This week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., returned from surgery and a brain cancer diagnosis to be the key vote in allowing the Senate to pass the motion to proceed on the Obamacare repeal options (Sidenote: Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., waited until after McCain voted, because he didn't want to be the third GOP defector and thus kill the motion. It's reasonable to believe that if McCain voted no, he would also have voted no. Because McCain voted yes, Johnson also voted yes.). McCain then gave a speech calling for the Senate to get things done, to return to Senate norms and traditions, and to work across party lines once again. He also said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, though which bill he was referring to was unclear.
It was McCain in a nutshell: Equal parts frustrating, inspiring and confusing. He's not the maverick he pretended he was for a decade or so, and he's not the party-line man, either. So I figured I'd talk about him for a bit.
McCain will always have my respect for two moments: Being a POW and correcting his constituents who believed Obama was an "Arab" or worse. He is a war hero and always will be. He didn't have to defend his political opponent against the accusations of his own voters, yet he did. Both of those things took courage, and I will always respect courage in difficult situations.
However, McCain's had issues since being in the Senate. Let's talk first about his early years, when he was the sole Republican among what was termed the "Keating 5," a quintet of senators accused of corruption in the late 1980s. In short, a savings and loan bank chairman had given $1.3 million to the campaigns of five senators while under federal banking investigation. The investigation was dropped. The bank failed in 1989, costing many their life savings. Three of the five accused senators were found to have illegally interfered in the investigation. Two senators, McCain and Sen./ex-astronaut John Glenn, were found to have not interfered, but were said to have used "poor judgment."
He's been a "maverick," but not really. His first decade in the Senate hewed to the typical GOP line. Starting in 1997, he was more moderate than the average GOP senator. Then, after being defeated for president and starting in 2009, he has been an average GOP senator, more or less.
This week, he called for a return to Senate norms and traditions, but it came moments after he voted to ignore Senate norms and traditions. He said he wouldn't vote for "the bill" right now, then later voted for one of the bill options (Note: Reportedly, there's an out for McCain here. The vote was a proxy vote on a procedural move rather than the bill itself. McCain is a stickler for procedure and such, so said he voted for the procedural move but would not have supported the bill.).
So who/what is John McCain? He's a stickler for Senate traditions and norms, as expected for a man who's been in that circuit for 30 years. He's hawkish on foreign agitators like Russia, North Korea and Iran, but also just seems to take those threats more seriously. He is knowledgable on foreign affairs and wants competence and strategy on those issues, even if he doesn't agree with it — so he tends to vote differently than the GOP line on foreign affairs. But he's not as knowledgable about domestic affairs, where he sticks to the party line most of the time. He's even been known to vote out of spite when he's pissed off.
John McCain is a complicated man. He does not fit into a simple box. Those from both parties who think he's "on our side" are probably lying to themselves. So when he isn't on their side, they feel betrayed. I really hate this "you're either with us or against us" thing that I've seen from both sides. The world isn't binary.
UPDATE: McCain voted against the "skinny repeal" in what was considered a shocker. You can tell it was a shock because McConnell would not have brought Pence to the Senate floor if he didn't think the "skinny repeal" would pass. McCain's "no" caught everyone by surprise, but with hindsight, maybe it shouldn't have. See above where I mention how much of a stickler for Senate norms/procedures he is? See above where McCain said he couldn't vote for "this bill" but didn't say which one? Also, he was JUST re-elected in 2016 and he probably won't run for re-election when he's 86 -- there was not a lot of political pressure that could be placed on him. There were signs, but everyone figured he'd cave. I'd argue this is the biggest "maverick" vote he's had in a decade.
But I think it's interesting to note that two fairly reliable conservatives have been the deciding vote in Obamacare continuing to exist. The most recent is John McCain, while the other is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I think both would tell you privately that Obamacare is flawed, as would many Democrats. But for Roberts, the bill was legal even if he disliked it. For McCain, Obamacare was better than the alternatives.
Respect among colleagues
While McCain called for more respect and working across party lines, his fellow legislators have not gotten the message.
1) Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, spoke about three of the female Republican senators opposed to many of the GOP health care bills (Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito). He said if they were men, he might ask them "to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style." On one hand, it's sexist not to treat female senators the same as male senators. Further, think about what he's saying: "I want to shoot you, but I won't because you're a woman." It's just gross. Even if you take out the sexism issue, it's still turning someone's political stance into a cause for violence. It's toxic, no matter which side it comes from.
2) Sen. Collins, R-Maine, heard those comments. She was caught on a hot mic talking with a Democratic senator about those comments, and she said Farenthold was "so unattractive it's unbelievable" and referred to a weird picture of Farenthold in his pajamas next to a Playboy bunny. So it's not his views that are disgusting, but his looks. That wouldn't fly if the roles were reversed, so it's outside the lines. While hers was a private conversation, she ended up apologizing and Farenthold wrote her an apology, too. Both apologies were warranted and both statements crossed the line.
3) And then Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., attacks both Collins and Murkowski for voting against the GOP bills, saying that someone needs to "snatch a knot in their ass," a Southern phrase for beating someone up. It came in a conversation about Pres. Trump's direct attacks on Murkowski, so many took it as against Murkowski specifically.
Look: If our politicians don't respect each other, it sends a signal down the line that politicians are not worthy of our respect. Legislators should have our respect, and it starts with each other.
On transgender troops
I'll keep this shorter. The two stated reasons for this, per President Trump are the 1) cost and 2) disruption to the troops. I don't care what other reasons other people have stated — he's the President and these are the reasons he's claimed. They're both crap.
1) In a study funded by the Department of Defense, the estimated costs of transgender surgeries are between $2.4 million and $8.4 million. Even if you take the "most extreme" version of that range, $8.4 million, that's a drop in the federal bucket. It's 1/5 of the budget for Viagra alone, and 1/10th of the budget for all erectile dysfunction treatments the Armed Forces covers. It's four trips to Mar-A-Lago. It's nothing. If you complain about the costs of this, you expose yourself to other, similar costs. Currently, Armed Forces insurance pays for one (1) cosmetic surgery in your lifetime, including breast enlargement if you're a woman. So... wouldn't gender reassignment surgery count, too?
2) It's a disruption to the troops makes me groan. I want to first acknowledge I'm not and have never been in the Armed Forces, so I can't claim to know if there are different views inside the Armed Forces on this one. Anyway, Truman integrated the troops in what was then a disruption. The Armed Forces adjusted. Transgender troops are already in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces were adjusting. Just because something's a disruption doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Finally, I want to note something quickly. Being transgender is not a mental illness. Do not compare it to schizophrenia or a disease -- that implies something is wrong with them. A person who is transgender is not dysfunctional. (Note: There are some diagnoses related to transgenderism and therapy can often be a prescribed treatment, but the intent there is not to "reverse" whether someone is transgender but rather to let the person be comfortable as transgender. Most people who are transgender are not diagnosed with anything.) They also can't just change being transgender like losing weight or cutting their hair. It reminds me of the old X-Men line: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" That's not how it works. Transgender people are perfectly functional and just wish to live their lives. Many have already been serving in the military, and this policy change is only stoking unwarranted transphobia.
Summary Judgments
Do not listen to the "survey" that shows 26 percent stopped watching the NFL because of the kneeling during the anthem protests. But only 12 percent of the respondents said they stopped watching the NFL, which means the 26 percent was of the 12 percent of respondents... so 3 percent-ish of all respondents. It's not meaningful. • • • So far, my prediction about "skinny repeal" passing seems right on. I think it'll pass by a 50-50 vote, and go to conference committee. I don't think it's a great idea to vote yes on the hope that conference committee will solve it. I've seen a nearly identical thing happen in the Kansas Legislature. The Senate passed a bill they didn't want to see become law in the plans that it would get fixed up in conference committee. But the House instead jumped on the Senate's bill and passed it quickly. • • • The Trump-speaks-at-the-Boy-Scout-Jamboree issue was a mess, but I think it's been handled almost the right way by the BSA. They annually invite the President to speak at the National Jamboree, and Trump accepted. After that, they can't really control what he speaks about, even if it is wildly political and over-the-top in self-promotion. The BSA was right to invite him and right to apologize for the insertion of politics into an apolitical environment. As an Eagle Scout, I would have liked to see more pointed discussion of where Trump has differed from the Scout ideals (kind, helpful, friendly, obedient, etc.), but that's a quibble. • • • I'm still behind where I need to be on training for the 10K. I'm running around 4 miles with a few walk breaks, but I need to be at 4.33/4.5 miles soon. Running farther distances also means waking up earlier to run, since 4.5 miles means roughly 45-50 minutes of me. This is the hard part about training: I want to train, but it's HARD. I think about this scene from a show I don't watch a lot. • • • You may have seen Alyson post this, but the other day, Evie was low-key mouthing off to me. Me: Evie, that was sassy and I don't like it. Evie: Yeeeaah it was.
No comments:
Post a Comment