Sen. John McCain
Posted on 03/10/2008 10:35:31 AM PDT by NYer
.- Exit polls from the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio illustrate that evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Mike Huckabee, though McCain was already dubbed the “presumptive nominee”, reports Cybercast News Service. Analysts predict that McCain will have to win the support of evangelicals to win the presidency in November.
MSNBC’s exit polls showed that in Texas, 60% of those who attend church more than once a week voted for Huckabee while only 33% supported McCain. Ohio demonstrated a similar trend with 54% of church attendees choosing Huckabee and 45% backing McCain.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council told Cybercast News Service, "McCain can get that vote in November but he is going to have to work for it. It would be a mistake to assume the conservative vote is just going to gravitate to the Republican nominee."
He continued saying that McCain must be more proactive in reaching out to conservatives if he expects evangelicals to come out to vote for him in November. "He already has the voting record to back up his claim to be a conservative, but he has never led on evangelical issues. He is going to have to lead if he wants to get the socially conservative vote."
McCain must convince conservatives that their issues are important to him and that he will advance them as president, Perkins predicted. "Really, it just depends on him, whether he moves towards them and communicates to conservatives that he really cares about them," said Perkins.
Scott Skeeter, the director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, told Cybercast News Service that evangelicals will still prefer McCain to the Democratic nominee. "It does not appear that McCain is unacceptable to conservative voters. When you offer him to evangelicals against the Democrats, they don't have trouble voting for him rather than Obama. The real question is, how much enthusiasm is there for John McCain? He needs to stress the things that connect him to that constituency."
There is no chance McCain will get the evangelical vote.
just as the abortion block must vote for obama or hillary. if you take away abortion as an issue for the dems, they lose every single election.
Then McCain is toast. No self-respecting evangelical is going to tolerate a liberal who supports amnesty for illegals, curtailing their freedom of speech in an election year, and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
If the evangelicals refuse to vote for him, he will use those two words he has leveled at other party members F-— You.
McCain is so charming.
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
- John McCain, February 28, 2000 -
McCain should “work for it” by highlighting the Liberalism and Immorality of his opponents. If he goes too far right in his rhetoric, he would lose moderates as well and Conservatives are already in “we won’t believe you no matter what mode”.
Nothing he can say would EVER change mind of Conservatives. However, it surely would hurt his standing amongst moderates and independents. So instead of aligning his rhetoric with Conservative rhetoric, HE NEEDS TO SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF CONSERVATIVES, by highlighting the positions Hillary and Obama have taken.
Obama voted to let survivors of PBA die (be killed really). Mac needs to mention that once and it would send chills through spine of any true Conservative and would remind them what sitting at home would get them.
He obviously needs to keep acknowledging and apologizing that his immigration bill should have FIRST and FOREMOST focused on border security and only then the issue of 12 million illegals present in the country can be addressed. He needs to continue to MOCK VIRTUAL FENCE.
His State is now truly a Maverick State when it comes to getting tough on illegal immigration. So much so that reverse immigration is happenning. He needs to STEAL the credit for that. He can also propose SOMETHING SIMILAR AT NATIONAL LEVEL. I think that proposal can be a winner.
I believe much will depend on McCain’s choice of VP on the ticket.
I also don’t know how many Evangelical’s will be swayed by President Bush’s endorsement.
The difficult question is the Supreme Court Justice appoinments that may arise during the next four years and whether McCain will choose better candidates than you think Clinton or Obama would make.
It’s an very important issue, yet isn’t not voting McCain voting for abortion vis-a-vis electing Clintoon or Obama.
Choices in life are complicated. I’m an Evangelical who will vote for McCain only because I see the alternatives as being pure evil and TOTALLY against my principles.
Those issues are way down on the list for evangelicals.
If McCain picks Fla Governor Crist for VP, he’s toast.
I still think if Obama is the nominee, the Bradley Effect will come into play...just nobody wants to admit it.
Or the Mexico City Policy, which will be immediately reversed should either Sen. Klinton or Obama win.
The little problem with the premise of this piece is that McCain doesn’t want, or need, evangelicals.
Does this mean John will have to give up making daily reports to the father of lies?
He will just use us and then renounce us.
McCain doesn’t need evangelical votes, and he should let the Christian right know what he really thinks about us. Let McCain be McCain, and stop trying to turn him into a conservative. He got here as a populist Democrat. Let him win as one.
WE'll see how that strategery works.
I disagree, who else we going to vote for? Some will stay home, but most will vote for him in the end.
The real question is who is going to do the 72 hour GOTV efforts that many evangelicals did before and won’t do now. That is probalby a good 50% of th volunteers from the last 2 elections that will stay home since they are not motivated (including myself).
The Republican “right” made several strategic mistakes.
They have not created a long term plan which includes the formation of a bloc with candidates who have all signed on the dotted line for the support of the bloc, long before they became a Presidential contender.
Instead they have relied on “hope” that existing candidates would either develop supporting their agenda, or that they would switch and embrace their agenda without prospect of switching back.
This guarantees that virtually *no* candidate will either be acceptable to them or be steadfast in their beliefs when running for high office.
To make matters worse, right now they are focused on this election, which for all intents and purposes is over, with them losing. Instead they should be planning for the next *two* elections.
Think about it. How many candidates can you name that would be acceptable candidates for the Republican “right wing” in four and eight years?
Most on the Republican “right” would probably say either “Duncan Hunter” or “Mike Huckabee. If those are the *only* two possibles in four and eight years, then *now* is the time to start preparing their timetable and organization for the next two elections, not three years and seven years from now.
I will have to hand it to George W. Bush. In his first election against Al Gore, *before* the Republican primary had even begun, he had already secured the support of all the major Republican donors. Somewhat over eight years ago, he had guaranteed winning the primary before it had even begun.
He did it, so the Republican “right wing” can also do it. But only if they get their act together and start now.
Heaven knows how good or bad the national situation of the United States will be in four years, but at best the next four years is going to be tricky.
But if the Republican “right wing” wants to name the next President, they had better start right now, and keep working ahead for as long as they want to keep power.
Ha ha - who is pumtive nominee now?? Evangels will not tolerate such lose moralities.
I predict half of self-described evangelicals won’t vote, and of the half that do, 40% will vote for the Democrat.
He won’t get a vote from this Evangelical!
Yes, that is the new GOP “charm patrol” in action.
More predictable butt-covering by the very “leaders” who got us to where we are. They’re worse than useless. To conservatism, that is. They’re quite useful now to the Left...
In the end, though, they’re going to be exposed.
John will get this evangelical’s vote.
Unless we evangelicals sit home, or throw away our vote in protest, we don’t have much choice.
John is to the right of Hillary and Obama on social issues. He is known as a right to lifer. Even if he doesn’t always vote consistently. He does support a ban on stem cell research except for existing lines.
Neither Obama nor Hillary have the experience. And McCain too, is lacking executive experience. But McCain understands Washington better of the three.
Obama will give away our sovergnty to the UN as demonstrated by his bill to tax us $900 billion and give it to the UN to elimiate global poverty.
Hillary will reign 4 more years of Clintonian corruption but we will survive as we did before.
I hope Hillary wins the rat nomination, not because she will be easier to beat than Obama, but because if she does win the Presidency, I think she’ll be better than Obama.
One thing for certain is McCain, Hillary or Obama will not do anything, if elected, that Soros does not approve of, which means all will embrace every portion of the cult of death including snuffing those of us they consider not worth having the right to expel CO2!
If McCain wins on the “anyone but socialists” vote and with such a huge lack of core conservative support, I can see four years of intense criticism and displeasure about almost everything he does from all quarters. This would likely take the Republicans down in the House and the Senate as collateral damage as the public voices its displeasure in elections anyway it can.
Look at the caucus results to date. Caucus votes are a far better indicator of enthusiasm for a candidate than are primary votes because they require more effort than simply showing up to vote.
McCain is a distant 7 points behind Huckabee and only 5 points ahead of Ron Paul. And he has less than half the caucus votes of Mitt Romney who dropped out more than a month ago.
Simply put, Romney (who had enthusiasm problems of his own) inspires 2.2 caucus voters for every one McCain can inspire, including the time when McCain has had the field to himself!
"And this is a virtue?"
Depends on what he does with it. It should make him more effective at getting stuff through Congress. Which is another thing that could be a virtue depending on what he does with it.
No, he doesn't. He's been a supporter of the destruction of human embryos right along.
Obama will give away our sovergnty to the UN as demonstrated by his bill to tax us $900 billion and give it to the UN to elimiate global poverty.
So will McCain. He's a member of the global warming cult, and has been a supporter of the Law of the Sea Treaty and the International Criminal Court.
If you're going to make these claims, you better be prepared to back them up.
The Number 1 issue for Christian voters?
Abortion.
If a candidate is wrong on issues of life and death, then who cares what his foreign or economic policies are. If he is wrong about abortion, then he’s as useless as a democrat.
End of discussion.
But McCain has a 100% pro-life record. His only downside is he is pro stem cell research.
And, by the way, John McCain’s efforts to destroy free speech and grassroots political acitivism were funded by George Soros. His core staff’s salaries have been paid out those monies. In other words, he was sustained politically to get to this point by the biggest enemy of liberty and America’s sovereignty in the world.
Baloney. His "pro-life" voting record is nothing but a cynical facade.
No, he doesn't. He's been a supporter of the destruction of human embryos right along.
Correct.
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research? A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding. Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
Baloney. His “pro-life” voting record is nothing but a cynical facade.
________________________________
NARAL (and I) disagree.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966953/posts
Correct.
Correct. See post #38. We agree that McCain is wrong about stem celll research.
But he is otherwise the right candidate when it comes to abortion.
McCain has been the supreme leader of the pro-abort “Republicans” in the Senate. His organizations, and those he is affiliated with, have worked to elect pro-abort “Republicans” all over the country. Those who believe one word this man says about being “pro-life” are naive in the extreme. Or deceivers themselves. It’s one or the other.
Yeah of course the Evangelicals will run to the polls to vote for Barack Mcgovern Obama because they like the way he stands up for abortion rights and gay marriage. Yeah right!
That's like saying that Hitler was wrong about that little Jewish thing, but otherwise, he built really good highways.
HOW JOHN McCAIN THREATENS THE PRO-LIFE CAUSE
By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee
(February 20, 2000) — The presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has posed a significant threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.
Earlier this month, the Board of Directors of the National Right to Life Committee — made up of an elected delegate from each state NRLC affiliate — overwhelmingly voted to endorse George W. Bush. That vote recognized Bush’s strong pro-life credentials. It also reflected the recognition among many knowledgeable observers that if elected president, McCain would be unlikely to use the office’s powers to advance the pro-life cause.
In earlier stages of his presidential campaign, McCain made little effort to conceal his disrespect for the pro-life movement. For example, during an appearance on the Don Imus radio show on November 23, McCain referred disparagingly to “otherwise intelligent people who say that that’s the only issue that will determine their vote.”
But after his victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 1, McCain began working hard to appeal to pro-life voters in South Carolina and other states.
In response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates, McCain has relied on two main defenses. First, he declares that his “17-year voting record” in Congress proves that he is “pro-life.” Second, he charges that NRLC’s criticisms are motivated entirely by opposition to his so-called “campaign finance reform” proposals” — a bill that, as McCain characterizes it, would hurt NRLC’s “business.” This second defense is basically a diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain’s pro-life positions.
Roe v. Wade
McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion — but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president. John McCain is not Al Gore — but the clearest warnings about what a McCain presidency might entail are found in things that McCain has said and done over the past year, since he started running for President in earnest.
One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:
“I’d love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
This was no more mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would “force” many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument, voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the “necessary evil” thinking of the pro-abortion movement.
When ABC’s Sam Donaldson recently asked McCain about his statement to the Chronicle, McCain said that he “misspoke.” But McCain has yet to explain why he argued as he did to the newspaper’s editors. Did he believe what he said? And if he did, has he changed his mind, and if so, why?
On the January 18 Jane Chastain’s radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as “National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues” for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain’s statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had “made a mistake” under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. “They ate his lunch,” she said, adding, “They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], ‘I was not strong when I needed to be strong.’”
In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, “I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women,” World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, “If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations.” And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, “We all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”
McCain also wrote, “I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro- choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country.” [emphasis added]
These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a “need” to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will “force” anyone to violate the law.
In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain’s real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain’s 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade until October 21, 1999, when the Senate voted on a resolution-style amendment by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade. McCain skipped the vote to make an extra campaign appearance in New Hampshire, as documented in a local newspaper. The amendment passed narrowly.
Others Agree
NRLC is hardly alone in recognizing that Bush and McCain would handle the abortion issue very differently as president. Bush has been endorsed by the most prominent pro-life leaders in Congress, including Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Chris Smith, and Congressman Charles Canady. “I’m convinced of Gov. Bush’s commitment to the pro-life cause,” said Hyde, who has criticized McCain for advocating weakening of the Republican Party’s pro-life platform plank.
Pro-abortion leaders also see a big difference. Following McCain’s win in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition said that based on exit polls, “pro-choice Republicans overwhelmingly preferred McCain above all the other candidates.”
Moreover, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) funded TV ads in New Hampshire attacking Bush for nearly a year before the New Hampshire primary, but never a single ad criticizing McCain.
McCain Winks on Abortion
A revealing observation was made on February 8 by Steven Brill, editor of the magazine Brill’s Content, which covers the news media.
Speaking on the Fox News Channel program “The Edge”, Brill said two reporters covering the McCain campaign told him, ‘You know, he really doesn’t feel that strongly about abortion and about — he isn’t really as pro-gun as he lets on in the campaign. He has to do that because it’s a Republican primary, but he’s kind of let us know that he’s not that hard-edged on those subjects.’”
Brill went on, “The point I’m making is that he was given permission, at least by these two guys [journalists], to pander. One of them actually said, ‘At least when McCain panders he sort of lets us know he’s doing it, and he kind of winks and kind of enjoys it, so he’s a good guy.’ Well, he’s not letting the rest of the country know he’s pandering.”
In the same vein, liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on December 15, “McCain’s people whisper, Don’t worry. He’s not really so anti-abortion.”
Voting Record
McCain served in the House of Representatives from 1983-86 and in the Senate from 1987 to date. Throughout that period, McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role, but he did vote pro-life with a few exceptions. The most important exception was on the issue of federal funding of experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
This question — usually referred to in the press as the “fetal tissue” issue — became a matter of major controversy during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration blocked the use of federal funds for certain experimentation utilizing tissue taken from aborted babies.
In a January 7, 1992 letter to Arizona Right to Life, McCain promised to support President Bush’s ban on federal funding of such abortion- dependent research. “I have no intention of supporting the use of fetal tissue resulting from artificially-induced abortions for research purposes,” McCain wrote.
A few months later, however, McCain began voting to overturn Bush’s pro-life policy — a drive that succeeded after President Clinton took office.
The issue surfaced again in 1997, during consideration of a bill to expand federally sponsored research into Parkinson’s disease, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.). Pro-life Senator Dan Coats (R- In.) offered an amendment to prevent the use of the newly authorized funds for abortion-dependent fetal tissue research, but McCain prevailed in defeating the amendment, 60-35. (Sept. 4, 1997, Senate rollcall Vote No. 215.) Recently, McCain has falsely implied that only four senators disagreed with his position on the issue.
[A detailed memorandum documenting McCain’s statements and votes on the fetal-tissue issue is available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/McCainrecordbodyparts.html]
Warren Rudman
On January 15, McCain said that if elected president, he might appoint former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) — his close advisor and the co- chairman of the national McCain campaign — as U.S. attorney general. As a senator, Rudman voted to preserve Roe v. Wade, and was an active opponent of other pro-life efforts legislative efforts.
The attorney general is the cabinet officer who most often serves as a president’s key advisor on Supreme Court appointments, and who oversees the positions taken by an administration on issues before the Supreme Court.
Rudman voted to confirm anti-Roe v. Wade Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, but later wrote in his 1996 memoirs, “If my vote had been the deciding one, I would have voted against Thomas, no matter what the consequences.”
Rudman has been harshly critical of the pro-life movement and of Christian conservatives. He wrote, “If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights — which the Supreme Court had endorsed — advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired ‘family values,’ I would have thought he was crazy.”
Also, “Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right” — a group that he identified as rife with “antiabortion zealots” and “bigots,” among other undesirables.
In a February 15 debate in South Carolina, Bush confronted McCain regarding Rudman, noting that Rudman had described the Christian Coalition as “bigots.” Bush asked McCain, “I know you don’t believe that, do you?” But McCain refused the invitation to repudiate Rudman’s words, responding instead, “George, he’s entitled to his opinion on that issue.”
Moderator Larry King also invited McCain to “disclaim what Rudman said,” but McCain did not respond.
Subsequently, Rudman told Manchester Union-Leader reporter John DiStaso that “he most certainly did call the Christian Coalition bigots,” and “he included leaders of other conservative groups in the description, to boot.” (Union-Leader, Sept. 17)
When, in the February 15 debate, Bush said that “every child, born and unborn, should be protected in law,” McCain immediately attacked Bush for his opposition to adding exceptions for rape and incest to the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.
Free Speech About Political Figures
NRLC has certainly made no secret of its strong opposition to certain key components of McCain’s “campaign finance reform” proposals, which would cripple the ability of NRLC and other pro-life groups to communicate with the public about the positions and actions of those who hold or seek federal office.
In some recent communications, McCain has emphasized that the latest version of his bill, introduced last October, did not contain the provisions restricting commentary on politicians by issue-oriented groups such as NRLC. However, at the time McCain made it clear that he was proposing a “stripped-down “ bill only for tactical reasons, to try to overcome a filibuster for bill opponents — not because he’d changed his mind. Indeed, when Senate Democrats forced a vote on the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill which contains sweeping restrictions on political free speech by independent groups McCain voted for it. (Oct. 19, 1999)
As recently as December 22, McCain told the Associated Press, “If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.”
http://www.peopleforlife.org/mccainthreatensprolife.html
OK, OK.
I get your point.
From what I understand - Ron Paul is the best candidate when you look solely at pro-life issues.
But ain’t no way I’m voting for Paul. And of course Hilbama is no option.
That leaves third party. A lot can happen between now and November. If a conservative (which McCain isn’t) who has strong pro-life values joins the race then look out!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.