Straight Talk Express

John McCain had my deepest respect as someone who had been a POW for 5 years. I had seen him in 2000, and had been impressed with what came across as a very honest demeanor – straight talk it was. I hoped he would win the nomination rather than Bush, but politics does not always work that way.

This time around, I of course completely opposed his stance on the war. I still liked several of the values he stood for, for campaign finance reform which he attempted, for his commitment to not have torture, for his humane look at illegal immigrants. But I simply did not understand his stance on the war. When I heard his son was in the marines, I began to realize that he really, really believed in the war – having his son fighting and supporting the war made him better in my eyes than someone supporting the war from one’s cushy home, though it did alter my position against his candidacy.

He was speaking at the senior citizens center in Nashua, and I took care to park several blocks away (the anti-war stickers make my car stand out in Republican candidate events J). The atmosphere in the room had a lot of energy (a bit like an Edwards’ event actually), with people from a cross-section of society, many with a strong belief in the candidate. The woman sitting next to me was undecided, though strongly leaning towards him, and had voted for him 2000. I was lucky to get a seat in the third row, a great place to be in to ask a question. The New Hamsphire Peace Action had left a message for me to try and bird-dogging questions, and I was intending to try (though I was a bit nervous ;)).

He came in, and it struck me that he was old (I believe he is 71). He was feisty and started by saluting all the veterans in the room, who clearly adore him. A POW, who had been tortured, who spent 5 years in prison not knowing whether he would ever get back home, right there in front of me. It felt good to applaud him.

His talk came across as straight talk. Then it was time for questions. One man, who had lived in Arizona before, asked, “Senator, I like you very much, and I would really, really like to vote for you. But I need to hear some strong statements on illegal immigration. I think it is a serious problem, and all security at our front door would be useless if we left our back door open. You will have to convince me on your stand on that issue if you want my vote”. Oh my. New Hampshire town hall meetings can be tough! McCain answered outlining his stance, that a wall would work in some places, but we would never several other things, like sensors, cameras, a beefed up border patrol etc etc., and faulted the federal government for not having done much to stem it. But it was not a strong statement bashing illegal immigrants as law-breakers, and I doubt the man decided to vote for him.

Another person said that she had read that he was in favor of social security for illegal immigrants. He answered, “No”, which is all the questioner wanted to hear. He went to say that we should think of them in a humane manner, as God’s children, but he did not think we should give them amnesty. I did a double take on that – I thought there was a whole section during an early Republican debate where he talked about the definition of amnesty, and said that giving amnesty was not the same as rewarding them, which the other candidates were accusing him of. Had he changed his stance?

I pondered for a few moments on why illegal immigration is such a scary issue. It is not as though New Hampshire is burdened by a lot of people coming in and making use of public services. Why did it bother people so much? What was the fear? A fear that a way of life would be changed? After all, tons of immigrants had come in to the US, and tons from all cultures were coming in “legally”. Or was it a fear that an “open” border was not good for security? And there are not really a whole lot of illegal immigrants doing landscaping and snow-plowing and car-washing in New Hampshire. All these jobs are still done by New Hampshire folks. The whole immigration issue did not strike me as a critical question that needed to be addressed immediately from New Hampshire’s point of view, but fear is a great political tool. If people felt fear they will lean towards someone who they think will help make that fear go away. Thus it has become a campaign issue!

Several questions revolved around the Iraq war and the larger “idealogical war”, and how military intervention was necessary to put an end to this threat to the US. He clearly blurred the lines between Al Qaeda and Iraq, talking about the brutal dictator Iraq had been under and saying in the same breath that we have to win the war in Iraq to make sure that Al Qaeda was defeated. At one point he talked about the cold war, and about how it was won not by force but by “being a superior civilization”. Then I thought I should ask the question – why did he think this “idealogical war” should be won by force? And a good addition to the question would be – if it is Al Qaeda we are after, why did we go into Iraq? He also talked about nuclear energy being very useful as an alternate means of energy. Why were we objecting to Iran having a nuclear program then?

I raised by hand, but by then it was apparent that there were 3 other peace activists in the room, raising their hands with bird-dogging questions (two I recognized as being with the Nashua Peace Group and Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq). They were veterans in asking questions, and I did not want to interfere with their chances of being called on, especially because they were both sitting close to me. So they asked their questions and I did not get to ask mine.

At the end of all this, what stood out was that for all the straight talk there were inconsistencies when he talked. Did he honestly and truly believe that this was an ideological war? Did he honestly believe it was alright to have the “collateral damage” of Iraqi civilians when he talked about basic, inalienable human rights of every human being? In answer to a question he had talked so much about the basic, inalienable rights of every human being in the world - how does the reconcile the Right to Live and the “collateral damage” in Iraq? Did he honestly and truly believe thee was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? And how come he changed his position on amnesty? Finally even McCain seemed to be giving in to positions which would help win the election. It was a bit disappointing, and my initial mild euphoria in seeing him rapidly vanished. I could not feel that McCain truly believed in the connections he was making regarding the war….. so was he just saying that to win the election?