Why are so many Republicans freaking out about John McCain’s primary success?

I’ve given quite a bit of thought to that question this week because I happen to be one of those freaking out over the prospect of a McCain nomination.

Some cite McCain’s positions and past votes and say he is on the wrong side of too many issues, but the same can be said of George Bush. Why does McCain seem to ignite such emotion and strong opposition in so many? There are a lot of positions McCain has taken that have angered conservatives, to be sure. Opposition to the Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, global warming and drilling in ANWR are just a few.

The strong negative reaction from conservatives is not solely because of his positions on issues, though. The reason so many conservatives are concerned about the prospect of a McCain nomination and a McCain presidency has almost as much to do with the way McCain has taken the positions he has, as the positions themselves.

As I often tell my children when they get in trouble for talking back or giving me attitude, sometimes it is not what you say, but rather how you say it.

I was not happy about McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts. As disappointed as I was with his vote, though, what really angered me was the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric he used to explain his opposition. I think it is horrible when Democrats play that class warfare game, but realize that many of them actually believe it and even those who don’t believe it know they need to say it because that is what their base wants to hear. It was hard for me to imagine any reason a true conservative would want to say such things. I still can't.

For many years McCain has displayed what appears to be a need for the love and acceptance of the media and Democrats. He often seemed to go out of his way to find fault with those in his own party in order to further cultivate his maverick persona. Instead of being a representative of the Republican party, or even of conservatism, he often emphasized his differences with others in the party and the movement, or allowed those in the media to do so for him.

I suspect many of those “freaking out” about McCain being the standard bearer for the Republican party have gone through the same progression I have over the past year.

McCain has been working hard for a year or so now to assure conservatives that he is one of them. His strong support for the war effort and the surge went a long way in making that case. He also softened his rhetoric against those in his own party. Over the summer I forgot many of the reasons I had opposed McCain as a presidential candidate. When he was down in the polls and did not appear likely to have a shot at the nomination, it was easy to forgive and forget.

When McCain started winning primaries and took the lead in the national polls, though, some of those reasons for my original opposition starting seeping back into my memory.

One of my earliest recollections of a negative reaction to McCain was in 2000 over what appeared to me to be a meltdown in South Carolina over “dirty tricks.” In 2000, going into the South Carolina primary, McCain ran a television ad accusing George Bush of “twisting the truth like Clinton,” while at the same time complaining about negative campaign tactics. I couldn't help but wonder how he would react to criticism and dirty campaign tactics from Democrats in a general election.

Comparing a fellow Republican to Bill Clinton back in 2000, knowing there was a good possibility that candidate would end up being the nominee and Democrats could use those words to discredit him, did not sit well with me at all. It led me to believe I could not trust McCain to do what was in the best interest of the party.

In 2001, speculation that McCain might change his party affiliation to switch the balance of power in the Senate only fueled that mistrust.

In 2004, McCain made his "dishonest and dishonorable" comment regarding the Swift Boat Vets. He sided with John Kerry, rather than with 250 plus Vietnam vets, including some fellow POWs. He didn't just say that he would have to look into the claims of the Swifties, or that he didn't know the specifics. No. He called the actions of those men "dishonest and dishonorable." Not only did he not apologize for that comment, but he reportedly entertained the idea of running with John Kerry.

I had put much of that out of my mind though. It is now 2008 and my desire to see Republicans retain control of the White House, and particularly to see a Republican commander in chief, seemed most important and polls repeatedly showed McCain the candidate most likely to beat a Democrat in November. The performance of McCain in the most recent debate, characterized by some as angry and sneering, along with what appear to be unfair attacks on Mitt Romney over the issue of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, brought it all back – the temper I saw in 2000, the repeated high profile breaks with Republicans on big issues and the flirtations with Democrats about switching parties. Unlike some conservatives I am hearing from, I will vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee. Even for all his faults, McCain has many strengths and is vastly superior to Hillary or Obama. He has impressed me on the conference calls he has held frequently with bloggers where he has patiently and candidly answered any question put to him. Foreign policy/defense is one of my top issues, and I think McCain will be strong there.

It will take a lot to convince me that he can be trusted on issues important to conservatives, though, or even that he can be trusted to positively represent the party. He has built his entire political persona on showing how much he differs from Republicans and conservatives. That does not bode well for those wanting a White House that is more conservative than the current one.

Hello Eva,

You stated, "No, McCain is not to the right on Islamic terrorism, he was only right on Iraq troop build up and the surge. "

By now I presume you are still figuring out what happened.
I want to challenge your notion that John McCain is not to the right on Islamic terrorism.

In the New Hampshire debates he called out RADICAL ISLAM as something that needed to be dealt with. FYI that is much more specific than saying Islamic terrorism.

I expect to see McCain focusing on the need and ways, to deal with RADICAL ISLAM. Sharia Law is incompatible with civilized liberties and human rights. You know that I know that. So does the Bush administration. The difference is, McCain has the gonads to say so and act accordingly. When he points out the disconnect between Sharia Law and freedom of religion on National TV, he will win the admiration and support of the majority of patriotic Americans. Most of all the true Conservatives.

This will also lay groundwork for the general election.

Here are some posts and links that make the significance of that clear:

You are probably aware of this:  Feb 07,2008(CNSNews.com excerpt) - The death sentence given to a young Afghan man convicted of insulting Islam is focusing attention once again on the dominant -- and controversial -- role the religion enjoys in the country's constitution and laws.

After a buildup of international concern about the case, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week she would take it up with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Here some other related articles: 
 
 Apostasy Case Raises Questions About Islamic Constitutions
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com Excerpt) - The plight of an Afghan Christian facing death for converting from Islam is refocusing attention on the new, post-transition constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which give primacy to Islamic law but also include apparent contradictions. 
****************
 
                                                                 See Also:
Trial of Afghan Convert Emphasizes Need for Judicial Reform (March 22, 2006)

 

Trial of Afghan Convert Emphasizes Need for Judicial Reform
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 22, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The trial of an Afghan accused of apostasy for converting to Christianity is raising questions, not just about Afghanistan's Islam-based constitution, but also about difficulties in reforming the country's judicial system, which is dominated by Islamic hardliners.

If Abdul Rahman is convicted, avenues of appeal will include the Supreme Court, one of whose judges has already been quoted in wire service reports as confirming that Islamic law (shari'a) provides for capital punishment for a Muslim who converts to another religion and refuses to revert to Islam.
 
___________________________________________________________ 
The full stories excerpted are appended below.
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Afghan Blasphemy Death Sentence Shows Islam's Role in Constitution
(CNSNews.com) - The death sentence given to a young Afghan man convicted of insulting Islam is focusing attention once again on the dominant -- and controversial -- role the religion enjoys in the country's constitution and laws.  

                                                 Full Story

Afghan Blasphemy Death Sentence Shows Islam's Role in Constitution
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
February 07, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - The death sentence given to a young Afghan man convicted of insulting Islam is focusing attention once again on the dominant -- and controversial -- role the religion enjoys in the country's constitution and laws.

After a buildup of international concern about the case, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week she would take it up with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"It won't surprise you that we are not supportive of everything that comes up through the judicial system in Afghanistan," Rice told reporters en route to London where she held talks on Afghanistan.

"I do think that the Afghans understand that there are some international norms that need to be respected," she added.

Earlier, an independent commission that advises the administration and Congress on religious freedom urged Rice to intervene in the case of Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a the 23-year-old journalist and student.

"Afghanistan's unique circumstances present the United States with a special responsibility to act in the face of such travesties of justice," U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom chairman Michael Cromartie said in a letter to the Secretary of State.

Kambakhsh was accused of distributing to fellow students an article found on the Internet questioning the fact that Muslim men are allowed to have multiple wives, while women may have only one husband.

A court in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif handed him a death in a closed trial on January 22 after convicting him of blasphemy.

Afghanistan's upper legislature issued a statement of support for the sentence, although it was later withdrawn.

Karzai's official spokesman told a press conference Tuesday the president was concerned about the case but would not get involved until the courts had made a final decision. Kambakhsh, who has already been in custody for more than three months, is appealing the sentence.

Even if Karzai does intervene, few expect him to risk angering hard-line clerics by tackling the deeper issue of the pre-eminent place given to Islam in Afghanistan's new constitution, introduced in 2004.

This is the third time since U.S.-led forces toppled the fundamentalist Taliban regime in late 2001 that the Afghan judiciary or clerics are known to have sought to execute someone for blasphemy.

Like this one, both of the previous cases arose because although the constitution upholds freedom of religion and freedom of expression, it also carries a clause declaring that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

Both earlier cases were resolved after an outcry -- but without resolution of the underlying problem.

In 2006, Christian convert Abdul Rahman, sentenced to death for apostasy, was freed and allowed to seek asylum abroad after international pressure led by Western governments with troops helping to secure the Karzai administration.

The previous year, journalist Ali Mohaqiq Nasab was sentenced to two years' imprisonment after reprinting articles by an Iranian scholar criticizing the stoning of Muslims who change religion and the use of corporal punishment for adultery and theft.

Leading clerics called for the sentence to be changed to the death penalty, but the Kabul High Court reduced the jail term, allowing him to go free -- although he was required to issue a formal apology and his conviction was not quashed. He left the country too.

Cromartie in the letter to Rice noted that neither the Rahman nor the Mohaqiq Nasab case "was settled in a manner demonstrating that human rights are adequately protected in Afghanistan."

He noted the commission's previously-expressed concerns about "the absence of adequate guarantees of freedom of religion and expression in the Afghan constitution, which can lead to unjust criminal accusations of apostasy and blasphemy."

'Other values' 

Critics say the "sacred religion of Islam" clause leaves no room for differing interpretations within Islam.

When the constitution was being drafted, a panel of legal experts brought together by the Rand Corporation to discuss it suggested that the drafters use the term "the basic principles of Islam" rather than simply "Islam."

They argued in a 2003 report that "insertion of the term 'principles' contributes to the idea that application of Islamic teachings cannot be mechanistic, based on a frozen interpretation of Islamic law."

The experts also noted that some Islamic countries were applying "extreme applications of Islamic law," and said using the phrase "principles of Islam" in the Afghan constitution "avoids possible misunderstanding."

They also suggested that the document should make reference to "other values embodied in this constitution." (The country's previous constitution, passed in 1964, said, "there shall be no law repugnant to the basic principles of the sacred religion of Islam and the other values embodies in this constitution.")

The recommendations were not taken up, however, in the final draft instituted in early 2004.

The Kambakhsh case has drawn strong criticism from international watchdog groups.

Reporters Without Borders said the authorities should "find a way to provide better protection for freedom of expression, one that will be effective even when subjects as sensitive as religion are involved."

Human Rights Watch said the case also reflected the lack of progress in reforming the Afghanistan judiciary, which it said included "deeply entrenched traditionalists ... many of whom have close links to notorious warlords."

In a 2006 "compact" with the international community, Karzai undertook to prioritize reform of the judiciary, rehabilitating its infrastructure and ensuring "equal, fair and transparent access to justice for all based upon written codes with fair trials and enforceable verdicts."

U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul after it refused to surrender al-Qaeda terrorists following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Amid a continuing violent campaign by the Islamists, the U.S. remains the leading backer of the Karzai government, deploying some 12,000 troops in the country in addition to contributing one-third of the 42,000-strong NATO mission there.



**********************************************************************
                                                                 See Also:
Trial of Afghan Convert Emphasizes Need for Judicial Reform (March 22, 2006)

 

Trial of Afghan Convert Emphasizes Need for Judicial Reform
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 22, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The trial of an Afghan accused of apostasy for converting to Christianity is raising questions, not just about Afghanistan's Islam-based constitution, but also about difficulties in reforming the country's judicial system, which is dominated by Islamic hardliners.

If Abdul Rahman is convicted, avenues of appeal will include the Supreme Court, one of whose judges has already been quoted in wire service reports as confirming that Islamic law (shari'a) provides for capital punishment for a Muslim who converts to another religion and refuses to revert to Islam.

The Supreme Court is headed by a cleric whose appointment by President Hamid Karzai in 2002 was controversial on several counts.

Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari was older than 60, the legal requirement of Afghanistan's 1964 constitution, then in force. He also had no secular legal education, another constitutional requirement.

He was already the head of a Council of Islamic Scholars, a position some critics worried could give rise to conflict.

And Shinwari raised concerns too because he was closely allied to a fundamentalist, Saudi-backed mujahedeen leader and current lawmaker, Abdul-Rabb al-Rasul Sayyaf, who has been implicated by Western campaigners in human rights atrocities.

Soon after his appointment, Afghan media quoted Shinwari as accusing the newly-named women's affairs minister, Sima Samar, of making "irresponsible statements" after she told a Canadian newspaper she did not believe in shari'a. Shinwari declared that Samar could not hold a position in government and she was summoned to appear on blasphemy charges.

"Fearing for her life, Samar declined her office, even though, under intense U.S. pressure, the charges were dropped," the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House said in a report later that year.

Shinwari evoked memories of Taliban rule with hardline comments in support of shari'a punishments for "crimes" such as apostasy.

In 2003 he banned cable television, calling the programming un-Islamic. He also spoke out against women and men learning together and said in an interview with the U.N.s IRIN network that year that "women should observe Islamic veiling, meaning that should cover their whole body apart from their faces and hands."

According to the International Crisis Group think tank, Shinwari also put political allies in key judicial positions. The ICG in a 2003 report urged Karzai to request the chief justice's resignation.

Human Rights Watch, in an open letter to Karzai, said Shinwari and his deputy not only lacked civil law training but had also abused their authority.

"They do not appear to act independently, the first requirement of a judge, instead making political judgments in close collaboration with warlords like Sayyaf," it said.

Afghanistan's new constitution, which came into force in January 2004, changed the previous constitution's upper age-limit requirement for Supreme Court judges, stipulating only that they be older than 40.

On the education requirement, the new document says the court's judges "shall have higher education in legal studies or Islamic jurisprudence as well as expertise and adequate experience in the judicial system of Afghanistan."

Afghan researcher and writer Wahid Mojda told the private Afghan station Tolu Television last September that Karzai did not want Shinwari -- now 75 years old, according to published reports -- to step down because the government did not want to lose the support of religious scholars.

However, under the Afghan Compact -- a five-year process of ongoing reform, agreed by Afghanistan and the international community in London early this year -- Karzai pledged to reform the judiciary, committing to "a clear and transparent national appointments mechanism."

"President Karzai has indicated his determination to significantly renew Afghanistan's Supreme Court," U.N. special representative for Afghanistan Tom Koenigs told the Security Council last week.

Last month the Christian Science Monitor reported that European diplomats had presented Karzai with an initiative about Supreme Court reform, saying that the court's composition "will have a significant bearing on the promotion of rule of law, human rights, gender equality, justice reform, and good governance."

It urged Karzai "to ensure that the court will be comprised of men and women judges with proven intellectual, professional and legal ability, and a reputation for honesty, integrity, independence and impartiality."

Karzai is expected to name the new court appointees soon, and many will be watching to see whether he is prepared to confront the religious hardliners in doing so.



**********************************************************************


                                                           See also:
             Pressure Builds Over Plight of Afghan Christian (Mar. 22, 2006)

 

    Apostasy Case Raises Questions About Islamic Constitutions (Mar. 21, 2006)

 

Apostasy Case Raises Questions About Islamic Constitutions
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The plight of an Afghan Christian facing death for converting from Islam is refocusing attention on the new, post-transition constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which give primacy to Islamic law but also include apparent contradictions.

Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family alerted authorities that he was a Christian. He converted about 16 years ago, but the allegations were raised now because of a custody dispute, according to reports.

The judge hearing his case was quoted as saying Rahman could face the death penalty if he refused to return to Islam.

The U.S. government, which led the campaign to oust the fundamentalist Taliban militia and oversee a democratic transition in Afghanistan, said Monday it was watching the case closely.

"Tolerance, freedom of worship, is an important element of any democracy," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"These are issues, as Afghan democracy matures, that they are going to have to deal with increasingly."

He urged the authorities to deal with the case transparently and according to the rule of law.

But exactly what the law says appears open to interpretation.

Afghanistan's constitution, signed into law in January 2004, includes in the preamble adherence to "the holy religion of Islam" as well as respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article two states that Islam is the official religion, but "followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rights."

Article three, however, states that "no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam."

When the constitution was being drafted, experts at a workshop hosted by the Rand Corporation suggested that the drafters use the formulation "the basic principles of Islam" rather than simply "Islam" or "shari'a" (Islamic law).

"Insertion of the term 'principles' contributes to the idea that application of Islamic teachings cannot be mechanistic, based on a frozen interpretation of Islamic law," they said in a 2003 report.

Noting that some Islamic countries were instituting extreme applications of Islamic laws, the experts said that using the "principles of Islam" phrase in the Afghanistan constitution "avoids possible misunderstanding."

In the end, however, the constitution approved and instituted in January of the following year contained the controversial article three.

"In effect, the requirement of article three abrogates any perceived suggestion of religious liberty in article two," Elizabeth Kendal of the World Evangelical Alliance's Religious Liberty Commission commented this week.

In the case of Iraq's new constitution, the document states that freedom of religion is upheld, but also says that "no law may be passed that contradicts the constitution, the undisputed laws of Islam, or the principles of democracy." (Some translations have "established" or "fixed" instead of "undisputed.")

That clause caused Iraqi Christian leaders such concern they issued a last minute plea to amend the draft, to no avail.

Ninety-nine percent of Afghanistan's 29 million people are Muslim, although a tiny Christian community has been reported since 2001 to have been boosted by the return of Afghan refugees who converted to Christianity while living abroad.

In Iraq, Christians comprise some three percent of the population of 26 million.

Under shari'a, any Muslim who abandons his faith is guilty of apostasy. According to some Islamic scholars the offense is punishable by death.

The reasoning is usually based on the Hadith, or collected sayings of Mohammed, one of which (the Sahih al-Bukhari) cites the Muslim prophet as saying: "Any [Muslim] person who has changed his religion, kill him."

But there are also passages in the Koran which appear to contradict that.

The religious freedom group International Christian Concern (ICC) on Monday cited some of these verses, including sura 2:256 ("There is no compulsion in religion") and sura 88:21-22 ["And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe."]

"If even Mohammed was commanded not to carry out punishments on those who turned away from Islam, how much less should Afghanistan's courts prosecute anyone who decides freely to convert to a different religion?" ICC said.

It noted the reference in the Afghan constitution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and pointed out that article 18 upholds freedom of religion and freedom to change religion.

ICC called on President Hamid Karzai to defend freedom of religion by pardoning Rahman.

'Read the riot act'

Kendal predicted that Karzai would face "immense internal pressure to prove his Islamic credentials." She said he should also be under immense pressure from outside from donors and allies to defend Rahman's right to religious freedom.

"How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians?" asked Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.

He said President Bush should send Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Afghanistan "to read ... the riot act."

"Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes."

In its most recent report on global human rights, released earlier this month, the State Department highlighted several other areas of concern linked to Islam's place in Afghanistan's laws.

Although no law prohibited proselytizing, the authorities viewed it as contrary to the beliefs of Islam, the report said, noting that both blasphemy and apostasy were offenses carrying capital punishment.

Non-Muslims faced discrimination in obtaining land and housing and in schools.

The report also noted that the law prohibited dissemination of information that "could mean insult to the sacred religion of Islam and other religions."

Ambiguity about what material was considered offensive could potentially restrict press freedom, it said.

U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in late 2001 after the radical militia, which then controlled most of Afghanistan, refused to hand over al-Qaeda terrorists following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Karzai in October 2004 became the first democratically-elected president, and legislative elections last year paved the way for the inauguration of a National Assembly in December.

In order to help secure the government from attacks by resurgent Taliban elements, the U.S. deploys 15,000-plus military personnel as part of a combined joint task force which also includes 4,300 troops from coalition partners including Canada and Britain.

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.