Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

McSexist: McCain's War on Women

By Kate Sheppard, In These Times. Posted July 24, 2008.


McCain is ignorant about pay equity, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and likes to brag about his "sexual conquests" and visits to a strip club.
Advertisement

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign and the media would have us believe that herds of disaffected women voters will be stampeding to the Republicans this year because a woman candidate won't be on the presidential ballot in November.

McCain's campaign has been making a clear play for women voters in recent weeks, hosting conference calls with Republican women and touting that his policies on national security, the economy and healthcare appeal to women voters.

But the suggestion that women -- and feminist women, at that -- will be lining up behind him is a fairytale. At least, it should be. McCain's record and policies on issues of importance to women are neither moderate nor maverick.

In The Nation, Katha Pollitt put it simply: "[T]o vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane."

But the chatter about the voting decisions of former presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) supporters continues. Much of the recent talk has focused on PUMAs (the acronym stands for "Party Unity My Ass"), a group supposedly so angry about the Democratic primary that they won't vote for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). But as blogger Amanda Marcotte reported, PUMA PAC was started by a McCain donor, according to the Federal Election Commission.

That doesn't mean there aren't angry Clinton voters. But the number of progressive or even moderate voters who would seriously consider voting for McCain is much smaller than the media would have you believe. Unfortunately, McCain's propaganda seems to be working, at least on those who aren't aware of his record on issues of concern to women voters.

A February Planned Parenthood poll of 1,205 women voters in 16 battleground states found that 50 percent of women voters don't know McCain's position on abortion, and that 49 percent of women who backed McCain were pro-choice. Forty-six percent of women supporting McCain said they'd like to see Roe v. Wade upheld -- though McCain says he supports overturning the decision. When they learned of his position on Roe, 36 percent of women who identified as both pro-choice and likely McCain voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.

These moderate, often suburban, middle-class women could be critical swing voters this election. At the time of the Planned Parenthood poll, Obama held only a 5 percentage-point margin over McCain with its swing-state demographic, 41 percent to 36 percent.

Planned Parenthood concludes that these findings suggest "that just filling in McCain's actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points."

"The only reason [McCain is] saying he's going after Clinton voters is because if he doesn't win their votes, he's not going to win this election," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. "Even though I think it's a real wash-up for him, he's got to find some more voters somewhere. That's the political math here."

On the record

One reason many pro-choice women are confused about McCain is because he has flip-flopped on the abortion issue.

In 1999, McCain said he backed Roe: "Certainly, in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

But on NBC's "Meet the Press" in May 2007, responding to a question about his statements in 1999, McCain said: "Well, it was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision."

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan says his shifting rhetoric is an attempt to "game" the electorate and confuse voters about his actual stances. "[The McCain campaign] knows full well that women in America, especially independent and pro-choice women, will not support a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade," Keenan says. "So they're still trying to make the case that he's a moderate and a maverick, when his record proves that he is neither."

The record also shows that McCain has rarely strayed outside Republican Party line on the issue of choice. He has consistently voted against measures to provide access to contraception and sex-education, and voted to approve anti-choice judges.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: choice, sexism, reproductive rights, election08, mccain, reproductive justice

Kate Sheppard is the political reporter for the online environmental magazine, Grist.org. She has also written for The American Prospect, Bitch, The Guardian and MSN.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pro-women male
Posted by: When In Doubt on Jul 24, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This man should not be in the Senate.
He certainly should not be elected president.
You will not get this information in the MSM or on industry owned TV.
Everybody,{but the wealthy} has been short changed throughout this administration, the most venal, mendacious in our history.

elect at your risk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And he called his Wife a C--t... Posted by: TJColatrella
» RE: Pro-women male Posted by: mzha
» RE: Pro-women male Posted by: OneliaG
Meow
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 24, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the article was good, allowing McCain's record to speak for itself, except the part towards the end...

His jokes and drinking stories may be crude, immature, and piggish, but are not really necessary to mention. They take away from the seriousness of the article, and continue the Fox approach of gossiping, nit-picking people's comments, and meddling in their personal lives.

Obama's a bad boy, not because he's been cowering to the right ("I don't do cowering..."), but because he apparently called one of his assistants "honey"...or whatever...

How many of us goody-goody progressives did some partying during our youth, made crude remarks about people of the opposite sex when out with the boys/girls, or called someone a cunt/dick in the heat of road rage?...That's what I thought...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Meow Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: Meow Posted by: Cybershaman
» Woof Posted by: Beck
» RE: Woof Posted by: fork
» RE: Meow Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Meow Posted by: john mont
» RE: Meow Posted by: babs
» RE: Meow Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Meow Posted by: pauldd
» RE: Meow Posted by: nbb1956
» RE: Meow Posted by: Ellen Remore
» RE: Meow Posted by: appleton14
Thanks... I needed that
Posted by: www.suekatz.com on Jul 24, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important that this article get wide circulation. I've been hoping some journalist would compile his record: thanks Kate Sheppard. Just yesterday a friend told me about meeting with an otherwise sane, progressive acquaintance who said that to punish the Democratic Party for not picking Clinton she would be voting for McCain. That would be a strange reaction to perceived sexism, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't count your chickens... Posted by: Cybershaman
McScrewup
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Jul 24, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My impression of John McCain overall is that he has no real and genuine position or opinion on any issue whatsoever, other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He looks for cues as to what to say from the people around him, or from George Bush, and he will say whatever the cues tell him. This explains the flip-flopping and also when he was asked the question about whether he supports education on contraception (he replied, "you've stumped me" because he didn't know what answer his audience expected from him). Really, McCain is a clueless puppet, similar to Dubya but not as evil. I think being president would utterly confuse John McCain, and we need another confused idiot president like we need a hole in the head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: McScrewup Posted by: Democritus
» RE: McScrewup Posted by: emmas
» RE: You know, I think you are wrong. Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: McScrewup Posted by: Dboy
» RE: McScrewup Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: McScrewup Posted by: OneliaG
The pattern is
Posted by: ArtemInox on Jul 24, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now obvious to me. Once a week, we are treated to some insane, but more often irrelevant fluff, article that supposedly deals with women's issues or feminism. His WAR on women? You've got to be fucking kidding me. McSexist. BWAHAHAHA

This article could be titled: "My Cheap Sensationalist Titles and Innuendo: How you can further waste your time and thought process on political figures and the significance you give them"

"In The Nation, Katha Pollitt put it simply: "[T]o vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane."

Rather than immediately following this up with WHY that would be the case, we get some jibberish about PUMA and a reference to some blogger. PUMA sounds like some real people with real focus, don't they? And a blogger?Wow, man, like, a blogger. Gasp.

So. Logically, it makes good sense to only focus on this guys history of back pedaling and his changing public statements in regards to womens issues and abortion. What else could possibly be relevant about a presidential candidate?

Because a politician, a presidential candidate, wouldn't ever be so full of shit as to say what he thinks makes sense at the time, no, nothing like that at all. He wouldn't count on an ignorant, misinformed voting populace, buying and eating the never ending flood of pure bullshit coming from all forms of media in reference to candidates, never.

And the last bit of the article, everything under "The personal is political". Who gives a fuck, really? The guy is clearly just another politician piece of shit, what he says about this and that in his personal life doesn't really illuminate this any further.

This article points out some important facts about this character. I dont like the fucker at all. The problem I have is with all the fluff and cheap attention getting headline, and the weak attempts to put it all in perspective. If what you have to say has some merit and is true, then it doesn't need bs like that to prop it up.

I don't understand why people find it neccesary to keep on listening, reading and talking about these guys. Why do you give them your attention and focus, what does it produce? Are you still under the delusion that the vote you cast has some power to it? How about..... regardless of who gets in, no real change is going to come about? The ruling class is not going to suddenly give a fuck if you live or die, suffer or prosper, and is not going to stop doing everything it can to make sure you have less and they have more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The pattern is Posted by: Democritus
» New to Alternet? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» It IS tiresome Posted by: Beck
The Keywords
Posted by: BlammDaddy on Jul 24, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" as the media would have you believe"

The bible thumping,drunk, lying, Nazi bastards are going to steal the election. AGAIN !
8 years of McBush....... The end of Amerikka_stan.
I'm glad I don't live there anymore......
It was a great place to live until those stupid rednecks voted themselves right into Hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A republican is a sexist pig,
Posted by: bitsfick on Jul 24, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who knew?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain is consistent
Posted by: waynep on Jul 24, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be surprised by McCain's apparent contradiction between his positions and his behavior is to totally ignore the history of this man. Of course his anti-choice voting record and beliefs would not be a factor if his daughter had needed an abortion. Just as the wealthy and connected did prior to Roe vs. Wade, it would be facilitated. Different rules for different folks. Please keep in mind that, very much like Bush, this is a man born into a very privileged family situation. He was a low achieving high school student who none-the-less received a West Point appointment over thousands of much higher qualified applicants. Can anyone deny that this was because of his father? He was an extremely poor achieving student at West Point, and was awarded with the highly sought after fighter pilot position, again jumping ahead of hundreds of seemingly much higher qualified candidates. His daddy was an admiral, remember. Yet, he has been very consistent in his opposition to affirmative action stating that he thinks we should all have a level playing field!
A promiscuous man who votes consistently for abstinence only programs and who stands adamantly in opposition to programs offering women contraception, etc.? What contradiction? We are NOT talking McCain women, are we? That would be a different story.
Those who are born into great privilege seem to take one of two life tracks. There are those who feel a tremendous pressure to demonstrate to the world that they can earn their status by working long and hard to carry their own weight. There are those who's attitude is that of course they are privileged as they are better than the rest of the common class, and or not bound by the same rules and laws as the rest of us. They do not see a contradiction between positions that they support and their personal behavior. George W Bush is the prototype of this attitude, and the parallels in McCain's life and attitude are downright eerie. If you liked Bush, you are going to love McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: McCain is consistent Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: McCain is consistent Posted by: munchkinpup
no way Jose
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 24, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO WAY this turkey is going to get elected in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no way Jose Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: no way Jose Posted by: mtatasmith
» RE: no way Jose Posted by: willymack
» RE: no way Jose Posted by: Cathyblj
» RE: no way Jose Posted by: LindaB
Can we please get past the "abortion" issue and focus on another important issue on gender?
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 24, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about this one? One of my neighbors had this going on. The man gets laid off and while his wife works, he is diagnosed with a serious health problem related to the stress he accumulated on the job he just got laid off on. So for a few months he chooses to be the housewife while his wife continues her career. Five months later as his health improves he gets another job. However, people joke and tease about his past 5 months of he and his wife having reversal roles. Isn't it sad that there are some dresses and roles that are supposed to belong to the women but if men try them out, they face hell from humiliation on being the housewife for a change to criminal charges of dressing like a woman in some cases. Let's face it. Men and women each have their freedoms and lack ofs depending on the issue. Don't let the elites divide you. The "conservatives" have no intention of giving men any more freedom than the "liberals" supposedly giving women some. Both parties are selling you out !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're right Posted by: MartianBachelor
LOL
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 24, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LMAO who cares what "McSame" does? Its not like anyone with an ounce of common sense is taking "McBush" seriously anyways.

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LOL Posted by: willymack
I didn't think it was possible,
Posted by: MamaPantz on Jul 24, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but we may have found someone more stupid than Bush! Seriously, Bush looks like a genius next to this joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid Electorate!!!
Posted by: fsuthai on Jul 24, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to believe that such a jerk, in every way, could be elected to high public office; much less be even remotely considered as qualified to become POTUS (Pres. of the U.S.A.)!
This pampered, bad-tempered, turn-coat prisoner is now just a near-senile old buffoon and would be just about the ultimate international shame of American politics if the Repugnicans somehow steal another presidency! Just shows what a low species of humanity the conservative, wealthy, greedy, power-hunger 'elite' in America really are! My country has gone crazy and I'm glad I left it shortly after the 2000 election fiasco. I've watched in horror and disbelief as conditions in America have deteriorated even worse than I expected over the past eight years.
I hope for...but don't really believe...Obama's hints at changes for the USA but his voting record is infinitely better than that of Macsexist!
Good luck, America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This asshole would have u pay for birth control pills
Posted by: cyr3n on Jul 24, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
his voting record shows..

he wants viagra supported by hmos but birth control taken off.

he wants to overturn Roe v Wade

he's completely out of touch with women!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary Clinton Posted by: 876
» RE: Hillary Clinton Posted by: babs
» RE: Hillary Clinton Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Hillary Clinton Posted by: LindaB
» RE: Hillary Clinton Posted by: 876
Why should I...
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Jul 24, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Pay for women promiscuity? I'm not asking the government to give me a voucher for GNC protein supplements. This equal pay thing: I had to tell my ex-girlfriend this "you need to open your mouth and demand what you are worth" however Liberals will just expect there employer to be "fair" If someone was willing to do a job for $9 buck an hour however I would of payed them $11, I just saved $2 bucks, great for me (wait I forgot its not a goal to turn a profit). Either way, life in the free market system is about negotiating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why should I... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: john mont
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Ahhhh... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: fork
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: Cathyblj
» Male Rights Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: emmas
» RE: Why should I... Posted by: jeandarc
John McLame is just that: LAME
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 24, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His atrocious behavior to women is aptly represented in his voting record.

Arianna Huffington did an article about it as well.

Lump in his assault on womens' reproductive rights with all of the scandals that the corporate-controlled "mainstream" media unfortunately does not report (yet), and it adds up to one sorry excuse for a man, let alone a president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

words spoken in anger
Posted by: greenman on Jul 24, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True, everyone has had their road rage moments, but going nuclear when your wife gently teases you is very troubling. A relationship built on mutual respect does not include such crude and demeaning remarks, and there's no way to trivialize it. I for one do not want a President with a hair trigger temper. And that's one of the long list of reasons i won't be voting for Mr. McCain.

Greenman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

equality is not equal
Posted by: chiefwanadubie on Jul 24, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe vs wade, has taken more innocent lives than every American war put together!!! Yet Feminists, claim it to be their God given right!!! Roe vs wade, has taken away MENS right of consent!!! The "FATHER" doesnt have a choice, if his unborn child is discarded or not, or born or not, or adopted, or not!!! Do you "NOT-SEE"??? Planned parenthood, is actually planned genocide, they do not fight to keep families together, but only to tear them apart!!! Pro-choice, is not fighting for freedom of choice in all things, like abolishing "zero" tolerance, for drugs, where is my pro-choice, to smoke a dubie??? Choice, for some, but no choice for others, is not equality!!! If the fathers have no choice, they should have no responsibility!!! Roe vs wade has all but destroyed the family unit, but just give it time, and families will be illegal, in a "BRAVE NEW WORLD"!!! WHY IS IT THAT ROE VS WADE ONLY GIVES WOMEN OWNERSHIP OF THEIR BODIES, AND IT'S CONTENTS, but men don't have the right to own their bodies, or it's contents, i.e. urine, sperm, blood, D.N.A....there nothing equal, in what the feminists call equal, except that they have become the same as male chauvinists, equally hateful and one-sided!!! McCain, is not the problem here, lobbyist are!!! Neither have my vote, because neither represent me or mine!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: maddasein
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: Mamarianne
» PREGNATUTION Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: Lauren
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: LindaB
» IT'S LEGAL FOR GIRLS TO LIE Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» Godwinned Posted by: emmas
» RE: Godwinned Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: LindaB
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: LindaB
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» WTF? Posted by: emmas
» RE: WTF? Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: WTF? Posted by: emmas
» RE: WTF? Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: WTF? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: PREGNATUTION Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» This pro-choice feminist Posted by: jackyD
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: chiefwanadubie
» chief, I'm confused..... Posted by: morticia
» RE: equality is not equal Posted by: pamcghee
Worse than Bush: War-mongering womanizer McCain's ties to fascist organizations
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 24, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
WARNING to freedom-loving Americans:

Herr McCain is a member (signatory) of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a rightwing extremist (fascist) organization formed in 1997 with the intent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and dominating the world with U.S. military power.

Prior to joining the PNAC conspiracy, McCain was president of the New Citizenship Project (NCP). Founded in 1994 by PNAC organizer William Kristol, NCP was parent to PNAC and served as its chief fundraising arm.

In 1998, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act. Drafted by PNAC, it decreed "regime change" in Iraq to be U.S. policy. To that end, the act appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid for the Iraqi National Congress (INC).

INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising in Iraq. INC was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant nicknamed “Curve Ball” whose faulty intelligence claimed that Saddam had WMDs and ties to al-Qaida. Chalabi's "intel" was used by Bush to sell the Iraq invasion to Congress.

Finally, McCain was co-chair with Sen. Joe Lieberman of the White House-based Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in 2002, CLI continued to finance Chalabi's INC with millions of taxpayer dollars until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when CLI was disbanded.

Given John McCain's firm allegiance to the core missions of PNAC, it should come as no surprise that many of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers in the senator's 2008 presidential campaign, such as the following prominent neocons:

Richard L. Armitage: PNAC signatory, former Bush 43 Deputy Secretary of State. By his own admission, Armitage was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press.

John R. Bolton: PNAC signatory, former U.S. ambassador to U.N. (Nomination to U.N. rejected by Senate, but George W. Bush put him in place on a recess appointment. Name floated for possible Secretary of State for McCain. Advocates attacking Iran.

Max Boot: PNAC signatory, columnist, McCain speech writer. Advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain's "bellicose aura" could "scare the snot out of our enemies," who "would be more afraid to mess with him" than with other then-potential presidential candidates.

Steve Forbes: PNAC founder, flat-tax fanatic

Robert Kagan: PNAC founder.

William Kristol: PNAC founder and editor of the rightwing magazine, Weekly Standard. Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Daniel McKivergan: PNAC deputy director

Randy Scheunemann: PNAC signatory, co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.

Gary Schmitt: PNAC signatory, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution "created a unitary chief executive who could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens."

James Woolsey: PNAC signatory, Director of the CIA, 1993-1995.

Robert B. Zollick: PNAC signatory, President, World Bank.

For a list of all 225 PNAC signatories, visit the nonprofit investigative website, www.FreedomCentralUSA.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This country get's what it deserves
Posted by: pauldd on Jul 24, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's frightening to me about this article is NOT what it says about Mr. McCain's positions on women's rights but what it says about the electorate.

If 49% of "moderate, often suburban, middle-class women" who support McCain are pro-choice but still vote for him then we get exactly what we deserve.

You cannot blame McCain for his confusing rhetoric nor the media for its failure to expose him. The blame lies squarely with those who are too lazy, careless or plain reckless to take the ten minutes required to determine John McCain's positions on the issues that matter to them.

Shame on you if that's all the effort you can put into deciding which candidate to back.

In a representative democracy, we get exactly what we deserve in our government.

Good luck USA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 24, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least Mc Cain was up front from the beginning.
We knew where we stood. He will further bury the country under more debt an killing of the middle class. That has been the Rep. agenda for decades. Now Obama utters words like "we cant let Iran have nuclear wepons'".......as if Bush put them right from one lying patriarchal mouth into another.I am getting to despise Obama even more that the his opponent, because he is such a wimp
putting on an air of bravado. He is a big empty phony!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ba Posted by: mtatasmith
Angry little man
Posted by: mtatasmith on Jul 24, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with thinning folicles - can't get his way so he pulls out the bully card - he is painful. Makes one wonder how many abortions he has paid for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grassroots Movement
Posted by: WorkForProgress on Jul 24, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why, as progressives, we can't afford to sit back and watch while the country is taken in the wrong direction. We have to get out and organize in the grassroots and make sure all voters, especially in swing states, get out and vote to take our country in a new direction. If you're like me, and want to get involved, go to www.workforprogress.com and apply to lead a campaign office this election year!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet Hypocrites
Posted by: DesertStone on Jul 24, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do you so called progressives question that this man is a sexist or a racist? You publish racist articles on this site then have the gall to question the character of others only to further a political agenda. What about the racism of your writers such as Gary Brecher and his slanderous and hate filled article ‘The Taliban Strikes Back’? You should clean your own house before you point so many fingers, crying racism.