CQ Politics has a great new online tool that shows side-by-side not just the stances of the candidates but also their "votes" and "quotes." I recommend you e-mail it to anyone who's on-the-fence about the two candidates because it's a good summary with solid evidence, and when "fair-and-balanced" means "Right is right, Dems are commies," ANY objective summary is bound to help our side.
I just want to point out a vote of John McCain's that was news to me that I think most undecideds, especially the ones who champion "state's rights," might find interesting and alarming regarding McCain's abortion stances:
Very simply, John McCain wanted to criminalize a young woman's right to seek an abortion clinic across state lines.
So just how RADICAL is Maverick Moderate McCain's stance?
CQ Politics notes the vote:
McCain was among the 57-senator majority that voted to advance the bill to criminalize transport of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. (Senate Roll Call Vote 263, Sept. 29, 2006)
Obama, a champion of women's rights who picked the author of the Violence Against Women Act as his running-mate, voted against the advance, of course.
This is in addition to McCain's other votes against abortion:
McCain in 2003 was on the winning side of a 64-34 vote to ban an abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth" abortion, except when it is needed to save the woman's life. (Senate Roll Call Vote 402, Oct. 21, 2003)
McCain in 1993 was one of 59 senators who voted against allowing federal funding for most abortions. (Senate Roll Call Vote 290, Sept. 28, 1993)
What's so hypocritical about McCain's vote is that it's essentially a government imposition on citizens, not just for "protecting state's rights" but forcing residents of a state to live under it's laws even when their jurisdiction wouldn't apply. It's a bold-face admission of what feminists have been crying out about forever: that anti-abortion leaders don't just want to restrict women's rights because of moral issues, but because pro-choice laws are an asset to underprivileged women. As women's choices are increasingly restricted when it comes to birth control (the Virginia clinic today is a prime example of how the implications of such a decision can disproportionately affect the poor), often their only choice for legal and safe help is to cross state lines. The ideal of the state's rights idea is to allow citizens the choice of how they want to live (even though it's a completely flawed ideal). But of course John McCain's "state's rights talk" is a load of bull: he wants to remove rights, not protect them, and he thinks the state's rights argument is his only politically viable one. But what his idea would do is contribute to cycles of poverty because a person was born in the wrong state. And not only that, but he wants to punish anyone who wants to help that young person. The idea is to keep the powerful powerful and the relatively helpless helpless. And of course this would just drive up an underground, dangerous, illegal abortion market. Yet he doesn't champion state's rights when it comes to health insurance, when local knowledge would be an asset to women's (and everyone else's) health. So McCain, more radical than your common state's righter.
The most common argument that I hear from anti-choice folks arguing for "conscience clauses" is that as long as a woman has somewhere to go, no matter what the cost or hassle, then these clauses are fine. The argument is that "a few hundred bucks now is nothing in comparison to the price later." The people who make these arguments are staunchly pro-life. That means that John McCain is more radical than them, too, because he doesn't want the "difficult but maybe doable" option to even be there!
And note, the vote was in 2006. A lot of people who supported McCain at the beginning of his campaign and have now disowned him because "he's not the same guy I used to know" should see that this was before McCain's supposed "turn to the darkside." Which means that McCain was all-along more radical than his biggest supporters.
An argument feminists love to make against anti-choicers is the question, "What should be the punishment a woman receives for seeking an abortion?" Usually, you'll get a stupefied face. Occasionally, they'll answer, "We should punish the doctors, not the women." But McCain has no qualms about the answer: "Punish the woman by making criminals of her loved ones!"
Allow me to put on a very small tin-foil hat, but I think that the campaign's choice of Sarah Palin was to do more than just "rally the base" or "appeal to women." It was to make McCain appear less radical than he really is by simply moving the goalposts further to the right. "At least he isn't against abortion in the case of rape and incest!" a person wary of Palin but engaged with McCain might say. Yet how much proof would McCain need from a woman before she would be classified as a rape victim? Her word? The evidence of a rape kit (which his running-mate wants victims to pay for first)? Or does he need a court trial and conviction, even though the reported rape numbers and conviction numbers are appalling? Plus, McCain won't believe a woman or a doctor when they claim that her health is in danger, so what could be the purpose of Palin except for the campaign to try and pass McCain off as a moderate while still pandering to his base. He wants to have his cake and eat it, too, because he knows full and well that America is tired of the Radical Right!
We all wonder why McCain is so reticent to disown the radicals in his own party. The answer, though, is simple.
It's because (Dun Dun Dunnnn) he's one of them!