I wasn't planning on writing a diary today; this is spur-of-the-moment, so bear with me. But Senator McCain made a gaffe today that's as hilarious as it is telling. More of a Freudian slip, if you will. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere because it's so quick that it's really easy to miss.
The presumptive Republican nominee for President Bush's third term was campaigning in Pennsylvania, so naturally he tried to raise Barack Obama's "bitter" comments again. He couldn't even do that right.
According to Mark Halperin, he said the following:
"We’re going to go to the small towns in Pennsylvania and I’m gonna to tell them I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."
Wait. What???
Cling to the Constitution? I don't remember Obama saying THAT!
Here's video of McCain's remarks.
Now, here are Obama's infamous remarks at that San Francisco (GASP) fundraiser that got him into so much hot water:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations
Nothing in there about clinging to the Constitution! Seems kind of strange that McCain would bring this up. I'm not making a big deal about this because it's some sort of serious gaffe (or willful distortion, if you prefer); clearly, in my opinion, McCain just misspoke. But I'm putting on my psychology hat and positing that it's a Freudian slip... because he doesn't seem to have very much regard for the Constitution in his recent public statements.
Here's an example from WatchBlog last year:
McCain recently posed the question:
"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people spend on tours of duty and how long they would spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional." (snip)
Well, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I know how to read. In Article 2, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to... [long list] To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Call me crazy, but it looks to me like Congress has the power to make just about any sort of rule or regulation it wants regarding the military. Of course, the significance of this battle goes far beyond the particular question of mandating tours of duty. This administration and its supporters effectively maintain that Congress only has an "ON/OFF" switch when it comes to making war. Once Congress declares a war, the argument goes, it's only way to rein in the executive branch is to completely cut off spending. (Of course, they know this is politically almost impossible.)
He didn't think that Congress had any authority to govern how our military is deployed. So what, he misspoke. The man's a United States Senator and members of Congress know their Constitution like the back of their hand.
Not so fast.....
There's also this classic from May, chronicled in a brilliant diary by our own NWTerriD. You all remember when McCain forgot what eminent domain is or something like that...
There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use."
I beg your pardon? Senator, clearly the POINT of eminent domain is that which you claim the Constitution FORBIDS. You're shitting me right? Read the Fifth Amendment, man! (emphasis mine)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So private property CAN be taken for public use, as long as compensation is just. You're scaring me, McCain. Don't screw up again.
Uh-oh. georgia10 is on the case. (emphasis mine)
Q: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
A: I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, "I only welcome Christians." We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. Read it again, and let those words sink in. Now read this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Who do we believe about what the Constitution does regarding religion? John McCain or.... the Constitution?
For good measure, the Constitution also says this:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
but John McCain says this (emphasis mine):
But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.
In summary, John McCain appears never to have read the Constitution of the United States. He has deliberately misrepresented the letter of the law of our land on a number of occasions in his desperate pant to gain the acceptance of the radical Republican base. Today, he accused Senator Obama of saying that rural, small-town folks "cling to... the Constitution." Senator Obama said no such thing, probably because it's entirely possible that those people have a clearer understanding of our Constitution than John McCain does.