The Militant takes on Cynthia McKinney

The Militant, the newsletter of the Socialist Workers Party, has published an article on Cynthia McKinney‘s nomination by the Green Party. In a style likely to be considered critical, McKinney’s present platform is contrasted with her votes in Congress:

McKinney is running what she calls a “power to the people” campaign. Clemente says they will fight all “-isms and ideologies that divide us.” They are running on the 10-point “Draft Manifesto for a Reconstruction Party,” which includes demands for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, recognizing “affordable housing as a human right,” granting “reparations” to Blacks, “ending prisons for profit,” creating a “single-payer” health-care system, and enacting “real immigration reform.”

McKinney’s claim to be “the only genuinely antiwar candidate” is contradicted by her votes when she was in Congress. She voted for the September 2001 bill authorizing the U.S. war on Afghanistan and for the May 2005 “Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act.” She says she is for cutting “bloated Pentagon spending” and for deploying “our diplomats” to “resolve conflicts through peaceful means” and for “the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops” from around the world.

McKinney often promotes conspiracy theories about Sept., 11, 2001, alleging that the Bush administration knew in advance about the planned attack on the World Trade Center.

Although McKinney says she is for immigration “reform,” while still in Congress she voted against expanding the number of visas for some categories of immigrant workers. She also voted both for and against lifting the U.S. travel ban to Cuba.

The article further states that “While McKinney uses radical-sounding rhetoric against the Republicans and Democrats, her political framework represents no break from capitalist politics at all.” It closes remarking on McKinney’s endorsements from the Workers World Party and the Workers International League, referred to as “two parties that call themselves socialist.”

23 thoughts on “The Militant takes on Cynthia McKinney

  1. Deran

    I know, and not worshiping Jack Barnes! How outrageous!

    I’m guessing it’s the support of the WWP (former Trotskyists) and various other current Trots that really burns the SWPies britches.

  2. G.E.

    Nexus – I guess collectivists are just too darn individualist!

    Seriously, though, the article raises some valid criticisms: How can McKinney defend her vote for HSA?

  3. Gregg Jocoy

    OK…these are the questions I remember being asked to ask McKinney:

    Why did you vote for the Homeland Security Act?

    Have you read Rothbard and Rand, and if so, what did you think?

    Any more? And please, it’s not like we talk all the time. It may be some weeks before we are face-to-face again.

  4. Mike Gillis

    My question:

    Early in the campaign, Elaine Brown alleged that McKinney voted for “three strikes” legislation. Is this true, and if so, how does McKinney explain this vote?

  5. Sivarticus

    What’s the point of including McKinney in a debate with Nader, Baldwin, and Barr? She agrees with Nader on everything except probably reparations. It would be utterly redundant.

    Nader v. Baldwin v. Barr would provide three fresh perspectives. While some might say the latter two agree on a lot (and they’re right), there would still be a significant difference between Libertarianism and Baldwin’s social conservative positions.

  6. langa

    I think any candidate, including McKinney, who is on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning should be invited to debate. There figures to be 6 candidates who will meet that threshold, and any debate that doesn’t at least extend an invitation to all 6 is a sham.

  7. Gregg Jocoy

    So..the debate would include only men.

    Sounds just peachy to me.

    Got the 3 strikes question, and will certainly ask the debate question, although I feel pretty sure the answer would be “yes”.

  8. ronaldkanehardy

    All of the candidates (Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader) are likely to be in the Twin Cities for the RNC. Ideal debate time. I am sure McKinney will be on board if there is a debate.

    Sivarticus – what’s the point of including both Barr and Baldwin, both of their names begin with B, they both have male genitalia, both have pale skin (unlike *ahem* Nader…) and they are both against reparations. It would be utterly redundant.

  9. paulie cannoli

    All of the candidates (Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader) are likely to be in the Twin Cities for the RNC. Ideal debate time. I am sure McKinney will be on board if there is a debate.

    Great idea!

    Sivarticus – what’s the point of including both Barr and Baldwin, both of their names begin with B, they both have male genitalia, both have pale skin (unlike *ahem* Nader…) and they are both against reparations. It would be utterly redundant.

    I’m beginning to suspect Sivarticus is pulling our leg. I think he is actually a Green, or perhaps a socialist, trying to get a rise out of folks.

  10. Fred Church Ortiz Post author

    All of the candidates (Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader) are likely to be in the Twin Cities for the RNC. Ideal debate time. I am sure McKinney will be on board if there is a debate.

    I really, really, really hope I can make it to Minny that week.

  11. Mike Gillis

    I think anyone on enough ballots to hypothetically win should be allowed to debate.

    Nader and Barr have met that criteria. McKinney is just on the cusp of it, and I think Baldwin will make the cut if he wins that lawsuit for the CA ballot line.

  12. ronaldkanehardy

    Twin Cities is going to be a mess. The Anarchists are planning on attempting to shut the city down.

    I’ve heard worse is planned for the DNC in Colorado where the Anarchists are looking to reek havoc.

    The question is whether the media will show any of it.

    I’d love to try to make it to the Twin Cities for some of that chaos.

  13. paulie cannoli

    According to today’s update at BAN, LP is on 35 state ballots, McKinney and Baldwin at 24 each, Nader at 19.

    Many more states have already had signatures for all or some of these submitted.

    A few summary rejections are being challenged in court.

    Unlike 2004, I am not aware of alternative party/independent candidates being challenged off the ballot this year.

    I expect Baldwin, Barr, McKinney and Nader to be on the ballot in enough states to get 270 delegates and then some, and echo the call that they all participate in debate(s).

    Also, I hope they use new technology to “project” themselves into taped D/R debates, and issue youtubes of same as quickly as possible.

  14. Mike Gillis

    I count Nader at 29, as he’s turned in more than twice as many required signatures in that many states already. No real nailbiters on his list.

    Don’t know how many that the GP and CP are waiting on, but if McKinney has even ONE state still being counted where she has a decent signature cushion, she’s past 270.

  15. Mike Gillis

    Absolutely, after Ohio, NY and VA are through, most of the remaining states has 5,000 or fewer required sigs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *