Last Chance to do the right thing

This is an email going out to all those undecided voters or those leaning toward McCain.

Let's talk. In the last eight years lots of vitriol has been exchanged but very little of it offering a meaningful dialog, lots 'o heat, little light.

I know I was certainly as guilty as the next person of partisanship. But here's the thing. I voted against Bush in 2000 and in 2004. I was opposed to the Iraqi war from the start and spent time knocking on doors and leaf letting the grocery store parking lots trying to get people to understand that war--especially a war 'of choice' -- is usually our worst option.

Maybe some of you even listened then. But many of you did not

Perhaps you thought the war would be over quickly, that it's objectives were honorable, that few would die, or that there was an honest to gosh 'existential threat' to the United States. Unfortunately, if you thought these things, you were wrong.

There was no 'existential threat', it wasn't over quickly, it's objectives were a sliding gradient of political cya stories, and many died --upwards of 100,000 at last count-- and they are still dying.

Bush now stands at the lowest point in polling history for any President--20% approval, beating Carter, beating Nixon, even beating Truman.

Impressive.

As Adam McKay has asked, wisely, if you voted for Bush in the past why not at least listen to another point of view? ...I don't believe anyone wants a bad leader on purpose so clearly you were given some bum information if you voted for Bush. Right? So why would you rely on that very same information all over again? Whether it be FOX news, Rush, emails or friends or family. That information flow you've gotten into a habit of using is obviously faulty. Try another one.

You might check out Factcheck.org to see how campaigns are faring in truth telling. I've been relatively pleased with Obama's record on this bi-partisan site, but not so much with McCain and Palin. They've simply got too much crazy wrong stuff out there. If you're deciding not to vote for Obama because of any of the following, please reconsider. These items are all deep exaggerations and lies--almost every respectable journal notes it--save, of course, FOX News or the WSJ.

Obama 'pals around' with terrorists
Obama is a socialist
Obama's tax plan will cost you money
Obama is anti-American
Obama is anti-gun
Obama is a muslim
Obama is a Black Panther
Obama will institute a welfare state
Obama is a leftwing autocrat

Not only are these false, they fall into a category of 'crazy false' that don't even make sense in their own context. For example Obama is both a socialist and a Muslim? An anti-American rogue who pals with terrorists, yet want to institute a welfare state?

It's like McCain is trying to paint a villian moustache, but his hands are just too shaky.

I think a competent leader would have chosen a more central message and stuck with it. A competent leader would have picked a campaign team that knew how to get out a positive message and not rely exclusively on negative and polarizing images and assertions. Indeed, one main reason for McCain's awful poll numbers are the dreadful judgements he's made throughout the campaign, from his choice of close advisors (Karl Rove acolytes) to his Vice Presidential pick which helped late night comedians more than his own poll numbers.

But maybe you are leaning toward voting for McCain because he and his running mate are perceived to be 'pro-life'. As you might recall, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's view on this is that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'...anyone who addresses this debate has to understand that no one is in favor of 'abortions'; these are the most difficult decisions made in the most trying circumstances. Democrats think that it makes sense for the party most effected by the situation--the pregnant mother-- to make that decision. And not some cold legal dome written by silver haired men who have nothing at stake: neither their money, nor their honor, nor the remainder of their existence which is what is demanded of an unwed mother. I've often quipped that if men could get pregnant, abortion would become a sacrament. But really, no one in this country thinks abortion is a "good" thing. The only reason any of us think that it should be an option is because history shows the results if it's not: botched back alley abortions.

As would be expected, the safeness of an abortion is closely correlated to whether it is legal. According to the World Health Organization, the mortality risk associated with legally-performed abortions in the United States is one death per 100,000 while the risk associated with illegal abortion is 50 times that. As the WHO reports, "It is the number of maternal deaths, not abortions, that is the most visible consequence of legal codes." Therefore, the only possible consequence of John McCain's crusade of "ending abortion" would be an increase in female casualties.

Of course, no one is interested in killing off our pregnant mothers--but that will be the direct effect of overturning Roe v. Wade; especially in a conservative economic climate. Why? Because we know from history that if a conservative is President--especially a conservative who follows in Bush's footsteps-- he will do everything he can to slash social programs he preceives as being 'welfare' or 'welfare lite'...the very programs an unwed mother might depend on for survivial.

Moreover, if one insists that abortion is some kind of 'intrinsic' evil, it might be of interest to consider the greatest factor in determining an actual reduction in the incidents of abortion. Here are some interesting statistics:

From Sojourner's Magazine

When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

What's left? Maybe you're voting for McCain because you truly believe that the United States suffers an 'existential threat' from terrorism? If so, he has an interesting way of encouraging it.

Afterall, the Iraqi war has provided one of the best and most elaborate recruiting stations for whatever jihadi cause may tickle a terrorists' fancy. Certainly if we were to invade Iran, as McCain's foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann advocates, we would see the incidents of terrorism flare across the region and even into our own continent again. Indeed, the best way to ensure an terrorist attack is to continue to invade Middle Eastern countries; as even the CIA has noted.

Unfortunately, McCain seems tone deaf to this reality. His main foreign policy advisor is a major neoconservative, was a founder of the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraqi exile and Pentagon favorite, Ahmad Chalabi. In short, Randy Scheunemann was one of the chief architects of the Iraqi war.

Is this the real McCain though? I hear so often that the 'real' McCain was hijacked. I'm not so sure. Afterall, didn't you hear the bellicose cries of John McCain condemning Obama for wanting to negotiate with 'enemies' and instead singing half heartedly that we might 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran?'

Do you think it was really a joke when Sarah Palin suggested that we are --at this very moment -- actually at war with Iran? You could almost hear Randy Scheunemann cheering from the rafters. War with Iran, after all, is part and parcel of the neoconservative 'global strategy' as outlined in the Project for a New American Century.

These are dangerous and foolish people. And we know from the current Presidency what happens when a President surronds himself with dangerous and foolish people.

I'm almost done. I know that none of you will admit it, but if you think you won't vote for Barack Obama because he's black and you're afraid he will surrond himself with 'welfare queen' type advisors, please think again. His economic team is centrist and moderate --in my opinion to a fault. His tax programs have been endorsed by the likes of Warren Buffett--one of the wealthiest men alive.
Obama declared in a recent interview on the business cable channel CNBC: "Look, I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market." And Obama's economic team appears to support this claim. His main advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, are both centrist, pro-free traders; one is a defender of Wal-Mart, and the other is a self-described "free-market type" who has drawn praise from the likes of George Will.
If anything, he probably won't be liberal enough for folks like me.

Finally, in all this I could be wrong. But I doubt it. Afterall, I wasn't the one who was duped into voting for Bush, or supporting a disastrous war, or a disastrous economic platform. You, on the other hand.... Oh, nevermind.

Thanks for listening.

~DM