McCain is Not an Option, Folks
Kristin Teigen
This primary season, it seems, has reignited some passions that have been a bit dormant in the Democratic Party for some time. For the first time in years, many of us are feeling truly excited and motivated by our candidate of choice.
Unfortunately, this loyalty has become so blinding for some that they have begun to vilify the other candidate, pledging never to vote for him or her. We’ve seen this in the comment strings here at BlueOregon and in polls around the nation. If Obama/Clinton doesn’t win, I’m voting for McCain, we hear again and again.
I’ve got to think that the folks who are saying this have perhaps forgotten or have not yet learned all there is to know about the horrors that could await us in a potential McCain administration. He seems like a nice guy after all and far more intelligent than W. His life story is compelling, he’s been in the forefront of campaign finance reform, he’s against torture, and there’s this prevalent myth that he’s even pretty good on the environment. He's a thoughtful, honest centrist, right?
It’s time to get real and look at the true John McCain.
First, the American Conservative Union, which rates lawmakers on a great number of issues, from tax cuts to judicial appointments to the minimum wage, gave McCain a lifetime rating of 82.3%, with a rating in 2006 of 92%. Hardly a moderate centrist.
On abortion rights, he has received a zero from NARAL for the past four years, voting overwhelmingly to limit a woman’s right to choose. He stated, “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.” Consider what this means for our next Supreme Court Justice.
As for his supposedly pro-environment stand, the League of Conservation Voters gave him a 2007 score of zero and just 24% over a lifetime. Considering that Obama has a lifetime score of 86% and Clinton a score of 87%, there really is no comparison. Simply put, a potential President McCain will continue the Bush Administration’s decimation of the environment.
On other issues, McCain comes across to some Democrats as a really honest guy, not someone who would abandon his core issues or try to mislead Americans in any way. One of these core issues, supposedly, was campaign finance reform. Recently, however, his campaign admitted to spending $4 million over the limit imposed when he agreed to accept public financing. So much for being a man of principle.
And finally, Iraq. Despite the fact that a recent USA Today/Gallup poll has 65% of Americans favoring an aggressive plan for withdrawal, John McCain has, of course, called for a seemingly never-ending presence in Iraq. More Americans dead. More Iraqis dead. The nightmare would continue.
Now, I’m just about committed as I could be to Barack Obama, but if Hillary does get the nomination, I will happily go off to the polls and cast my vote for her. Compared to John McCain, she’s looking mighty fine to me.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 1, '08
Good post! McCain is not an option by any means. Since 1983 he has cast 125 anti-choice votes out of 130 opportunities but has never co-sponsored or supported legislation that would help reduce the need for abortion.
Apr 1, '08
Right on Kristin. Couldn't have said it better myself!
11:47 a.m.
Apr 1, '08
McCain gets a lot of credit from the Press (because they love him and love to hang out with him) for foreign policy and defense expertise, regardless of the facts. For example: getting it wrong again.
Apr 1, '08
Until the Dems quit griping at each other and tearing themselves apart over petty items, McCain will remain an option. Only when the Dems decide to become adults will McCain start to be not as significant.
Apr 1, '08
it would sure be nice if Obama, Clinton, and their "surrogates" (gawd, I loathe that word) would broadcast this sort of info about McCain instead of all the stupid sniping at each other.
12:00 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
I was a McCainiac in 2000. Partly because the Al Gore who showed up a few years ago wasn't running, and partly because I was still in my "centrist" phase and it was clear to me that Dubya was a tool of the nutjob Right. Around 2004/05 I finally figured out that McCain is a winger with some good ideas but a winger nonetheless, and thus not an option for me today.
I don't like Hillary and never have. And I'd be lying if I said that I've not considered not voting for her if she's the nominee. But the reality is that there is one HUGE reason to suck it up and vote for her: SCOTUS nominee(s). Hillary would, IMHO, nominate potential Justices who are to the Left of anyone that McCain would nominate. And whomever that might be would most likely still be there long after she was term-limited out... impacting my life and yours.
So... I don't have to like Hillary to see a good reason to vote for her if that's what it comes down to.
Apr 1, '08
I'll vote for McCain before I'll vote for Obama so he is an option for me.
Apr 1, '08
Apart from Iraq, you didn't mention Iran. Hillary is on the same page as far as a military attack on Iran. She voted for the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution which establishes a "causus belli," a legal pretext for attacking Iran. She has said she will not meet and negotiate directly with Iran's leaders. A next and more devastating wider war with Iran is a real possibility under current policy and Hillary has adopted the same line as McCain and Bush on this issue, a definite hawk on use of military force. So I think that is a big part of the equation here and makes her not an easy vote should it come to that.
12:29 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Bill R.,
Yes, Hillary's Iran policy, as with the rest of her foreign policy stances, really, really sucks and is one of the main reasons I'm so passionate about Obama. That said, McCain would not be any better and on so many other issues, he would be far worse. She still gets my vote if she's the nominee.
Apr 1, '08
I want to comment on both Ms. Teigen and Mr. Alworth's posts today. The first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was 1968. I was in uniform, but deeply opposed to the war in Viet Nam. I realize that that may cause some cognitive dissonance for some of you, but it was and still is possible to be against a war, but not a pacifist.
I was then, and am now, a progressive Democrat. I had just witnessed the assassinations of Rev. King and Sen. Kennedy. I was angry and utterly disillusioned with my party when Hubert Humphrey received the Democratic presidential nomination.
My disillusionment led to my not voting. There were a lot of newly minted voters who did the same thing.
We ended up with Richard Milhous Nixon.
Enough said?
1:18 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
but it was and still is possible to be against a war, but not a pacifist.
Well said, Rick. It is likewise possible to be a progressive but not a pacifist.
Apr 1, '08
Is the following a joke? Did Mc Cain entertain an audience as stated, and what kind of audience might it have been? From a presidential candidate, I take a very dim view of that kind of humor. :
From the Washington Post/The Fact Checker:
"McCain caused some controversy back in April when he suggested that the Beach Boys' song, "Barbara Ann," should have new lyrics reflecting the present-day situation in the Middle East. He entertained an audience by singing the opening line:
Apr 1, '08
The "Bomb bomb Iran" routine is all over YouTube.
Apr 1, '08
It's not really Blue Oregon readers you need to worry about, it's independents, particularly those who are apolitical. They don't vote on issues, they vote on personalities. They went for Bush over Gore and Bush over Kerry -- even after Iraq had turned into a quagmire -- because, darn it, they just liked the guy.
Those folks may very well vote for McCain over Clinton or Obama. You can put out as much data as you want, but that's not going to persuade them. What will is a really well-run campaign that hits the perfect balance between "leader" and "guy/girl next door."
1:59 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
I'd like to see some data to back up your assertions, Miles. I could cite reams of polls that certainly seem to indicate that you are flat wrong, but they are your assertions and I think that the onus is on you to back them up.
Apr 1, '08
Kevin: Miles isn't so far off. I know several people who voted for Bush against Gore strictly because of Gore's abrasive personality and that they would really like to go have a beer with Bush but not Gore. I don't have facts that it affected the outcome of the election but I definitely wouldn't discount Miles' suggestion at least for the 2000 campaign.
Apr 1, '08
I'd like to see these reams of polls, Kevin. I only have anecdotal information, but I think that there are a lot of independents who see McCain as an experienced centrist. It's a sad inaccuracy on their part, but it's their reality.
Apr 1, '08
I'll vote for McCain before I'll vote for Obama so he is an option for me.
Why?
As for independents the comments above seemed based on sloppy or wishful thinking. Instead of voting for Bush or Gore in 2000 it should be obvious many independents voted third party.
2:35 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
I had this argument with my neighbor. He's a recently-minted Democrat (formerly non-affiliated) who is an ardent Obama supporter. When he said he'd vote for McCain over Clinton, citing McCain's "integrity," I lost it.
"You just had a daughter," I said, somewhat vehemently. "How could you do that to her?"
"But he has integrity," he answered.
"What integrity?" I said. "The integrity to say he won't sign his own immigration bill, that he no longer supports his campaign finance reform, that he now thinks tax cuts for the rich are cool, that the ultra right-wing evangelists are no longer 'agents of intolerance,' but are now revered campaign supporters."
"OK, well, maybe you have a point."
However, I was too vehement, and probably pissed him off.
Then there are the people who live next door to this guy. They're Clinton supporters, and they also say they're considering McCain if Obama wins.
My neighborhood is about to erupt into civil war!
From my mandated neutral perch, watching Democrats tear each other up is very, very hard. Why are these folks so polarized? This is a spirited campaign, like it should be. Both candidates are dynamic, accomplished individuals and would lead this country in a progressive direction. They both have strengths and weaknesses, but they're waaaay better than putting another conservative on the bench, staying in Iraq for 100 years, and continuing to bankrupt the country.
When I hear people say they'll vote for McCain, it sounds too much like "I don't like that you scored a goal, so I'm taking my ball home."
Time for Kumbaya.
Apr 1, '08
re Rick York on Nixon:
My memory, flawed as it is due to having lived through the '60's, is that Nixon was more "liberal" than either Obama or Clinton on many domestic issues (Chomsky calls him the "last liberal president"), and that his campaign promise was to end the war.
Hubert Humphrey was what we now would call Republican Lite, although he ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy, which is what Obama and Clinton appear to be doing with respect to McCain (see: farcfake).
Humphrey deserved to lose, and the fact that Democrats were unwilling to run a legitimate anti-war candidate resulted in Chicago 1968. Need to see it again?
re: "...it was and still is possible to be against a war, but not a pacifist."
I am not a pacifist, but I would not allow myself to be a perpetrator in an illegal and immoral war. And Kevin, it is not possible to commit crimes against humanity and to claim that you are a "progressive".
Apr 1, '08
hear hear kristin.
time and time again i post against 'suicide voters,' so-called progressives who are so blinded by their cult-of-personality candidate of choice that they vindictively swear to vote for mccain rather than obama/clinton (here at this particular site, it's about 99% obamanistas who threaten a mccain vote should hillary be our nominee (but see andy's post above as the exception). fortunately, i don't think we'll have to worry about that, though it may take a few months to all shake out.)
please, if you absolutely cannot in good conscience vote for hillary or obama, consider how detrimental a vote for mccain would be. honestly, if you can't hold your nose and vote for the dem nominee, leave the choice for president blank when your ballot comes in the mail. an honest progressive, who for whatever reason cannot vote for the democratic nominee, need not try to slit the throat of the democratic party by voting for mccain. leave it blank, vote for nader, write in kucinich or your pet turtle's name if you want. just don't betray yourself and your nation by casting a vote for john mccain.
Apr 1, '08
You raise some good points, Kristin. I'd like to mention another skeleton from McCain's past that disputes the benign centrist image his handlers and the media have cultivated, namely his support for the homophobic Oregon Citizens Alliance in the early 1990's. McCain came to Oregon to help the OCA with fundraising in 1993, and his speech to the group was published and is listed on Amazon. It's a shame that it's currently unavailable. My guess is that it's McCain in pandering mode, not McCain the Straight-Talker. Whatever McCain's exact words, he went out of his way to associate himself with a group of right wing extremists whose sole agenda was to discriminate against a specific segment of the Oregon population, and he should be held accountable for that. Even Gordon Smith wanted nothing to do with the OCA when he ran for Mark Hatfield's seat in 1996.
Apr 1, '08
It should also be noted that McCain favors privatization of social security. He is also a supporter of the Creationist agenda in schools. And he has sought out support from some pretty extremist religious guys, Chuck Hagee and Rod Parsley. Chuck Hagee wants to start WWIII by nuking Iran so that we can hasten the apocalypse and the second coming. Rod Parsley says America has a God designated mission to destroy Islam. So where did anyone get the idea McCain was a "moderate"? Bomb bomb bomb.. bomb bomb Iran.... (to the tune of Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys)
3:06 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Garret, that McCain has a following among Independents is well known. The question is what percentage of Independents back McCain strongly. I submit that it's a minority and the head-to-head polling all season long this Primary seems to bear that out. When McCain is pitted agains Clinton, the Independents are usually, but not always, fairly evenly split. When McCain is pitted against Obama in the same poll then a sizable portion of those same Independents choose Obama, giving him a solid edge in Independent support. There are polls which don't show that. But most have, from what I've looked at.
Bridget, Independents cross all ideological boundries. Many are self-proclaimed centrists. Many others are self-proclaimed progressives and many others are self-proclaimed conservatives. My cyber-friend Nancy Hanks is very progressive, for example. So too is the founder of The Centrist Coalition, oddly enough. And then of course there is the staunchly Leftist Committee for a Unified Independent Party. And look at Sal Peralta and the Independents at Oregon Independent
I don't speak for Independents, by any means. But I have been one for many years and have lots of contacts within the Independent community across the nation. As fractured as Democrats have long had a reputation for being (think "circular firing squads...), Independents are even moreso. Much moreso. And that largely because their individual reasons for being Independents are litereally all over the map. Some are disaffected, some are pissed off for any one of a myriad reasons, some flat out don't give a darn, some distrust the two-party system, the list goes on and on and on. But even so the large bulk of polling I've seen over the last several years show Independents tracking more or less in line with Democrats, albeit not quite as strongly.
Apr 1, '08
Kevin, the two points I made above are speculative, so there is no data to back them up. They're just my personal assertions.
The first is that many independents are apolitical, and they don't vote on issues so much as personality/gut feeling. Can they even poll for such a thing? (I'd love to see it: "When you vote, do you take your civic duty seriously and weigh various issues, or do you vote irresponsibly by considering questions such as 'Do I want to have a beer with this candidate?'")
The second is that many independents may vote for McCain. I agree with you that most polls to date show indies tilting towards Obama, but it's really early for those polls to have much meaning. My fear is that the race becomes this: Arrogant, inexperienced, ivy-league race-monger Obama against straight-talking, experienced, aw-shucks war-hero McCain. If that's how it gets defined, we're in a world of hurt.
6:22 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Honestly, Miles, I can't see McCain getting much traction with his "straight talk" song and dance. There are simply too many counter-examples of him sucking up to Bush since 2004.
My sense, anecdotal though it admittedly is, is that the McCain/Independent honeymoon is long since over. We will all see, of course. And a lot depends on who the Dem nominee is. But my prediction is that the media pundits who seem to think that McCain still has a strong Indie following will be eating crow come November.
Apr 1, '08
Kevin, the two points I made above are speculative, so there is no data to back them up. They're just my personal assertions.
That's one of the problems with political blogs. Too many people try to pass of personal speculation as something reliable and akin to facts.
6:46 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
voteview.com is the best source for voting data that I know.
I remain disappointed, but not particularly surprised, that McCain's "straight talk" and "maverick" image continus to resonate. The facts are that he is the 8th most conservative member in the Senate, regardless of a few carefully selected positions on campaign finance and immigration.
Apr 1, '08
Harry - not being a pacifist doesn't mean you've committed crimes against humanity (and "can't be a progressive"). That comment is absurd.
Apr 1, '08
In the unlikely event that Clinton is the nominee, she will be an outstanding President.
If Obama is the nominee, it's assured that McCain will be the President...
Apr 1, '08
Well actually all major candidates running are not options. That's because they are all members of The Council on Foreign Relations. I do not support Rockefeller, his NWO agenda, or anyone else associated with them or their ideas. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are all members of the CFR. The only candidate running that is not a member is Ron Paul. Give me liberty or give me death.
Apr 2, '08
Peter Bray wrote: "In the unlikely event that Clinton is the nominee, she will be an outstanding President. If Obama is the nominee, it's assured that McCain will be the President..."
The point being ... America is racist? America doesn't like thoughtful politicians who appeal to their better angels? America likes insane wars?
Seriously, what was the point of that post?
Apr 2, '08
That's one of the problems with political blogs. Too many people try to pass off personal speculation as something reliable and akin to facts.
Bill, if you're coming to a political blog expecting facts, you're wasting your time. Most of us come here because we want to read what other people are thinking, and share some of our own thoughts. If there's no link in the comment to a source, you'd be a fool to think it's anything but an opinion.
Apr 2, '08
McCain is no friend of the military veterans. McCain has consistently voted against legislation to expand health care and benefits to the veterans.
Apr 2, '08
Bill, if you're coming to a political blog expecting facts, you're wasting your time.
Wrong again, Miles. I believe that those of us who visit blogs with an open mind learn something to our advantage from people whose comments are based on facts. I'm sure I'm not the only one on BlueOregon who has had this experience. But perhaps this experience is limited to those of us who have matured sufficiently to realize we are no longer the know-it-alls our youthful vanity and immaturity once persuaded us to believe.
It's a pity that so many people inject so much inane drivel with their opinions based on emotions, gender, race, etc. while totally disregarding contradictory facts. This is especially true when someone is nailed on a fact but insists on going into denial and concocting another piece of fiction to try to make his or her point. Raising the quality of debate will benefit society in general and, more specifically, most observers who don't visit blogs with closed minds but are willing to learn. And maybe occasionally admitting to being wrong!!
11:12 a.m.
Apr 2, '08
The Oregonian reported this morning that Obama is specifically targeting his criticism to McCain now, rather than to Clinton, which I think is great. McCain has been getting a free ride from the press for entirely too long. It's possible that we will see that change. After all, if even Joe Klein is noticing inconsistencies . . .
Apr 2, '08
I agree with Peter Bray's post, though for none of the hysterical reasons Daniel Spiro suggests.
The reason is that by the time Obama becomes the nominee, the Republican machine will be at work hammering him as an effete, out-of-touch lightweight. This will be relentless, and it will put McCain in the White House.
Before anyone attacks me personally, I should say that I don't want this to happen. Which is a major reason why I'm encouraging people to support Hillary Clinton.
John
Apr 2, '08
The reason is that by the time Obama becomes the nominee, the Republican machine will be at work hammering him as an effete, out-of-touch lightweight. This will be relentless, and it will put McCain in the White House.
Huh? The right wingers are going to trash anyone we run. Obama is the likable guy who doesn't have a ton of experience and we may not know everything about him. Hillary is hated by Republicans and while I think she would make a fine President I personally find her pretty unlikable. Do you think the Republican machine would be any less geared up to take her on? The right wing spin machine will try to crush whomever we run.
The point is that they expected to face Hillary and now they're scrambling to figure out how they're going to hit Obama. No matter how he gets hit by Hillary now he rises above it. Why would this be any different than against the Republican machine? Your argument makes no sense. Do you not think McCain doesn't have enough ammo out there? The Christian right hates McCain. Dobson already said he wasn't going to vote for him and would encourage others to do the same.
The media and general public always latch on to the likable candidate. McCain looks like he needs to be carted around on a wheelchair and propped up when he speaks. I worry about the election if Hillary is the candidate because soccer moms hate her guts. I don't worry about the election with Obama because people just like him.
How could anyone feel confidant about Hillary with the way she's handled her primary campaign? She almost had this thing handed to her on a silver platter and she screwed it up this bad with her cavalier attitude about early contests and her sense of entitlement. How does that inspire confidance in anyone? It only shows me an example of how she might run the country and I'm a little worried about that. I don't worry about the candidate who has flawlessly run his campaign and whooped a Clinton all over the country.
Apr 2, '08
because soccer moms hate her guts
Huh?
her cavalier attitude her sense of entitlement
Perhaps this is the Chris Matthews narrative of Hillary Clinton, but I'm not buying it.
I hope you'll come to hear Sen. Clinton speak this Saturday, because it will give you a chance to hear her ideas without the msm's filter.
John
Apr 2, '08
Wrong again, Miles.
Bill B., I am perplexed as to why you're attacking me. To recap, I made a point up above where I suggested that it's not so much Democrats who will vote for McCain, it's the independents. And I suggested that the type of data Kristen cites in her post isn't likely to convince independents to vote otherwise, but a well run campaign that highlights Obama's personality might convince them.
Kevin asked me for some data to back up my point. I told him that I don't have any, since I'm speculating about what might happen in the future. He respectfully disagreed, pointing to current polls (that of course may or may not hold true in November). If you really want to know what goes on inside my head, I've been thinking ever since about whether Kevin might be right about independents, and I suspect I'll mull that for awhile and may or may not adopt his view.
Meanwhile, you come along accusing me of ruining Blue Oregon by sharing my personal speculation about the election. I cannot imagine a more boring political blog than one where we stop talking about what might happen. What gives?
Apr 2, '08
Huh? Soccer moms hate her guts. In the words of Democratic pollster Peter Hart, "she may be the consistently most polarizing political figure in the last 16 years." It's hard to win an election when half the country already dislikes you. Yes I do have poll numbers to back that up.
Perhaps this is the Chris Matthews narrative of Hillary Clinton, but I'm not buying it.
This was in reference to how she has run her campaign. She is loaning herself money because her donors are gone, she thought this would all be over after Super Tuesday and said so herself, she offered the VP ticket to Obama while she was, and still is, LOSING.
How exactly is that not showing a cavalier attitude and a sense of entitlement? I don't see herself offering herself up as a VP candidate on a joint ticket since she's losing. I haven't watched Chris Matthews in years so I could care less about his opinion.
3:41 p.m.
Apr 2, '08
FWIW, Miles... the concerns you expressed are exceptionally common. They are, IMHO, not very valid, but they are common and widespread.
Apr 2, '08
Thanks for the props, Kevin, lukewarm as they are. :)
6:30 p.m.
Apr 2, '08
That's cool, Miles. It wasn't my intention to give back-handed props. It's just that I'm a long-time Independent and very passionate about it... perhaps to a fault. Most of my frustration is with the (mis)perception of Independents rather than what you said, that you said it or anything like that. I was defending my peeps. :-)
Apr 2, '08
This is cause for concern: All eyes on Murdoch as daughter hosts fundraiser for Obama. Supporters of Obama who are already concerned about Obama becoming another puppet for special interests won't take pleasure in this news. Nor will Hillary.
Apr 2, '08
That's funny Bill...did you forget when Rupert hosted a fundraiser for Hillary way back in 2006?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/
Apr 3, '08
That's funny Bill...did you forget when Rupert hosted a fundraiser for Hillary way back in 2006?
No, I didn't forget. To the contrary I pushed the point about Rupert and Hillary on several threads. No surprise that the daughter is trying to buy (or, buying?) a piece of Obama. The Rupert clan would probably buy a piece of McCain if they thought he had a chance of winning. With more "special interests" purchasing Obama there will be less differences eventually between him and Hillary.
Apr 3, '08
With more "special interests" purchasing Obama there will be less differences eventually between him and Hillary.
Good thoughts. I don't see how the fact that she's Rupert's daughter makes her a bad person or even a special interest. She's just having a fundraiser for a candidate. Until there are complete publically funded elections I think it's very naive to think you could win a Presidential election by not taking money from special interests. I still don't see Rupert's daughter qualifying as a special interest though. Did we vilify Ronald Reagan Jr. when the DNC trotted him out to speak against Bush at the 2004 DNC convention?
Apr 3, '08
I don't see how the fact that she's Rupert's daughter makes her a bad person or even a special interest.
If I'm wrong, Garrett, please accept my apologies, but I suspect you're an Obama supporter mesmerized by his oratory and not fully in tune with how the system works. The Murdoch clan is not noted for its philanthropy. It has a reputation for only investing its money to gain more power. Daddy Murdoch invested in Hillary and like the stock market she doesn't look like such a good investment after all, so he has most likely told daughter its time to spread the family bets.
Did we vilify Ronald Reagan Jr. when the DNC trotted him out to speak against Bush at the 2004 DNC convention?
There is a very big difference between corporate figures raising campaign funds and a young man with limited power giving a free, or practically free, speech.
Apr 3, '08
DF said: "Harry - not being a pacifist doesn't mean you've committed crimes against humanity (and "can't be a progressive"). That comment is absurd."
It would have been absurd if I had said it.
What I said was: "I am not a pacifist, but I would not allow myself to be a perpetrator in an illegal and immoral war. And Kevin, it is not possible to commit crimes against humanity and to claim that you are a 'progressive'."
What I said was in response to two comments, one that suggested that it's okay to kill people as a member of the military in spite of believing that the war is wrong, and the other that implied that doing that could somehow be "progressive". If the war is wrong, then killing people is a crime against humanity, is it not?
Incidentally, I also believe that McCain is a terrible candidate, and I am amazed that so many Democrats think he's not, just as I was amazed four years ago that they thought he'd be a terrific running mate.
<hr/>