Hey Ladies: John McCain Values Your Potential Offspring More Than Your Actual Votes

Illustration for article titled Hey Ladies: John McCain Values Your Potential Offspring More Than Your Actual Votes

Ever since the end of the Democratic primary left some Clinton supporters less than inclined to support Barack Obama, John McCain has been wooing them by sending female surrogate Carly Fiorina around to meet with select groups of women and Clinton supporters. While Carly's careful not to besmirch McCain's stellar anti-choice record, she tends to hint that he might be willing to "compromise" on other issues, like paid maternity leave (which he voted against), equal pay (ditto) and a federal mandate to cover birth control. If that story and polls suggesting that 49 percent of women in battleground states who favor McCain are pro-choice — and almost half of them think McCain is, too — there's quite a gap between the myth of Maverick McCain and the reality of the guy who panders to the right wing and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Advertisement

I'm not really sure how McCain's record on reproductive rights could be mistaken as anything other than anti-choice. Of 130 votes on reproductive choice in his legislative career, he voted against choice 125 times. Those votes include everything from voting for and co-sponsoring the Federal Abortion Ban (which criminalizes some procedures), to voting to define a fetus as human life. He voted to deny family planning centers federal health care funds if they provide abortions with any money (not just the federal government's). He opposed letting soldiers get abortions abroad with their own money and refused to allow the government to offer its employees health insurance that even covers abortion services. He stood against bills that would penalize violent and disruptive anti-abortion protesters and in favor of global gag rules and abstinence-only education time and time again. And, really, that's just the beginning of his anti-woman legislative record. McCain is no friend to any woman who believes it is the right of women to choose (or at least be allowed to know about) abortion, and that's before we get to his stance against the Lily Ledbetter equal pay bill this year and his recent statements on Viagra and birth control coverage.

Look, ladies who are flirting with McCain: I understand that he's kind of dashing, and he plays around with that damaged-flyboy-debonair-older-man thing. It was sort of cute when he was 40, and maybe even when he was 50. But now he's an old man who doesn't even know that the former Czechoslovakia is two countries. And he's sending out his Girl Friday to tell you that while he's going to do everything in his power as President to make sure you and your daughters and their daughters can never obtain a legal abortion in this country, he'll totally think about letting you get a bill that says you should get paid the same as your male counterparts and he might think about defying everyone in his party on a federal birth control coverage mandate. And girlfriend, if you buy that, let me introduce you to a couple of Congressmen who will just swear their marriages are shams and they're totally leaving their wives after the next election.

Advertisement

I understand that times are tough and you feel like it's all Obama's fault that Hillary lost and sexism is bad and Carly's so cool when you meet her, but please, please, please just stop and think about the issues. You know, those issues you claimed were so important during the primary when you talked about Obama's "present" votes? The ones you wanted people to vote on? The ones you swore you were going to vote on when you decried how pundits and pollsters portrayed all of us as led by our emotions and empathy after New Hampshire? Yeah, please think about those, and if you just have to spitefully vote for McCain in November could you maybe stop talking about spitefully voting for McCain in November despite the issues so that people can maybe take the rest of us women voters seriously? Thanks.

Senator John McCain [NARAL]

McCain Surrogate Fiorina Meets With Clinton Supporters [Wall Street Journal]

Unmasking McCain: His Reactionary Record on Reproductive Rights [HuffPo]

John McCain [NARAL]

After Voting Against Equal Pay Legislation, McCain Claims He's 'Committed To Equal Pay For Equal Work' [Think Progress]

John McCain's Birth Control Dodge [Washington Independent]

McCain Defends Czechoslovakia, A Non-Existent Country — Again [HuffPo]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

tiredfairy
tiredfairy

@noUpside:

Because if you make more money you can, in theory, better afford the taxes because you have more to begin with. If a salary is 100K and, say, half of it goes away in taxes, you're left with 50k. That obviously sucks but most people can live on 50k a year even in a city like NYC (even with the higher cost of living). I'm talking about a one person salary here. Obviously it changes in a 2 income household. And there are generally options at those higher salaries for putting money away so that you're taxed in a lower bracket.

Now, take a 30k salary. Tax it at a lower rate, say 30%. You now have 20k. And, in NYC, that -might- be livable...for one person. If you have several roommates and budget very carefully and only eat ramen. And you probably aren't saving squat and living paycheck to paycheck.

You could, of course, move somewhere with a lower standard of living...but salaries tend to drop dramatically in those areas as well. So while it's certainly cheaper to live in the South your income tends to go down as well. Plus, many people have careers that are location specific. And if you're already not making much you generally can't afford to move.

I'm just curious what you believe taxes should be for and who should pay them and how much. I agree that I don't like how our tax system works...it's imperfect and, because we're capitalists, requires that there be the three tiers...the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy. But I think it's a little short sighted to assume that every person making a low/lower salary is doing so because they're not working as hard as someone who makes more. Or that their job is less worthwhile. Especially since we -need- people to do the jobs no one wants to do. Teachers, social workers, most "service" jobs, etc. are not high paying. But we'd be in a quite a pickle if no one did them. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, and if I've misunderstood, I apologize.

Clearly the system is broken, but I don't think the solution is less taxes for those who are making more...because it simply doesn't trickle down. It doesn't make the overall economy better, and that's important for everyone eventually. And as much as I'd like to decide where my taxes go (ie. to Education and not War) that's not how it works.

My point is that taxing based on how hard an individual works, or "deserves" to be taxed is impossible. It couldn't be implemented with millions of people and somehow individually gauging their work ethic.

And the assumption that hours worked or salary amount logically equal effort doesn't hold up either. There are different types of work. My brother is a garbage man who works far less hours than I do (and makes more, btw, with his High School diploma than I make with my Masters)...but he works hard, outside, doing physical labor. He won't be able to do that job as long as I'll be able to do mine, he's already suffered injuries I'll never have to worry about. I work more hours but it's not physical, in a field that is very hard to break into, has 4-8 years of education, and though I'll never make a top tier salary I can make far more than my brother can in the long run. I think we work equally hard but his job is more essential. Yet his is looked down on in a way mine is not. My point is just that lawyers and doctors and bankers (or editors, like me) are not more entitled to more money and less taxes than a garbage man. Some of the most important jobs pay the least. And sure, we could argue that we "choose" a career...but that's partially an illusion. Some of us can afford a choice...some can't. And some don't even get one.

Anyway, my point is not to force my opinion on you...just open up the dialog for what solutions there are. Because as I see it the trickle down strategy is catastrophically broken and not working...but at least perk up has the potential to stop the hemorraging and get us to an imperfect but better place as a whole.