McCain's 10%

He's a decorated war veteran, who has served in the Senate since the Reagan days. This year, his political party chose him to be their nominee for the Presidency. The GOP calls John McCain a maverick, because he doesn't always do what they want him to. He has voted against his party, and against his President, in the past.

But the Democrats tell a different story. They hammer away calling Senator McCain "McSame," and touting the line that John McCain has voted with President Bush 90% of the time. Even the Senator himself has admitted this at one point. It's an intriguing strategy: make a candidate look like something and attack that thing. Classic straw man? Well, we have to examine the situation.

The 90% argument is a very popular argument. And it's working. So far, most of the polls show Democrat Barack Obama leading by a margin of 4-12 points. The criticism has a two-fold aim: first, emphasize the overwhelming similarities, second, marginalize the differences. After all, 10% isn't much. Is it?

Well, certainly John McCain shares similarities to President Bush. They're members of the same political party, the Republican Party (which included Abraham Lincoln once). They share many of the same views and ideals. Of course, they're similar. I have to ask: is that really a bad thing? Didn't Al Gore and Bill Clinton share similarities? Didn't George H. W. Bush share similarities with President Reagan? Of course. It seems to me that the American are okay with similarities.

Well, not really. Both Gore and the first Bush served under very popular Presidents. When they ran, the similarities did not matter because they were similar to well-loved Presidents. McCain fights an uphill battle: he is similar to a President who has an incredibly low approval rating (even though Congress's rating is much lower).

Then I have to question the statistic itself. How did we arrive at the 90% mark? Did we measure all of Senator McCain's votes? More likely, the number is hyperbole: it's not meant to be exact, just to make a statement. Let's assume for the sake of this article that the 90% similarity is true. That leaves us with 10% difference. Certainly doesn't seem like much, does it? Not necessarily.

I confess. 10% seems tiny. In the grand scheme of things, it can be. 10% of 100 dollars is only 10 dollars. 10% of 300,000 dollars is 30,000 dollars. Seems like a lot, but you've still put 270,000 dollars in the bank (provided it's not IndyMac). It's not much, is it? Well, it all depends on what that 10% is and how well you use it.

My father pastors a church, and he has been a pastor most of my time, full-time in the ministry. My family's income came from the church, which in turn came from the congregation. Following the principles of Christian tithing, an individual only gives 10% of his monthly income to the church (and that's assuming he remembers to give it - we operate on an honor system). If a church member makes $1,800 a month, he puts $180 in the offering plate (also assuming he doesn't designate to a specific church ministry). Obviously, my family can't live off $180 a month. But what if the church runs a consistent membership of 60? What if a few of those members make $3,300 a month or more? Suppose the pastor and his family live on the church property in a paid-for parsonage. The economic situation becomes much more manageable.

How does that relate to John McCain? Well, it just illustrates that 10%, even though the number itself is small, can be quite significant indeed. To determine whether it is, we have to look at McCain's record, and by extension the Republican Party's platform.

The GOP (Grand Old Party - another name for the Republicans) boasts very conservative politicians, especially in the House. GOP lawmakers typically oppose abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gun control, to mention just a few subjects. They take their positions on claims that abortion and stem cell research harms an embryo, which is a tiny human being, and that limiting gun ownership violates a Constitutional right. Now, that's the platform policy in a nutshell. Certainly, not ALL Republicans adhere to all of this.

Democrats tend to avocate abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, and gun control. Why? Well, abortion is a woman's right (and it is ever since a landmark court case). Stem-cell research could save lives. And guns hurt people! Certainly, we want to protect our citizens. Democrats also push reforms to carbon emissions, to cut down on climate change and avert the dreaded Global Warming.

Who's right? Well, I'm trying to stay objective here. I only want the truth. But as I see it, politically, both sides have some degree of relevance, either morally or Constitutionally, or just logically. I believe the balance of political power must be carefully maintained. Neither side really needs a strong grip on the government. I would even say the current landscape of the Senate comes close to ideal balance. Now there is a major advantage to such a balance: deadlocking. Equal votes on both sides can stall a potentially beneficial bill. But too many votes on one side can pass very bad legislation. And bad legislation is truly non-partisan: both Democrats and Republicans make terrible mistakes.

Now that I've discussed platform, how does McCain's 10% make a difference? Well, we have to look at his record. Certainly, he's voted in favor of President Bush's plans. No one will deny that. But where does he differ?

McCain initially opposed President Bush's tax cut plans. He voted against them. Ironically, he now believes they must be made permanent. The switch in position might have a lot to do with the current economic situation.

McCain worked with Senator Feingold (a Democrat) to reform campaign finance. The President staunchly opposed this, but he ultimately signed the McCain-Feingold Act. Some speculate that McCain's own Act might have hurt his current Presidential bid financially.

President has been tough on terrorism. John McCain shares this, but the two men differ on how to handle captured suspects. Senator McCain has fought to limit certain interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, calling such practices torture. Well, McCain knows a few things about torture. He was kept in a rathole in Vietnam for years. I cannot imagine the suffering he endured. Techniques like waterboarding, the Senator denounces as torture, or cruel and unusual punishment. President Bush seems to believe that we should use any method necessary to obtain information. But in doing so, at what point do we become no better than the terrorists themselves? That's John McCain's question.

The Senator pushed for a troop surge in Iraq, which President Bush rejected several times. Finally, the measure gained ground, and it has been an arguable success. The President now understands the wisdom of such an act.

Senator McCain broke with Bush on a fundamental issue: stem-cell research. He supports measures to regulate it, believing it will save lives. He not only broke from many in his own party, but also changed his own position. Earlier, McCain opposed the research. He now believes stem-cell research will continue with or without government sanctions. So it's wise to support to the extent that government can control it.

He also broke with the President on another issue. Unlike many conservative Republicans, John McCain believes Global Warming is a reality. He has worked with Senator Joe Lieberman (an Independent Democrat) on tough measures to fight the changing climate. President denies it's even happening.

McCain tried to introduce reforms to corporate governance in the wake of the Enron disaster. The legislation attempts would have guaranteed pensions and cut down on golden parachutes (which probably would have helped us today) given to departing executives. President Bush opposed the measures, leading to much milder bill, Sarbanes-Oxley, which passed.

Also, John McCain ran AGAINST Bush in 2000. I have to wonder. Where would we be now had McCain won the Republican's nomination? Could he have defeated Vice President Al Gore? Would Florida's vote have been as close? Of course, I can't answer any of these questions.

10% is just 10%. But that number can be significant in its own right. We all must cut through the partisan smoke and look at the record. Sure, McCain shares many similarities with President Bush, but as the Senator said in the last debate, "I'm NOT President Bush." He has enough differences to make him a different and distinguished political figure. And that's why, as much as I may disagree with him on a few points, he's one of my political heroes.