A Letter from the McCain Campaign
Dr. William A. Barrett
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
My comments (in
Italics) are intermixed with his message.
I have deleted my
home address. I don't know where McCain's
people got my address, but finding someone's address these days is easy.
JOHN MCCAIN
FOR PRESIDENT
Mr. William Barrett
(my address deleted. Please communicate with me by email, given
below)
Dear Mr. Barrett,
The choice America will face in November is very clear.
It will be a choice between one of the most liberal administrations in modem history, or a Presidency dedicated to upholding long-held conservative principles of limited government, strong national defense and individual freedom.
You know where I stand - it is a matter of public record.
Actually, I don't know where you stand, really, in spite of listening carefully to some of your speeches and following your Congressional record through the newspaper over the years.
And I don't see what's wrong with a "liberal
administration". Who is feeding
your speeches with this sort of garbage?
Grover Norquist?
We had pretty good liberal administrations under FDR, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Carter and Clinton. We all know about FDR, Truman and Kennedy.
Johnson's big mistake was ramping up the war in Vietnam rather than
studying the situation in more depth, then finding a way to get out of it. But he also pushed through the equal rights
amendment, ushering a whole new period of equality in racial relations. He also strived to do something about
rampart poverty in America. In a way
the GOP has Johnson to thank for "delivering the South to the
GOP". (Those were Johnson's words
– he was a brave president to sign the equal rights bill.) You are undoubtedly now hoping to get a
majority electoral vote in several of the southern states, which are still
rankling over having to give up the "closed to coloreds" restaurant,
hotel, theatre, bus station and restroom signs. But – be honest – wasn't the ERA the right thing to do? And wasn't it long overdue?
From the time I entered the U.S. Naval Academy at age 17, through the years I spent in Vietnam, and during my tenure in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate representing the people of Arizona, I have been blessed with the opportunity to serve our nation. It has been my honor to serve her and her great cause - freedom - almost all my life.
Without question, I've lived a very fulfilling life. And while I have made some mistakes and have some regrets, I am convinced that every challenge I have confronted during my years of serving our country and its ideals has made me a better person and ready to serve as President from day one.
That fine. I appreciate that, and
I honor you for your service. But I
don't see how that qualifies you for the presidency, per se. Read on.
Now I am in the most important fight of my life. And if I have learned anything in these past months of campaigning and listening to the citizens of our great nation it is this:
Victory will only come when we unit around the core principles of individual freedom, small government and unflagging dedication to defending our nation, that I believe you and I and most Americans hold in common.
That's an empty slogan. Who are
you kidding? We all want that. The problem with "individual
freedom" (for corporations, too?) and "small government" comes
when those with great financial and legal power decide to exert it at the
expense of the little guy. I think you
offer no solution to that, only more of the same. I am waiting for you to propose some tough, realistic regulatory
measures to curb the excessive – and mostly unregulated – power of the big
financial institutions, Wall street traders, unscrupulous mortgage and credit
card lenders, big oil, K-street lobby con-artists, the media giants, ADM, and
more. Where is our trust-buster
Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican, by the way) today, when we need him?
That is why I am reaching out to you today to ask you to sign and return the enclosed 2008 Presidential Pledge of Support along with a campaign contribution of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even the maximum allowable amount of $2,300 in the postage-paid envelope provided.
No way. And I hope this letter
will cost your campaign a few dollars in mailing costs. Read on.
All along I have said that I am not running for President to be somebody, but to do something. I am running to keep America safe, prosperous and proud. I am running to restore the trust of the American people in their government. I am running so that our children and grandchildren will have even greater opportunities than the ones we were blessed with.
More slogans. "do
something"? Like what, in
particular, to achieve these wonderful outcomes?
You mention children. When will
you tackle the issue of the failing NCLB education bill, freeing our teachers
to do their job, and finding the money to provide adequate classroom
instruction for those children? How do
you intend to provide more support for our public schools, colleges and
universities who are all struggling with higher costs, higher tuition,
declining research funding? Giving
parents the "freedom" to shift from a public school to a private
school (at public expense), or to a charter school (also at public expense) is
a violation of the trust placed by our founders in our free public school
system. Or maybe you don't buy
Jefferson's arguments on behalf of a free public school system, with separation
from religious sect influence?
And I am running so that every person in this country, now and in generations to come, will know the same sublime honor that has been the treasure of my life: to be proud to be an American.
Ah, the old flag-waving trick. It
seems to work for you, doesn't it? You
have no problem wowing the military academies and the VFW rallies. And I'm sure the GOP convention coming up
will be filled to the brim with this vacuous stuff.
I seek the office of the President of the United States because I am as confident today as I was when I first entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution that the principles of the Republican Party - our trust in the good sense and resourcefulness of free people - are always in America's best interests.
Yet more slogans. Incidentally, I
am not a fan of Ronald Reagan, though I admire his personal charm. Read my comments about him on my Flames web
page, under Missing Ronald Reagan?
Not much!.
I realize this is going to be an extremely tough, hard-fought campaign, but I've faced and overcome great challenges before.
I grant you, you have faced challenges.
I pray that this one will be too much for you.
As we have seen in recent years, elections are often fought within the margins of small differences. This one clearly will not be. The differences between our campaign and the Democrats could not be greater. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail.
Good luck. And I agree that there
are major differences. But I
respectfully disagree with most (not all) of your "principles", which
seem to be a confused mix of terrible conservative and libertarian dogma,
predominant military power, uncertainty about Iraq and Afghanistan, few or no
ideas regarding our economic plight, but "no new taxes", meaning (I
assume) keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
On issue after issue, never in recent memory has there been such a stark difference in the direction the candidates want to lead America.
I agree with that.
Senator Obama will surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq and withdraw our armed
forces based on an arbitrary timetable.
I intend to win the war. In Iraq, our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Iraq's transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We must, we can, we will succeed.
You don't know just what a President Obama will do in Iraq. He will need maximum flexibility
in dealing with that changing situation, just as you would demand.
And -- what do you mean by "surrender"? Barack has never used that word. And what does it mean to
"succeed" or "win"?
These are value-laden words designed to sway the most simple-minded of
we citizens. Instead, please teach
us all about the real problems we face in our confrontation with radical
Islam, which is mostly centered in Pakistan on the Afghanistan border. My personal feeling about that situation is
that we need to find more ways to work with the Pakistani government in rooting
out these terrorist elements and reestablishing those northern provinces under
the rule of Pakistani law, some thing that their new government seems to want. Just shooting at them when they come across
the border is getting us nowhere.
One of the things I admire about Barack Obama is that he is a great
teacher. He in fact taught
constitutional law for several years.
His teachings are part of his speeches, when he does such an admirable
job of explaining really complex issues and reasonable resolutions in a way
that everyone can understand. If that
is being "elitist", as he is being accused through your campaign ads,
then I like "elitist". The
Europeans (who are generally better informed and think more deeply about
political issues than we) understand what he is saying, and that is why he
attracted such huge crowds in Germany and other places.
Oh, and please stop trying to brand Barack as a "media
celebrity". His connection
with Paris Hilton (as implied by one of your recent campaign TV spots) has been
denied by Paris herself, and is an insult to the dignity of someone of his
stature running for office. Also, it's
an insult to Paris who was obviously not asked for her permission to appear in
that scurrilous TV commercial that you approved. Under ordinary circumstances (if she were not a "public
figure"), she would have a perfect right to sue you for libel.
Trying to turn Iraq into a "secure democracy" and "a force
for freedom" is a vacuous dream, in my reading of the situation. Consider these facts, which you can check
through some NYTimes archive searches:
·
Earlier this year, Al-Maliki welcomed Ahmadinejad
(from Iran) with a red carpet for several days of talks about mutual problems,
with apparently great success.
Ahmadinejad just drove over the border to Baghdad in an ordinary car,
with minimal bodyguards, through legions of Iraqi checkpoints, etc. And drove home to Teheran the same way.
·
I also noticed that when Dick Cheney visited
Al-Maliki a few weeks earlier, he had to drop in with a jumbo jet full of
armored vehicles to run the gauntlet from the airport, also required a week of
preparations for his safety. Same idea
when he took off again. No public
meetings or speeches, other than a few press announcements.
·
Al-Maliki has therefore essentially flaunted Bush's
pronouncements that "I [Bush} don't negotiate with terrorists" and
that "those who side with terrorist states will be considered a terrorist
state". Bush considers Iran a
"terrorist state". Does that
cordial meeting with Ahmadinejad mean that Iraq is now a "terrorist
state"?
·
Al-Maliki wants us to set a timetable for
withdrawal, and has suggested a date, in spite of Bush's reluctance to set
one. This came out of discussions with
Barack, who never pretended to represent an official opinion, and never asked
for a date, but was given one. The
parliament seems to agree with Al-Maliki on this issue – they want us out. So why is Bush (and, apparently, you) so
determined to stay the course until we "win"?
·
The Iraqi parliament has failed to come up with a
reasonable plan to divide their oil revenues.
Or to work out some realistic form of national governance that could
satisfy all parties. That sort of
stalemate will inevitably lead to yet another dictatorship, and, over time,
could produce another Saddam Hussein.
·
Bush's much-vaunted "surge" in Iraq was
only one factor in the reduction of violence. Most experts agree that the biggest factor was Al-Sadr's realization
that the Al Qaida militants were too violent, and doing Iraq no favors. So he decided to go after them, cooperating
with the US military to wipe them out.
He has since been working on some sort of reconciliation with the
Al-Maliki government, though it is too early to see how that turns out. If you want this liberal's opinion, I'm
pleased that something worked there to reduce the violence. Perhaps your dream will come true, but
there's at least a 50-50 chance that we will have just produced another Islamic
dictatorship, ruled by force, violence and fear.
·
The Kurds are probably going to get screwed again,
largely due to the incompetence of the Bush administration and his state
department, plus the general recognition in the Middle East that Bush is both
incompetent and weak, also that our Congress is deadlocked over veto-proof GOP
votes in the Senate. The Kurds want
complete independence as a sovereign nation, but the Iraqi government seems
determined to keep them in the state.
That situation will undoubtedly lead to more armed conflict.
Question: Why on earth should Al-Maliki and the Iraqis play the game
any differently with you?
Even if Obama loses the election, there is every prospect of a
strengthened Democratic Congress and Senate, which will oppose you on almost
every issue.
Senator Obama will increase the size of the federal government.
I plan to reduce it. Washington's irresponsibility with your tax dollars is a national disgrace. I will continue my ongoing fight to end wasteful spending by vetoing every pork-laden spending bill, seeking the line-item veto, and rooting out the earmarks that have opened the floodgates to corruption and fiscal irresponsibility. And I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in the habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with a "big federal
government". More conservative
baloney, obviously coming from Norquist.
This is a big country, with many federal-level problems.
And of course, I too want to see a reduction in the "corruption and
fiscal irresponsibility". But how
are you going to sell the idea that your party will actually do anything
serious about it?
·
Must I remind you of the K-street lobbies, which
were specifically organized to provide unprecedented campaign finance money to
Republicans only?
·
What about the Jack Abramoff scandal? Abramoff was pretty cosy with the White
House, having visited there something like a hundred times. What was he doing there? What was he asking for?
·
What about the corruption and ignominious retreat of
Tom DeLay?
·
How about the unwarranted influence of the unelected,
unappointed Grover Norquist, who was clearly supporting Abramoff and Ralph Reed
in their scandalous (and illegal) con game played against several Indian
casinos?
·
What about the infamous sweatshops in the Marianis,
owned by someone named Willy Tan, and the influence that DeLay played in
Washington in relieving those American Protectorate islands of any obligation
to observe American labor practices and standards? (That relief has since been overturned, thanks to our newly
elected Democratic Congress).
o Al
Franken's book The Truth has some really disturbing passages (drawn from
investigative testimony through the Interior department) about forced abortions
of Chinese women working in one of those sweatshops. They weren't supposed to get pregnant. How does forced abortion square with your ambivalence about
Roe vs. Wade and the "right to life"?
·
What about the media consolidation under the watch
of FCC chairman Martin, who went against several hundred thousand angry
petitioners across the country over the lack of local radio broadcasts,
obviously to favor Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch's conglomerate?
·
How about Stephen Johnson's refusal to follow his
own agency's advice (the EPA) in raising the auto fuel standards, despite a Supreme
Court decision that the EPA was obliged to deal with carbon dioxide
emissions? He's under investigation for
that administrative hubris, and the Bush administration is doing what it can to
thwart that investigation.
·
How about the firing of several dozen federal
attorneys for no apparent reason other than their supposed "favoring"
of Democratic candidates for office? Investigation is also being stalled by the
Bush administration.
"Entitlement programs that are bankrupting us". You mean Social Security and Medicare,
right? Why don't you say that
instead of covering it up with fancy words?
Social Security is great and very popular, but should get a few minor
adjustments, such as increasing the retirement age and setting the maximum tax
rate a little higher. Medicare has
serious revenue problems that will probably only be settled through a realistic
universal health care coverage system.
Like the one you enjoy as a Senator.
Like the one that most of us laboring Americans don't enjoy.
Senator Obama will raise your taxes.
I want to cut them. Taxes, in my view, should be simple, fair and as low as possible. I will work to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (a tax that will be paid almost exclusively by 25 million middle class families); make the income and investment tax cuts permanent; and make it harder for Congress to raise taxes by requiring a 3/5 majority vote to raise taxes.
Again, you don't know Obama's position on taxes for sure. That will have to be worked out
through negotiations with Congress.
Congress sets tax schedules, not the President, the last time I looked
at the Constitution.
And which taxes are you talking about, besides the AMT,
which is only one of many ways of examining the tax brackets? These should also include a hard look at all
subsidies, tariffs, land-use fees, etc.
On the whole, who can argue against reduced taxes? Most citizens see the
outgo in taxes, but the benefits that flow from them are not that obvious. The government can't run TV ads and programs
to promote what it is doing, although some non-profits and PBS try to fill that
gap. On the whole, I prefer to restore
the progressive taxes that were in place before Bush and GOP cut them.
These are the positions I favor, and I think Obama would buy into most of
them. He is offering some tax credit
for lower-income wage-earners, which I don't mind. Also, the food stamp, ASCHIP, income tax credits for the needy
are important.
·
Restore the estate tax, but with a larger
deductible, say $2 million per family.
·
Also, bring the unearned capital gains taxes and
other loopholes for the wealthy into line with the standard tax tables that
most Americans (like me). I don't buy
your worn-out argument that passing on big tax incentives to the wealthy is
raising our general economic welfare.
Those benefits are going to the top few percent of the wealthy, and they
are busy stashing it away in overseas investments and Swiss bank accounts, from
their tax havens in the Carribbean.
They are not investing in American manufacturing, nor do they care about
providing good jobs for more Americans.
This is all controlled by federal tax policy that now favors the wealthy
over the poor and low-income laborers.
·
See the Carolyn Said article, SJ Mercury-News, Aug
13, page A1: Most firms paid zero taxes from '98 to '05. And two-thirds of US foreign companies
were cited for zero taxes in the same GAO report. That was money that was left sitting on the table, given sensible
tax policies, that could have been used to reduce our deficits.
·
Also, bring most of our troops home, especially the
National Guard, as a big revenue savings.
·
Fix the AMT by raising the minimum threshold on
income to which it might apply. This
unfortunately will reduce federal revenues, it appears, which need to be made
up in some other way.
·
Also, get the mining industry to pay market prices
for their property, instead of that nineteenth century schedule of a few
dollars for valuable mining rights, on anyone's property, anywhere, with no
environment constraints.
·
Increase the gas tax. Stop currying the public with promises of gas tax rebates. That's totally inappropriate given our oil
gluttony, global warming, and wealth transfer to the Middle East nations.
·
Remove many of the subsidies that now favor big
farms for not growing crops, or that engage in pointless expensive development
projects.
o For
example, there are massive subsidies on corn to farmers, making it very
difficult for foreign farmers to compete with us.
o There
is also a tariff on sugar, because of the Cuban "communist"
nonsense. Sugar from sugar cane is an
acceptable substitute for food products now using corn syrup. (Look at the labels on candy products).
o Both
should be eliminated.
·
Do something about the massive flow of capital to
China and the Middle eastern oil countries.
We are really funding our enemies in the Middle East as long as we keep
buying their oil. And we are left with
little or no negotiating leverage with either country, given their vast
holdings of our public and private debt.
Requiring a 3/5 majority vote to raise taxes in Congress? What a brainless idea! That would put our federal system in the
same pickle that we are suffering under in California. We have a deadlocked Assembly and a stubborn
GOP refusal to yield to some reasonable tax increases. What ever happened to one-man-one-vote,
article 1 section 1 of our Constitution, later amended to include blacks and
women? Also article 1, section 5 spells
out a simple majority vote principle for Congress and the Senate, with language
here and there about certain special super majorities. When you raise your right hand and vow to
defend the Constitution, will you really mean that? Or will you fudge on it, repeatedly, as our current President
has?
Senator Obama will offer a big government
solution to health care coverage.
My answer to providing families with quality
accountable health care is to harness the power of market competition while
giving Americans maximum freedom to choose the health care best suited for
them. I believe big government is not the answer to rising health care costs.
Big government is the problem.
Market competition? What century are you living in? Open market
competition has brought us a medical system that is run by a few huge insurance
conglomerates, who are only interested in their bottom-line profits, and not at
all in the concomitant misery of several million American citizens with no
insurance coverage and a desperate fear of contracting some serious
illness. That is not the America I grew
up in and I don't want to see that sort of expensive, irresponsible, and
inhumane medical system left to my descendants.
I favor just what Obama is searching for –
a universal health care coverage plan, similar to those enjoyed by almost EVERY
other large industrial nation. You pick
a country (Japan, Canada, England, France, Germany, Scandanavia) and I'll show
you a cheaper system and one that covers everybody, whether or not they have a
job.
Senator Obama will appoint to the federal
bench iudges who are intent on achieving political changes. federal iudges who
take it upon themselves to write national policy or advance a political agenda.
I will nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust and who fully understand the importance of using our nation's judiciary to interpret the Constitution and laws as written - and not to write new laws - and who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
That's more conservative baloney.
Most experts on bench decisions will tell you that our judges are doing
their job exactly as their oath required them to do. (With the possible
exception of Roberts, Alioto, and Thomas who seem to adhere to what they
consider to be a "strict constructionist" approach, whatever that
means.)
May I also point out that no judge is empowered to "write new
law" as you assert? From my
limited history of the bench in this country, very judges have "written
new law", and those that have attempted to "write new law" have
been removed or censured through a superior court hearing. A judge is confronted with a case brought to
it by aggrieved parties and serves as a moderator to the opposing attorney's
arguments, hearing the evidence of expert and other witnesses, then rendering a
considered verdict, that is, when no jury is used. That is not "writing new law", that is what they are
empowered to do and obliged to do under their oath of office.
As an attorney and law maker, you should know all that. Why aren't you teaching the public about
the facts of the situation?
For example -- when Roe vs. Wade was settled by the Warren court, the
court was not "writing new law" – they looked at the equal protection
clause in our Constitution (Amendment 14, section 1, in case you haven't looked
at it lately), and decided – correctly, in my view – that government
interference in the decision of a woman to carry a child to birth was
unwarranted in the first trimester, but that the government had some legitimate
public interest in the further development of a fetus after the first
trimester. Priority is to be given to a
mother's decision, in consultation with her family, free of government interference. And how does a law forbidding abortion
entirely (which the right-to-life movement wants as an amendment) square
against your bland promise of providing "freedom" to all citizens of
our country?
Or perhaps you are referring to our recent California superior court
decision that permits our state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? As with the Warren court, our court wrote a
detailed (and public) description of their decision, based on an equal rights
clause in our Constitution. How
is that "writing law"? In
this issue, the people of California will have a constitutional amendment
proposal before them in November, and we shall see how that turns out – that,
at least, would be "writing law", not by the court, but by the voting
public. (I am in favor of equal
marriage rights and other rights for gays).
Or, perhaps you are referring to the Dover, PA decision regarding
teaching Intelligent Decision in the high school biology class? The judge (John Jones, a Republican and a
Bush appointee) in that decision wrote an excruciatingly detailed and learned
opinion, after hearing plenty of evidence that ID is really a thinly disguised
promotion in a public classroom of a fundamentalist Christian religion. Read Amendment 1 to our Constitution. The state of Pennsylvania has similar
language in its constitution.
These are but a few of the differences that
will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I will
battle to defend our conservative values and continue to work my heart out to
articulate my principles and vision for the future of America - clearly and
honestly.
Today I hope you will join me in this fight
by signing the enclosed Pledge of Support and returning it to me immediately,
along with your campaign contribution of$35, $50, $100, $500, $1,000 - anything
you can up to the legal limit of $2,300.
The reason for my urgency is simple.
The outcome of the November election will
not be determined on the day we go to the polls. It will be determined by what
you and I do in the days and weeks leading up to that historic day. It will be
determined by what we do - and do not do - right now.
Yes, of course. I intend to do what I can to see that Barack Obama will be taking
the oath next January. And it will not
be a moment too soon. I worry about
what our loose-cannon president might do in the meantime with all the war
powers that he claims he has. Will he
decide to invade Georgia over the South Ossetia situation, or to protect the
pipeline through Georgia? And whose
side will he be taking in that dangerous battle? (Late news, it appears that
the two nations are reaching some sort of agreement over their disagreements,
mostly thanks to the work of the French prime minister.)
I need to be able to reach out to all
Americans, and continue to build our national grassroots campaign from the
ground up.
I must keep pushing forward, traveling across
the country to hold town hall meetings to listen to voters' concerns, and to
put forward my conservative message for victory against Islamic extremists, for
restoration of trust in our government and for the prosperity of all American
families.
Yes, I suppose you must. We liberals like a fair election contest.
However, I must, with all due respect, ask
you to stop telling us what you think Senator Obama is thinking or plans to
do. He is an exceptionally
articulate speaker, writes his own books, and has clearly stated his intentions
through his many speeches available through his internet web site.
I don't need your campaign managers
telling me what Senator Obama is thinking.
Instead, tell us something intelligent about your plans to meet
our massive federal, state and local problems that I've outlined in this
letter. So far, they don't cut muster
in my regiment.
It is no secret that Senator Obama raised
enormous, historic sums of money in his battle for the nomination. And national
liberal Democratic groups like MoveOn.org, the Democratic National Committee,
and others are plotting to spend and do whatever it takes to bring my campaign
down.
Yes, he did raise "historic sums of money". You failed to mention that the bulk of it
came from large numbers of small donors like me. I'm reasonably well fixed, but have not nearly reached my limit
of contributions to the Obama campaign, nor to MoveOn.org. As a result, he owes nothing to most of us
in return except brilliant leadership for our nation, unencumbered by any
promises made to special monied interests.
I like that, and in my mind, that represents real reform, at least in
the office of the Presidency.
How are you fixed in that regard? Just
wondering. The fact that your team is
desperate enough to reach out to someone like me for money indicates that
you've got a problem.
As we've already witnessed, when the Democrats' and their liberal special
interest allies turn their sights on us with vicious attacks - we must be
ready.
What "vicious attacks"?
I've been checking out your campaign attack ads on TV, and they
look pretty vicious to me. Note that
they are trying to tell the public what Obama is saying, rather than what you
have to say beyond your worn-out slogans.
I've also listened to many of Obama's speeches, and yes, he does compare
his stand on issues with yours, citing your votes and other speeches you've
made in the past. But I don't consider
that as a "vicious attack", just fair comment on factual, recorded
position statements that you have made.
You went through a pretty vicious
attack in your campaign against Bush in 2000, in North Carolina, being accused
of fathering a "black child".
I never bought that, of course.
You later rebuked Bush for that attack ad, and he brushed it aside. I have not seen anything like that come out
of the Obama campaign, and do not expect to see it.
. Ready to counter the distortions, innuendoes and accusations. Ready to set the record straight. Ready, in short, to get out our message and make sure clarity and truth prevail.
I'm all for "clarity and truth". I'm a teacher, and that's been my interest all my life. But I have seen very little of "clarity
and truth" coming from the GOP (through Fox News, the Drudge report, Ann
Coulter, O'Reilly and others) in the last twenty years, and have no
expectations of any change in that under your leadership, should that come to
pass.
Please know this - I will not concede any region to the Democrats. I will make them fight me on their own turf because I have listened to voters all across the country and I understand that they want more than empty words and petty partisan bickering. Americans want solutions and I am ready to deliver real reform and lasting change. not just slogans.
You couldn't have said it better.
As to delivering real reform and lasting change, I respect your work
with the McCain-Feingold bill, but much more is needed. That bill also doesn't seem to be
working. Nancy Pelosi did much more for
us all, from her limited position of power, by demanding that every
appropriations earmark be labeled by its sponsor. That was not the case under
seven years of GOP leadership, and that policy invited a huge stream of
earmarks, making it hard for the press to figure out who was behind them.
She has also demanded that every new appropriations bill be accompanied
by a plan for its funding, again something that the GOP Congress failed to
do. Although she has invited much
criticism from both sides of the House on the whole for its failure to end the
Iraq war and do more with the economy, healthcare, etc., she has performed
magnificently in a difficult situation, in which a 60% vote is needed to pass a
measure over a veto, and the Senate is so closely divided along partisan
lines. Public disapproval of Congress
is as low as the President's just now, but I attribute that to a general
misunderstanding by the public about the constraints under which Congress
functions, plus much misinformation in the right-wing media.
I'm running for President because I am confident - and ready - to lead our country at this challenging time in our nation's history. I know who I am. I know what I believe. And I will be truthful with the American people about what I think is right for our country.
You claim to know what you believe. I'm not sure what you believe, but if
this letter of yours is any evidence of
your quality of leadership, I want no part of it.
Mr. Barrett, with your support I will have the resources to take my campaign to America's voters, present my goals and accomplishments, and outline how I will use my political leadership to solve our nation's most serious problems - and move our country toward a safe and prosperous future for all.
So please, sign and return your PLEDGE OF SUPPORT, along with your contribution of $35, $50, $100, $500, $1,000 or $2,300 today.
I respectfully decline.
As I pursue the Office of President of the United States, I make you this promise: I will always put America - her strength, her ideals, her future - before every other consideration.
I would surely like to believe that.
George W. Bush went into office with a similar promise, and look at what
we got instead:
· Massive transfer of American funds overseas to China, Iraq and Middle-eastern oil countries. China in particular has grown wealthy and powerful, thanks to our money. And our manufacturing base is withering and dying from the unfair competition.
· The needless, useless and expensive war in Iraq, despite almost no evidence (before the fact) that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or was in cahoots with Bin Laden's Al Qaida. That was rather like declaring war on Canada because of some border incident with Mexico!
· The disgraceful handling, including torture, of supposed terrorists through the CIA and gitmo, along with documented cases of kidnappings and foreign country renditions for torture shakedowns. This is a black eye for America and its values that we shall not live down for another fifty years. Question – will bin Laden's taxi driver actually be released at the end of December, or will Bush go against his own court system and order him detained forever? And what will you do about this fellow, if elected?
· Massive private borrowing on home equity and credit cards, with what we are now seeing as catastrophic home foreclosures, damaged neighborhoods, and an unprecedented opening of the Treasury to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Really bad news for everyone, and unnecessary, but a direct consequence of deregulation of finance under the Reagan administration.
· Reduced protection for borrowers, especially low income borrowers, against usurious interest rates on paycheck borrowing, used car borrowing, credit card penalty terms, etc. This is the "free market" at work, by the way, which will move toward monopoly if it can get away with it, and prey on the poor and less educated, if it can, etc. With all the subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, and the stripped-away regulations on their behavior, we now have a situation in which the nation's wealth is being transferred from the poor to the rich. Are you a Christian person? Does this bother your conscience? It does mine.
· No real protection against predatory employers through labor organization, due to gutting of NLRB laws and operations and generally weak enforcement under GOP leadership.
· The catastrophe collapse of our newspaper industry. Perhaps they can find a way to shift to the internet, but our great newspapers – the New York Times, the LA Times, our San Jose Mercury-News, the SF Chronicle, are all struggling with declining circulation, loss of advertising revenue (hardly any personal ads; much smaller auto sales section; much less local store ads), and serious cutbacks in news gathering and reporting staff. Yet, aside from certain magazines and books, it's getting very hard to find out really what is going on in the world, let alone our in own community. Blogs, poorly researched or just made up out of whole fiction, are not going to serve us as an informed citizenry. Nor is the commercial media. I follow PBS for news, but find even that seems to be censored in favor of certain sponsors from ADM, the mining industry, the oil industry, investment banks, and the auto industry. All of these interests have enormous legislative power through their lobbyists, as you well know, but the public is largely unaware of just how much influence they also have on our media.
· No real program for reducing our foreign oil dependence.
· No real program for increasing auto fuel economy. I favor hybrids with bigger batteries so that short commutes will be on electric power, not gasoline. GM, Toyota and others are working on that, but it needs suitable subsidies and taxes to give it a push.
· Drilling for offshore oil is a non-starter. No oil for at least ten years, negligible quantities relative to our demand, and minimal impact on gas prices now. Get real. Be honest with us on this for a change. I do commend you for sticking up for nuclear power, but I think Barack Obama will also come around to favoring nuclear.
· No real program (under Bush) for development of clean energy sources, and nuclear power, until recently, when he seemed to have a change of heart.
· Growing problems in Afghanistan, and a stubborn reluctance by Bush (and now, apparently, you) to pull our troops out of Iraq so that we can better confront the Taliban and Al Qaida, where they are.
· Nothing done about our "war on drugs", which has had the side effect of strengthening the drug gang cartels in Mexico, Colombia and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the poster boy country for this – the Afghans themselves are not addicted; they aren't that stupid. Instead, they sell opium to us and to Europe through the Taliban and world drug gangs. So we are indirectly financing that corruption in Afghanistan and the Taliban, through our clumsy and incompetent "drug war" here in the US. And need I mention the huge number of federal prisoners with long sentences, usually black, serving time for possession of tiny quantities of crack cocaine? That madness has to be brought under control.
· Conflict between the FDA (drug administration) and our state laws (California) with regard to medical marijuana. Whose side are you on in this? I favor having the DEA back off from what should be a state and private matter with a drug that admittedly has some side effects, but also seems to help numerous sick people. A recent article: San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 14, 2008, page B1: Bob Egelko, Pot limit law to be decided by state top court. This is directed toward the conflict between a state statute approved by the voters, but not accepted by the DEA. It's a review of a decision made earlier affirming the validity of a 2003 law passed through a voter proposition legalizing medical marijuana.
· The disgraceful Valerie Plame incident, investigated with great vigor by Patrick Kennedy, who succeeded in convicting Scooter Libby. Bush promptly pardoned Libby on "humanitarian grounds", thereby undercutting Kennedy's strategy of getting Scooter to come clean on the situation. Bush has been reluctant to pardon anyone during his governorship and his presidency, including a 14-year old mentally disabled child executed in Texas under his watch. The facts are still not fully before us on the Plame affair, despite vigorous efforts by the House investigation committee to get sworn testimony from several former advisors, and the stubborn refusal of the administration to release certain people to testify. We may never know how that serious security breach happened, nor the full story on the obviously corrupt and illegal activity on the part of the Bush administration in causing it. Have you read Joe Wilson's The Politics of Truth? He lays out his case for administration meddling in CIA affairs with great strength. He wrote the book shortly after his wife Valerie was exposed in the newspapers.
· We have had eight years of a "spend and cut taxes" Congress and President. When Clinton left office in 2000, he left behind a surplus that promised to eliminate the federal deficit and reduce our trade deficit. That was squandered by Bush and GOP conservative ideology, plus their blindness to the evidence, to the facts, and with plenty of contrary advice from knowledgeable experts. Our massive deficit need never have happened.
Have you read, or do you intend to read The Wrecking Crew, by
Thomas Franks? This book reviews
the Abramoff scandal and how it was helped by the conservative lobby
culture. I'm pleased that you dislike
the "Washington culture", and that is perhaps how you won the GOP
nomination, but now you seem to be getting flack from some on the conservative
wing. Good luck with that.
Other issues not addressed in this letter:
·
Energy policy, especially with regard to imports
of foreign oil. Yours seem
to be in absentia, like you were on the last eight votes on an important energy
bill in the Senate last month. [See
Thomas Friedman, San Jose Mercury-News, Aug. 14, 2008, page 11A, also NYTimes
OpEd, Aug. 13] According to Friedman,
you were absent for all eight votes, yet had the nerve to stand on the empty
floor of the Senate a week later and bellow "Tell them to come back and
get to work". Was that just
theatre, or was that a prelude to what we can expect of your presidency? Like a dollar short and a week late?
·
More on your foreign policy: see Pete Yost, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug.
14, 2008, page A4: McCain aide lobbied for Georgia. This refers to Michael Scheuneman, who spent
over 3 1/2 years as a paid lobbyist for the state of Georgia [formerly a
Russian state]. Nothing wrong with that
on the surface, but he is now your top foreign policy advisor. Are you getting unbiased advice from this
man, or is he going to try to push your administration into a dangerous
confrontation with Russia? Thanks to
French premier Sarkozy, some sort of settlement is being worked out over the
South Bessetia situation, and it may be a non-issue in January. But I don't think it's particularly astute of you to make such a
choice as Scheuneman, who appears to have a strong bias against Russia. This is also Bush's position at present,
siding with Georgia. Other
commentators, e.g. Robert Scheer, [Aug. 13, San Jose Mercury-News oped page]
worries about the potential bias inherent with this man, who has also been
heavily involved in the right-wing neocon movement for many years. The neocons are the ones that gave us the
Iraq fiasco, the gift that keeps giving!
·
Also, same Chronicle, same page -- corruption:
see Charles Babington, Abramoff scandal figure helps raise funds for McCain. This refers to Ralph Reed, who was engaged
heavily in the Abramoff casino ripoff racket, and seemed to know what was going
on at the time, extracting lots of consulting money from Abramoff. Yet he used his claimed support by Texas
fundamentalists and connections to DeLay to help thwart casino gambling in
Texas, destroying one of their few profitable Indian casinos. How can this pompous, discredited cheat and
liar possibly help your campaign? And
what does that say about your judgment in selecting your staff advisors?
What happens next? I'm waiting
for your next shoe to drop.
I hope to hear from you soon.
You just have. I
have no confidence that you or anyone in your staff, will read this
– it will surely end up in a round file as soon as your clerks find there's no
check inside.
But this will be posted at the top of my private web site,
of which I now have several hundred readers:
http://www.wbarrett.us, under
"Political Flames". This
cost me the better part of a day to compose – I am a swift typist. I expect to earn nothing from its
distribution.
I invite a thoughtful reply to the issues I raise through email. But please don't waste my time with more
campaign slogans -- wbarrett1076@comcast.net.
Sincerely,
(signature)
John McCain
P.S. I know there are those who support this campaign but believe that election day is still far enough away so that there will be "plenty of time" to get involved later.
But if you believe as I do that the differences between me and Senator Obama are very real and very important, and that the stakes are indeed great, then I urge you to join with us today. Because what we do to set the course and lay the foundation of this campaign right now will literally mean the difference between victory and defeat in November.
So please, sign your PLEDGE OF SUPPORT and include your contribution of $35, $50, $100, $500, $1,000 or $2,300 today. Thank you.