I sent this email to my husband's mother after she tried telling him why John McCain was the better choice for America, and to one of my brothers after I was told that he thought I was voting for Obama solely on LGBT issues. Bear with me -- it's a long one, but I think it's a pretty decent one. I've cut the introductory small talk and gone straight for the substance. (Just to clarify, my brother-in-law Will, who I refer to in the email, is serving overseas in Iraq. Additionally, some of the uncited sources include the candidates' official campaign websites and the AFT website.)
Here goes:
I love you very much, and Michael and I miss you tons! You have every right to be angry at me for what I will say in this email, but I really hope you don't get angry at me and that we, instead, can have a good dialogue about things! The only reason I'm writing this to you today is because I and we love you, and both of us feel very passionately about the upcoming election. Please take some time to read this.
First, you should know that Michael and I are two very politically savvy, news-conscious, well-informed people. We get our news on a daily basis from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, New York Times, BBC World News, and (for a conservative perspective) the Drudge Report. Among our friends, we are usually the first, or one of the first, to know about any particular news item. We really pride ourselves on digging deep into news stories and examining them from many different angles. Consequently, it really hurts Michael's feelings when you tell him, over and over again, to "pay attention," implying that his opinions are based on faulty information or otherwise flawed.
Second, I understand your instinct to vote for McCain because of Will, especially since McCain carefully cultivates the perception that he's somehow better for the military than Barack Obama. Believe me, Michael and I worry every day about Will and pray always for his safe return in November. However, voting for McCain based on that one single issue makes no more sense in my mind than Catholics voting for McCain solely because he is against abortion! There are a lot of other issues to consider. And unless things have changed drastically since the time that Will and Michael or I last spoke, Will is feeling pretty disillusioned by the military and the war himself.
I myself watched Colin Powell testify before the United Nations in February of 2003, when he laid out the American case for going to war in Iraq. I remember all the charges -- mobile chemical and biological weapons laboratories, the revival of their nuclear bomb project, etc. -- and the visual aids (diagrams/charts, photographs, etc.) that he used. Every one of his allegations, which were used to justify our war in Iraq and connect Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11/2001, turned out to be baseless. Powell himself has come to regret giving that speech before the UN (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm).
Michael and I support the troops. However, we draw a very clear distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the war. We are vehemently against the war, but this does not mean that we are in any way not behind Will and his mission overseas. In fact, the majority of Americans share our views. According to http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm, the most recent data available suggests that 64% of Americans oppose the Iraq war, 58% believe that we made a mistake sending our boys over there in the first place, 59% support setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, 61% believe that considering the costs versus benefits of the war, it was "not worth" fighting, and on and on. I believe that my brother-in-law would be best served by being allowed to come home and not being required to fight in an unjust war. I believe that the best way to support him is to advocate strongly for the end of the war so he can come back to the USA and pursue life, liberty, and happiness -- higher education, a relationship, etc. That's how I support Will, and I cannot and will not believe it makes me any less of a patriot, any worse of an American, or any less "behind the troops."
And while I appreciate very much your thinking of Will as you decide who to vote for, I urge you to think of Michael as well. A Barack Obama presidency would bring our country closer to recognition of Michael and I as a couple. This nation has deprived us of basic and fundamental human rights for the entire duration of our relationship and marriage. While Obama is weaker on gay rights than Hillary Clinton, he is INFINITELY better for our community than John McCain would be. All you need to do is look at Barack Obama's profile on the issue (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights) and compare it with John McCain's (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Civil_Rights.htm). Barack Obama supports civil unions for gay couples (and while this is NOT enough and I will NOT rest until Michael and I are given FULL marriage rights, in name and in substance, by this country, civil unions are a step in the right direction!), supports health benefits for gay civil partners, supports the Matthew Shepard Act (which would make a crime motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender orientation, or disability a hate crime), supports ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (a proposed federal law which would prohibit discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation -- can you believe that this isn't law already? Better believe it.), and supports repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the discriminatory military policy that prevented Michael from joining the Marines and serving his country, as he wanted to do after high school.
John McCain is against ALL of these things. I repeat: John McCain is AGAINST the Matthew Shepard Act. So if Michael or I would ever, God forbid, be beaten up for holding hands, speaking out on gay issues, or kissing on the cheek in public, it could not be prosecuted as a hate crime. John McCain believes that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is working and would not change the policy. John McCain does NOT want it to be a crime to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the hiring process and in the workplace. And he has come out on record in support of efforts in California to enact Proposition 8, which if passed, would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. These issues affect Michael and I very directly. There is NO doubt where McCain stands on gay rights and what McCain would do if he became president. Michael and I are seriously considering moving out of the country if John McCain is elected for these reasons, among many others. Quite honestly, the social climate surrounding gay issues in this country makes me sick, and the fact that Michael and I cannot be legally recognized in our love for and commitment to each other makes me incredibly ashamed of and angry at my country. If I were asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance right now, I would not be able to do so. Michael and I are proof positive that this country does not practice what it preaches, does not provide "liberty and justice for all" and certainly does NOT allow Michael and I the "pursuit of happiness." But I digress... back to John McCain.
John McCain is TERRIBLE on education. As you know, Michael would not be able to attend college were it not for government-subsidized grants and loans. I would probably not be able to attend college myself were it not for very similar assistance from the government. However, John McCain voted against efforts to improve access to college and opposed lower interest rates for student loans (S. 1932, Vote 363, Dec. 21, 2005). He also opposed increasing Pell Grants (Michael has received Pell Grants for every year of his college career) and supported raising interest rates on some student loans for the benefit of private lenders (H.Con.Res. 94, Vote 114, April 28, 2005).
As you may or may not know, Michael and I are not recognized by the state of Wisconsin or the American federal government and as such, I cannot cover Michael under my insurance that I receive from the State of Wisconsin as a University of Wisconsin employee. We scrape by each and every month and pay over $100 for SKELETAL health coverage for Michael. He can't even go to the dentist once a year for routine teeth cleaning without us having to pay several hundred dollars, that's how little insurance coverage he has. Anyone who does not recognize that the American health care system is broken is living in complete denial, and Barack Obama's health care plan would ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care and that all children would be covered. John McCain, on the other hand, voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and extending benefits to an additional 3.2 million children. (H.R. 976, Vote 307, Aug. 2, 2007) His health care plan would count employer-provided healthcare premiums as taxable income, creating yet ANOTHER tax on workers (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2006; Los Angeles Times, Nov. 20, 2007; Commonwealth Fund, June 2005). His solution to the exorbitant cost of healthcare in this country is to create "health savings accounts" for every American. What makes him think that in a country where most people do not have savings to cover even three months of expenses (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/20060621a1.asp), savings accounts would work for health care? It would seem that John McCain, who paints himself as the maverick candidate of the common man, is wrong on this issue as well.
For further analysis of McCain's disastrous health care plan, see http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain-health-plan-millions-lose-coverage-health-costs-worsen-and-insurance-and-drug-indu.
Now let's talk economics. John McCain is alarmingly out of touch on the issue, damned by his own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUAaNwG3aSs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng1yXgyY8Uo). We are currently in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, one that has shaken the foundations of American market capitalism to the core (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,578944,00.html), yet the "fundamentals of the economy are sound"? Give me a break. Perhaps Mr. McCain can sell off one of his seven (?) houses if the economic crisis puts him in a pinch, but what do those of us who don't even own ONE house do?? His answer to Social Security is privatization, yet how much money would my hypothetical "retirement savings account," another McCain proposal, have left after the financial woes of the past week? Not much, I fear. Yet in the midst of all this financial turmoil, McCain supports massive corporate tax cuts (Washington Post, 4/16/08). His tax plan calls for two major tax cuts for corporations, with 58 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. (Reuters, March 10, 2008; Center for American Progress Action Fund, March 21, 2008) And he also voted AGAINST increasing the federal minimum wage! This is an insult to anyone who's ever worked for minimum wage; I worked on jobs that started me at minimum wage during summers to save money for college, but there's no way I would have been able to completely support myself on such little income! Barack Obama, by contrast, has voted to increase the federal minimum wage, supports incentives for companies that create jobs in the United States, and opposes tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas. (Mr. Free Market McCain would not likely interfere with corporate job outsourcing.) Additionally, Obama supports tax relief for working families and proposes establishing a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to protect responsible homeowners from foreclosures. It would seem that Barack is looking out for the "little guy," AKA you and I, and McCain has the interests of corporate America at heart.
Additionally, McCain boasts to have voted with President George W. Bush "over 90% of the time" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xukbiS8q9s), which is corroborated by the Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html). With President Bush receiving some of the lowest public approval ratings since the advent of modern polling (his approval rating currently stands at 27%, with 68% disapproving of his performance, http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm), I'm surprised that McCain is so open about his support for Bush's failed policies. But it's clear to me that if John McCain is elected in November, we'll be in for more of the same in this country -- another term filled with the same failures.
He's currently running an incredibly dirty campaign and has been caught in lies several times, yet stands behind the lies nonetheless (http://payingattn.blogspot.com/, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html). Hardly the "straight talker" he wants you to think he is.
These are just a few issues that Michael and I have taken into account when we decided to vote for Barack Obama. I'm not even going to bother going into detail about Sarah Palin, a woman who believes in abstinence-only sex education (even though her daughter Bristol is Exhibit A for the failure of such a policy), rejects evolution and climate change despite overwhelming scientific consensus (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686), sued the Bush administration when it listed polar bears as an endangered species because she claimed it would hinder economic development in Alaska (http://www.adn.com/polarbears/story/413710.html), advocates aerial hunting of wolves (watch this, the video will make you cry it's so cruel: http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm), and believes that the Iraq war is a "task from God" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war). How alarming!!! And she is shockingly unprepared to be vice president or president by almost any standard of readiness.
I just wanted you to know a few of the reasons we're voting for Barack Obama in November and why we fervently believe that he's the better choice to lead America. John McCain has cleverly convinced people that he's the maverick, the straight talker, the candidate for the little guy, the candidate for the military, and the candidate of "values." It's only when we dig deeper and pay attention that we realize the opposite is true.
Love,
John
__________
Thoughts??
About Me
- John_B
- I used to be a young conservative closet case running away from my sexual orientation... but then I opened my eyes, grew up a bit, got married, and started paying attention...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
and have you heard back??
John, John John....my old Princess Ida pal from the good old days. (It's Alex by the way!!) I hope you won't think this is weird having me comment right out of the blue like this, but sometimes when I'm bored out of my mind like now during a prep period for a class I'm subbing for, I will go on facebook and look at political commentary from various people, because since I only really talk politics with a few people in real life, I really am fascinated by what many others with whom I have never discussed politics might have to say. Thus, I read your comments with interest and wanted to respond back with a few points. I want to preface this by saying that everything I say here is meant with the utmost respect, and I am not trying to change your mind, nor am I accusing you of not "paying attention." I do however, want to explain a few things from the point of view of a non-partisan who is most likely supporting John McCain in this election and call you out on a couple of comments you made that, while I again emphasize that I am NOT trying to change your mind, I do feel you were being a bit unfair (or at least somewhat selective) in your criticism of McCain. so here goes....
First of all, I will say that there is no perfect candidate, and given where I fall on the political spectrum, in any given election, whichever way I vote, I'm going to end up disagreeing with my candidate probably half the time. However, in this election for me, national security is of the utmost importance, particularly since we haven't been attacked since 9/11 it would be very easy to begin to think that the threat no longer exists, when it most certainly does. Whatever else you may say about George Bush, you must acknowledge that we have not been attacked again, and it isn't because they haven't tried. Polls overwhelmingly show that on the issue of national security, the general public stills trusts McCain to keep us safe more than they do Obama, by a wide margin. Given that this is in spite of the fact that most Americans do probably disagree with McCain on Iraq and may believe that this particular element of the war on terror has perhaps not made us safer, those poll numbers really say something. Frankly, it seems to me that by the time the next president takes office, the issue of Iraq will have become almost irrelevant, as even Bush is beginning to negotiate the terms for withdrawal now with the cooperation of the Iraqi government--a course that given the state of things now, I don't see either candidate straying too far away from. I do think it's a bit unfair though, to characterize the vote of a military family for McCain because they believe it is in the best interest of their soldier son as being in the same category as a Catholic who votes solely on the abortion issue, since the first has a very personal, direct effect on the family making this decision, whereas the second not so much.
As to the troops, you have every right to feel any way you naturally do about the war, however, one important element of supporting the troops must mean recognizing that while you may know some military personnel who are in fact very disillusioned with their mission, there are many others who do not feel this way and don't have any desire to be advocated for their return unless it is a victorious one. Now granted, it's tough to say what that fully means, but it's just something that needs to be kept in mind, because some people I know, and I'm not saying you're one of them, take the attitude that those who believe 100% in their mission need to be "saved" from themselves and their own ignorance, or that they're just naive kids who don't know they're being used. This does an extreme disservice to our troops, and it's important to recognize that when people question the "patriotism" of those who oppose the war, generally it is this attitude that makes them do this, not a person's general opposition to the war.
As to the gay rights issue, I am by no means going to defend every position John McCain takes, but there are a few things to keep in mind here too. First, McCain is no dogmatic idealogue on these kinds of issues. He may take a disagreeable personal belief, but given the fact that even if he wins it will probably be with a strongly Democratic congress, I don't see him trying to fight them on issues such as civil unions (which he has, in fact, expressed openness to in the past)or anti-discrimination laws in the workforce. This is probably true with the hate crimes legislation as well, although I do want to express here the fact that problems with this issue are not necessarily rooted in hatred. In my case, despite being a member of a group myself --Jews--who have been the victims of many acts that would fall into this category, I still have a problem with the concept of a hate crime for two reasons. 1. It puts the emphasis on the thought rather than the action. We cannot stop people from thinking whatever they are going to think, what we can regulate is them acting on those thoughts. 2. It makes it seem as though murders commited for other reasons are somehow less heinous or the victims somehow less worthy of justice if they weren't targeted for certain specific reasons. The fact is that the animals who murdered Matthew Shepard are rotting in prison as well they should be and will for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole. I don't see how the lack of hate crimes legislation prevented full justice from being served in a case like this.
You're probably on with education on some points, and again, there's plenty I disagree with McCain on, but remember here that voting against increases in certain grants isn't necessarily voting for reductions, and we do also have to consider the possibility that a McCain vote against a bill may have nothing to with the bill's main element, but could in fact be the result of other earmarks (a.k.a. "pork barrel spending") hidden in that bill.
Healthcare and economy wise, all I know on those is they're both broken, no question about that, but I just don't know enough about either of those to predict who will do better here, there really are good arguments on both sides, though the one point that I call you out on here is the "fundamentals" comment. What McCain means by this is that the DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P don't tell the whole story. If you compare this time to the Great Depression, for example, one HUGE difference is the unemployment rate. In the Depression era, it topped 30%. Right now it's at I think 5 or 6, which, while higher than it has been in the past several years, is still much lower than the average of the past couple of decades. Then you have to factor in productivity as well, which remains quite high. I'm not saying there aren't major problems, I'm just saying that these things are what McCain means when he says the "fundamentals" are strong--it doesn't necessarily show that he's out of touch (although most politicians are in some ways, just because most of them do have more money than the average folks, and this applies to Obama too). Same with health care, as the countries that have universal coverage have plenty of horror stories of their own.
Some other general thoughts I had, and this gets to the parts where I think you were being a bit selective. First of all, both sides have become rather dirty and dishonest in their campaign ads and statement, Obama is by no means immune to this criticism. McCain's done plenty of dirty stuff too, but you seemed to be insinuating that Obama's keeping it squeaky clean while McCain is the only one wallowing in dirt, and that's just not true. Did you see the Rush Limbaugh ad for example?? He's trying to tie McCain to a couple of Limbaugh statements when in fact, Limbaugh pretty much hates McCain, and one of the biggest reasons is the immigration issue. Another example of this is the "doesn't use a computer" ad. McCain doesn't use a computer because of his war injuries, not because he doesn't know how. Even the ads that tout the oft-repeated "voted with Bush 90% of the time" are EXTREMELY misleading. The fact is given the number of very minor and universal things that are voted on, most senate votes are unanimous and have nothing to do with the most important issues facing our country today. Ever wonder why they never include a comparison with Obama on that stat? Obama and McCain probably vote together 90% of the time. The really important issues in the election are the ones that make up the remaining 10% of those votes. But McCain has shown a willingness to buck his own party and president on numerous important issues, including Iraq strategy, the inaction in regulating predatory loans, immigration, global warming, campaign finance, stem cell research, etc. I don't see this willingness from Obama. You talk about McCain painting a false picture of himself, and again, in some areas you may be right, but Obama puts himself across as a "bi-partisan" or a "post-partisan" when in reality he toes his party line WAY more than McCain does. In an era where we really need true bipartisanship, the examples Obama usually cites on this are flimsy at best. He usually refers to a couple of ethics reforms he worked on with McCain, as well as the bill with Republican senator Luger to work more aggresively to secure loose nuclear material. These are both noble and necessary things, the problem is they are also both BY NATURE pretty non-controversial issues. I don't see how anyone could disagree with the need to secure loose nukes. The point is, true bipartisanship doesn't just mean working with the other party on bipartisan issues, it means being willing to go against your own party at some risk to yourself--something I see much more willingness to do on McCain's part than I do on Obama's. One opportunity he had to do so was the should-have-been-no-brainer John Doe protection act which would have ensured that indivuals who report suspicious behavior such as that of those six imams thrown off that flight a while back don't have to worry about defending themselves against bullshit lawsuits when they were just trying to protect their fellow citizens. A few Democrats including Hillary Clinton bucked their party on that one, but Obama voted present, which is rather disconcerting to me.
One final thought. Obama's past associations are relevant in one way. I COMPLETELY reject the "guilt by association" arguments--I don't believe for one minute that Obama agrees with the opinions of people like Rev. Wright, BIll Ayers, or any of those that he's being raked over the coals for his association with. This is the wrong area to call him out on. What is relevant in my eyes though, is what these associations might say about his JUDGEMENT. Judgement is not something I want to question in a U.S. president right now, and particularly with Rev. Wright, if someone can make such a gross error in judging the character of someone he knew for 20 years and considered to be his friend and spiritual advisor, I can only question what kind of misjudgements he might make about someone like Mahmoud Ahmadine-whackjob, because I've seen interviews with that psycho and he can be very convincing. I just don't feel this is a time in the history of this country where I want someone who might make such a misjudgement in the White House.
Sorry for the length of my own, but just thought I'd give a little respectful food for thought so at least you know the reasons behind the decision to vote for McCain and that we try to make these decisions with honor as well.
-Alex
As a voter in a very very red state I'm still going to make my voice heard and vote for Obama.
I hope your mother in law read your email carefully and will at least consider it.
Post a Comment