t add up.

ISSUE: Will institute a socialized national health care plan.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

“Socialized medicine” is a bugbear used to frighten the credulous with the big red specter of Soviet Communism. You can take a look at Obama’s health care plan HERE – it turns out that it really doesn’t look much like socialized medicine at all, nor does it look particularly like Hillary Clinton’s 1993 plan, which even her supporters now admit was probably a bad one. Nor will it implement any of the evils which “socialized medicine” is doomed to visit upon us, like not being able to see your choice of doctor.

ISSUE: Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Neither candidate is going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. Neither candidate is going to leave them there indefinitely. Both are going to abide by the agreement reached by the Bush Administration and the Iragi government to have troops there until 2011. Obama’s just the only one telling you the truth about it. Obama has – not once – called for immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq; he has very deliberately been saying things like “we need to start bringing the troops home.” He has repeatedly called for responsible withdrawal, which pretty much means cleaning up the mess we made there before we leave. McCain will do the same thing, but can’t say it that way because he’s backed himself into a corner on the issue with belligerent rhetoric – if he admits that he intends to stick to that withdrawal plan, or indeed says anything varying from the “we’ll be there until we are victorious” line, he’ll look like he caved, and that will doom a presidential campaign based entirely around him being a tough guy.

ISSUE: Supports gun ownership rights.
McCain: Yes
Obama: No

Obama has repeatedly and clearly expressed his support for gun ownership rights and acknowledged the authority of the Second Amendment. I’m not sure it gets any clearer than that. He has also said he wants to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but the two things are not incompatible… if you’re not a criminal, what are you worried about?

ISSUE: Supports homosexual marriages.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Well, no again. Both candidates oppose gay marriage. And both support legal rights for gay couples, such as the right to visit a loved one in the hospital. Their positions are framed differently, but they’re basically exactly the same.

I am forced to provide another unpleasant reminder to anti-gay McCain supporters. McCain dispatched Steve Schmidt on Thursday, September 4 to a luncheon held by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group. He said there, in part, “I admire your group and your organization, and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come.”

McCain is not an anti-gay crusader. Maybe that’s why Sarah Palin supporters are calling for his assassination should he become president.

ISSUE: Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

What programs has McCain proposed, exactly? Obama has provided a lot of details on his proposed policies, but McCain has so far given us nothing but empty rhetoric about change, even though every detail he has provided look like continuations of Bush policies. His acceptance speech certainly didn’t detail any policy proposals; Obama’s did.

Obama has said he’s going to pay for his by raising taxes on those making over $250K per year, by closing tax loopholes for wealthy corporations and the rich, and cutting pork from the budget. I have my doubts that this’ll work given typical Congressional malfeasance, but at least he has some kind of plan. And he seems to place a high priority – as did Bill Clinton – on producing a balanced budget if nothing else. If we can get that, it’s a big step in the right direction.

ISSUE: Voted against making English the official language.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Not really true, and misleading at best. See, what Obama actually voted against on May 25, 2006 was an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. You know, the “Amnesty Bill.” Multiple amendments to the tune of “English as the official language,” were voted upon; Obama voted against one of them, but not against the others.

And let us not forget that the whole bill was strongly backed by John McCain.

ISSUE: Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals.
McCain: No
Obama: Yes

Not only has no motion arisen in the US Senate which would give illegal immigrants Social Security benefits in Obama’s four years there, no such suggestion has been fielded in McCain’s 26. Simply put, absolutely nobody in government has suggested that illegals should get Social Security benefits. Both candidates would be opposed to it if asked, and they haven’t been, but I must remind McCain supporters, again, that he’s the one who wanted to make them citizens.

Now down to the misstatements on taxes, which I’m not going to quote in full. Suffice it to say that the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan economic thinktank, has determined that Obama’s new spending proposals would amount to $2.9 trillion. “Small government” John McCain’s proposed economic plan would cost the country $4.2 trillion.

INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

Bush didn’t repeal the Estate Tax. He did push through Congress a bill temporarily lowering it by a couple of percentage points, but it’s still there.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren’t high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least….New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

Obama has proposed exactly none of these. I’m anti-taxation just like everybody else who’s got a lick of sense. But offering tax breaks to the already rich and to companies that shuttle jobs overseas is just dumb. Get the tax breaks to the people who will actually spend the money and get the blood flowing in the economy. Oddly enough, this is exact