Yes, you read that right. I said McCain's FISA vote.
The news, and the blogosphere, has been concentrating on today's FISA vote. And a lot of that talk has been about Obama and the vote. So I want to propose something to the Progressive Think Tanks out there: this is the PERFECT opportunity to shine the light on McCain. It could become one of the talking points of the election, but only if we take it.
How? More, after the fold...
It all boils down to "what is considered a talking point." If your answer was "the thing that SHOULD be talked about the most" of "the thing most urgently in need of the nation's attention", you really need to watch more TV.
So far, the issue with FISA has been Obama, Obama, Obama. So there are a few points that I want to make.
1 - Obama's is just one vote. To defeat the Bill at this stage (more on defeating the bill later), we need more than one vote. Which leads me to point 2...
2 - seeing as we have more than just Obama voting, and seeing as it looks like Obama's vote (for or against, with or without amendments) will not be the deciding one, why is NOBODY CONCENTRATING ON MCCAIN'S VOTE? (Edit: seeing as McCain doesn't even see this issue as being important enough to go back to Washington for, maybe the question is more correctly asked as: if FISA's changes are so important, why did John McCain decide it unworthy of even turning up to vote? It's not as though he needed to do some campaigning for the Republican Party race.)
McCain also gets to vote on this, and if neither of their votes as individuals will actually decide the vote one way or the other, why is it that only Obama's vote is being brought in for microscopic analysis?
True: the FISA vote is important. It ties in with the Fourth Amendment's assertion that Americans can be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" without being harrassed, unless there is "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." But if Obama is under scrutiny because of the importance of this vote, then it's also a question of why EITHER PARTY would let this pass.
You see: any law can be struck down if it's considered unconstitutional. As the FISA amendments allowing warantless wire-taps go against the Fourth Amendment, and an Amendment can only be repealed by the issue of another Amendment (which must be ratified by 75% of the States), it's likely to go to the Supreme Court.
So now we begin to see how voting for Obama becomes all the more important, because he will be able to address the problem of Conservative Activists holding a job for life with no oversight on the Supreme Court. You want another Roberts, or Scalia, determining what the government can do as regards spying? With the core of [f]right wingers and McCain appointments, civil liberties could be set back for generations. And it won't just be telecom immunity.
So we should be shining the light on McCain. His vote on this issue can prove, once and for all, whether he truly is a maverick or whether he truly is Bush's third term. He is currently running an ad on TV, which he approves of, where he is called "a maverick", and it says he puts America "before Party, polls, and self". Fiery words. I say we hold his feet to that fire. In New Orleans on 6/3/08, McCain said "You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy." Well, this is the PERFECT opportunity to see if McCain is against this policy, or if it's yet another Bush-McCain policy.
I posted this idea on another board and received a "I don't know if we should" reply immediately. One counterpoint made was we should concentrate on Obama because he is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. John McCain is vying to be the de facto leader of the Republican Party too, so surely Americans that care should be shining the light on all that deserve it. Another comment was that we already know where McCain stands, we expect him to just be another Bush, so it's not exactly news. YES IT IS. Because McCain is the one that says he's not Bush's poodle, that's PRECISELY why we sink our teeth in and don't let go. You can hold Obama (hell, all the Dems apart from Feingold, Leahy, Dodd, and about a dozen others) accountable and I fully expect every proper-thinking American to do so. But how does that ALSO stop us from holding the Republicans accountable too? It's not "hold Republicans accountable OR show Obama what we think". It's "hold Republicans accountable AND show Obama what we think".
The [f]right wing smear machine certainly isn't going to do it. John McCain isn't going to be straight-talking enough to do it. It's up to us all to hold the Republicans accountable for this too. Rule 1 of the GOP playbook - if both parties are fucking up, blame "the Liberals" for it, and keep doing it until the American public truly thinks it was just the Democratic Party that sold them down the river. Well I say it's time to step up and put them on defense, because the only reason they attack so much is... well, have you SEEN them on defense? They're terrible!
I'll refine my statement there: I think one problem with political analogies is where Offense and Defense are stressed. This makes politics, in the minds of even the most astute of people, seem like football. And people know that you can't have your offensive eleven and defensive eleven on the field at the same time, and that only the offense gets to hold the ball. Politics is more like chess. You can set up a play called a "gambit", where a move is made that (at first) looks like it puts you at a disadvantage... but as the game goes on, it becomes clear that move was made to control part of the board. One example of this is the King's Gambit. Our player will sacrifice a pawn early in the game; but for the other player to maintain more pawns going forward, theory has shown that moves must be made that seriously weaken the position of their pieces).
We should be using FISA as a King's Gambit. Ultimately, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide that it's unconstitutional. But to get to the point where the Supreme Court isn't loaded with Conservative Activists, we need to make sure that Obama is in the position of strength. That way, he becomes President. That way, we control the Supreme Court. And we do that by continually pointing out examples where McCain is McSame. And we're losing an advantage if we don't take it with FISA.
So: John McCain? You say you're not like this.
I say: prove it. The world is watching.