  
|
| |||||||
|
"Scam" ads the norm Trail Mix: Hillary haters spam cyberspace Gunning for the center Democrats make Hillary legit The blundering pundit Don Giuliani Campaign video: |
The case against John McCain
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Feb. 12, 2000 | SAN FRANCISCO -- Of course, McCain and I are no love connection, either. My presidential personal ad would read: Divorced white female voter; mom, nonsmoker and lifelong Democrat (with a few conservative kinks), seeks good man or woman. Pro-choice, pro-gun control, into public education and the environment, likes long walks through civil rights museums and politicians who know what the meaning of "is" is. And though McCain only scores on the last count -- he's compulsively honest, fessing up unasked to cheating on his first wife -- I was, for a moment, ready to give him my vote. And I'm not alone. Across the nation, Democrats and independents are falling for the war hero turned senator.
He's certainly won the hearts of the constituency most pilloried as liberal, the media. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter calls the race for reporters' affection "the nation's first primary," and says McCain worked it like an Irish pol in South Boston on St. Patrick's Day. And here I was falling for McCain myself, and I'd never even met this political heartthrob in person. It was time for some bracing re-education, in the form of a walk through his voting record and actual positions, to try to answer the question: Can a liberal really vote for John McCain? But first, a soapbox moment: There are two excellent reasons to switch sides and vote for McCain, at least in California. My burning desire to register Republican came as much from my hatred of the state's party bosses as any affinity for McCain. After California voted to open its presidential primary in 1996, Democratic and Republican leaders, led by liberal machine boss State Sen. John Burton of San Francisco (another good reason to vote Republican), subverted the ballot measure and made sure pesky voters couldn't interfere with each party's process of anointing, rather than electing, its preferred nominee. So now, on March 7, Democrats can vote for Republicans in the primary, and vice versa, but when it comes to divvying up delegates, only the votes of registered Democrats and Republicans will be counted. McCain could win the popular vote, for instance, but lose to party boy Bush in the delegate count, and thus lose the state. Sounds like Cuba, not California. While New York's attempt to rig the primary got lots of ink, ours is far more sinister. Anyone who changes party registration, in whichever direction, to subvert this so-called election will be a hero. The second reason to vote for McCain is to enjoy the spectacle of the party of big money being forced to nominate a candidate who opposes big money. This is big fun. Lots of Republican bosses would rather lose with Bush than win with McCain, and I can't help wanting to be part of any movement that makes Republican titans -- like Sens. Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell -- as well as that devout Buddhist fund-raiser Al Gore squirm. Never mind that McCain's taken money from big business himself, and isn't completely clean on the issue: Nobody is, and his proposals to take money out of politics are arguably the best thing going on this election year. Yet, despite the New Republic's best efforts to say otherwise in Jonathan Chait's provocative but unconvincing McCain profile "This Man is NOT a Republican," Democrats who vote for McCain must do so with the sober awareness that they're voting for a right-winger. But most seem anything but sober. McCain's Democratic buddies are apparently guided by a hunch that's a twist on the slogan of his Arizona homeboy Barry Goldwater: In your heart, you know he's ... not really right. But they're wrong.
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
More news on 
Next page |