A Letter From My Dad

Dear friends and family:

I have never sent a mass email like this before, but I am so concerned with current presidential campaign that I am compelled share my views with you.

For many years John McCain was an admirable man who did, indeed, put the country first. In 2000 he was a bastion of reform, candor, and dignity. He was widely admired for his "straight talk" -- and rightly so. But the John McCain of 2008 is unrecognizable to me. What he's done over the last few weeks has forever changed how I'll see him. He's now a deeply cynical politician who is embracing the worst in politics solely for political gain.

Perhaps the most important decision a nominee for President makes is his selection of a running mate to be vice president. The primary criterion for that job is the ability to assume the presidency should it become necessary. In McCain's case this is all the more important due to the fact that, given his age and history with cancer, actuarial tables show that he has at least a 14% chance of dying during the next four years. Should McCain run for the presidency in 2012 there is an even higher probability that he would die while in office. Simply put, if McCain and Palin win in November, there is a very real chance that Sarah Palin will become president.

Sarah Palin is not ready to serve in the White House. In July she admitted to not knowing what the Vice President does, but setting aside that worrisome admission please consider that, in the midst of a war against terrorism and extremism, she had expressed no interest in foreign affairs and has no foreign policy experience. Regarding the surge in Iraq, in December 2006 she said "I want to know that we have an exit plan in place" -- the exact opposite of the purpose of the surge and of the Republican position on Iraq. The issue isn't whether or not you agree with the surge as a strategy; it's whether or not you understand what the strategy is. Palin never once expressed a sound understanding of the tactical and political aims of the surge, an event she first heard about while watching the news. To the question of her foreign policy experience, McCain's response that "Alaska is right next to Russia," as if foreign policy understanding can be obtained through osmosis, is so insulting to intelligent voters that I can scarcely believe that he has used this line many times.

Consider domestic affairs. The McCain camp touts Palin's knowledge in the area of energy, with McCain saying on Thursday that "[Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States." However, in her recent interview with Charlie Gibson she referred to Alaska as the "state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." But that statement, in the one policy area in which Palin is expected to be an expert, is not even close to being correct. The fact is that Alaska produces about 14 percent of domestic oil, and only 3.5 percent of the domestic energy supply. As far as I can tell no one knows where she got that 20 percent figure, but it's a claim McCain himself has repeated in talking up Palin's expertise. Furthermore, I am troubled by Palin's limited understanding of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco, which is connected to the mortgage crisis -- one of the most critical economic issues of our time.

Even if before taking office Sarah Palin were to develop understanding and expertise in foreign and domestic affairs -- a prospect that is patently impossible -- I would still oppose her serving in office, due to her positions on other issues. For example, Palin opposes abortion even in the case of incest or rape. Though thoughtful, compassionate people may disagree on this issue, I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of a country that forces the victim of rape to bear the child of her rapist. What may be worse is that when she was mayor of Wasilla her administration required rape victims to pay for the "rape kit" used to investigate the crime -- a practice nearly unheard of in our country, and for good reason. The families of murder victims don't finance the police investigation of those crimes, nor would we ever expect them to. To hold a different standard for the victims of rape is unconscionable.

For another example, consider science education: While running for governor Palin supported the teaching of creationism in the schools, saying, "Teach both [evolution and creationism]." This stance undermines science education and amounts to an attack on science, threatening the future of science leadership of the United States. Under the Bush administration research in science and medicine has been hampered. If you care about someone with cancer, Alzheimer's disease, or heart disease, (as I do) then you should support increased opportunity for research and improved science education.

Even if I agreed with Palin on these issues, I would still oppose her election due to her lack of character. She continually misrepresents herself and her record. I can understand that, for example, Palin would want to hide the fact that she was elected as mayor of Wasilla with the backing of her church, which at that time was interested in censorship. I can understand why she would want to hide the fact that she questioned how books might be banned from the public library, and that when the librarian stood up to Palin, making it clear that she would not remove books, Palin fired her. I can understand that, given her lack of preparation, she is hiding from the press, having yet to take questions from the American people in a town hall meeting or public press conference.

But worse than hiding her worrisome history with censorship and abuse of executive power is her duplicity. Palin is running as a fiscal conservative, as if she understands the moral obligation to the next generation not to leave them footing the bill for our reckless spending. But her record does not indicate that she is interested in, let alone capable of, leading the country in a manner that is fiscally sound. Consider the fact that when she became mayor of Wasilla the city had no debt, but when she left office the city had $20M in long-term debt. Consider the fact that as mayor she sought out and received almost $27M in pork-barrel federal money and that last year, as governor, she requested $254 million in earmarks for Alaska. This is the most per capita of any state in the union! For the 2009 fiscal year she's already requested $194 million in earmarks. She has criticized Barack Obama for seeking earmarks for his constituents, but she has asked for earmarks at a greater rate than he has.

At the center of Palin's dishonesty is the story of the Bridge to Nowhere. Consider the fact that she advocated for the Bridge to Nowhere -- indeed, she continued to support the project after Congress pulled the plug on funding it -- but on the campaign trail she repeatedly states that she was against it. In fact, she kept the money that was directed to the Bridge to Nowhere and instead is using those taxpayer dollars to build a road to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone. Moreover, the Palin administration is still pursuing a project that would link Ketchikan to its airport with federal funds. I understand that politicians seek earmark funds for their constituents. I don't object. But for Sarah Palin to campaign as someone who "said thanks, but no thanks, to that Bridge to Nowhere" and who as someone who is opposed to earmarks is beyond the pale. There is hypocrisy and then there is hypocrisy masquerading as noble righteousness in an effort to purposefully mislead the electorate. We need to expect better from our elected officials.

But the true issue here is not Sarah Palin. It's not her ignorance of foreign policy or military tactics. It's not her troubled history of abusing the power of her office. It's not her position on abortion, earmarks, the economy, or the Iraq war.

The true issue here is John McCain.

John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his vice president was absolutely not because he was "putting country first". He had only met her twice before offering her the nomination and only consulted with her five days prior to asking her to be the nominee. When McCain was seeking the Republican nomination, he stated clearly that one needs more than to be a mayor or governor for a short time to be prepared for the White House, but Palin had been governor for only 21 months when McCain tapped her. McCain's camp did not vet Palin. McCain chose a running mate who was virtually unknown to America and, rather than subject her to press conferences so that we may learn about her in her own words, he has since been painting a picture of Sarah Palin that is purposefully misleading. Every day another inaccuracy emerges. For example, this week McCain stated that Palin didn't request earmarks as governor, although she clearly has. The McCain camp claimed that Palin has been in war zones in Iraq, but has now been forced to admit that she has never been inside Iraq! Either McCain doesn't know very much about the person he chose to be his running mate -- a scary thought -- or he thinks that he can run a campaign on the idea of a transparent government while sequestering Pailn from the press and blatantly misleading the public about who she is and what she has done -- a thought that is far more disturbing.

McCain might have chosen someone who is prepared to be vice president; but he didn't. He might have chosen someone who, although inexperienced, is honest and consistent about her record; but he didn't. Instead, he chose someone who would appeal to the extreme right wing of his party and who, as a woman, might attract supporters of Hillary Clinton. Moreover, he did this impulsively and now is unwilling to admit to any weaknesses in his choice, or to be honest about her record. This was a deeply cynical move that is insulting to the American voters who care about our nation and how it is governed. Even if you think Palin is a wonderful candidate and that McCain made an inspired decision, do you really want a president who acts on impulse and self-interest? At first I thought the problem was that McCain didn't know Palin's background, policy positions, and style. Now my fear is that he doesn't care.

There is more to say about McCain's judgment and character. All politicians distort the records and positions of their opponents; this is nothing new. So when McCain claims that Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class -- even though Obama's plan actually provides more tax relief for the middle class than McCain's -- it is only mildly annoying. And when McCain says that he will cut taxes for everyone even though he won't -- well, I expect such distortions. However, the most recent ad by the McCain camp is so grotesque as to defy credulity. The announcer in the ad says, regarding education, "Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family." Here is the truth: Obama supported legislation to protect young children from sexual predators, which included teaching children what to watch out for (e.g., inappropriate advances) when with an adult they do not know. It is incredible that McCain would stoop so low, although it is no longer surprising.

How a candidate runs a campaign matters. In the darkest hours of McCain's campaign, when the prospects of his election were growing dim, McCain jettisoned much of what made him an admirable politician for so many years. Instead he embraced the worst in divisive, destructive, pandering politics. When McCain's campaign manager admitted that "this election is not about the issues" it was the only moment in recent memory when I've felt certain that the message coming from the McCain campaign was true. Basing a campaign for our highest office on a strategy of deliberate lies is not an issue of tactics. It calls into question the character of the candidate and his fitness for office.

John McCain seems to have no integrity left. He has turned the election from a question of qualifications, preparation, leadership, and policies to a series of outright lies and obscene pandering that marks the worst in American politics. No one who behaves this way should be elected president. Please do not vote for McCain-Palin.

Jeff Witmer

Monday, September 15, 2008