Posted on 03/13/2008 11:19:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
I attended the Council for National Policy meeting last week in New Orleans and listened to John McCain address the who's who of Hillary Rodham Clinton's vast right-wing conspiracy. It was another chance for McCain to, in his words, "not just unite, but reignite the base." How did the crowd think he did? Let's just say it's hard to ignite anything with cold water and no fire.
He talked about two legs of the Republican stool - spending/taxes and national security. But the third leg - social issues - went unmentioned. When questioned, he failed to connect with the people who care as much about why you vote the way you do as about how you vote.
The vast majority of the people at the meeting and in the conservative movement will vote for McCain. I will. But will the people who make up the backbone of the get-out-the vote effort go to work for him?
Only if he demonstrates that his vaunted pragmatism and open-mindedness will lead him to different positions on some issues.
Consider immigration and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. McCain says he "got the message." He's accepted the political reality of the need to secure our borders first and not increase people's taxes in a slow economy. That's great, but these conservatives are less interested in conversions based on politics than in decisions based on sound policy.
On other issues, more than better explanations will be needed.
McCain has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in the past because he said states could handle the assault on marriage. Have they? No. Although some state courts have sided with the voters' wishes in their states, courts in other states have forced same-sex marriage and civil-union laws on the public. A hodgepodge of laws is forcing other state courts to rule on the divorces of Massachusetts marriages and the breakups of civil unions from the nine states that permit them. It's an alternative route to forcing same-sex marriages and civil unions by making other state courts recognize these unions.
We also have gained a better understanding of the consequences of court ordered same-sex marriages. In Massachusetts, some public schools have introduced a fairy tale in which a prince marries another prince as part of a lesson on marriage - for second-graders. One superintendent said the district was "committed to teaching children about the world they live in." Interesting.
McCain, who recently supported a state constitutional amendment favoring traditional marriage in Arizona, needs to take these changes into account and outline a strategy that pushes some form of Federal Marriage Amendment or sets forth the conditions that would prompt his call for the amendment.
McCain also has been a proponent of capping carbon emissions to stop global warming. Yet last year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the environmentalists' gold standard, dramatically scaled back its doom-and-gloom predictions. At the same time, hundreds of respected scientists went public to question the validity of man-made global warming.
If the science is changing, so are temperatures. Yes, 1998 was the warmest year since 1938, but every year since has been cooler, and we just learned that 2007 was the coldest year since 1966.
Let's put these inconvenient truths aside and assume man-made global warming exists. The fact is, McCain's legislation would cost hundreds of billions and have almost no effect on global temperature.
In his New Orleans speech, McCain asked what was wrong with investing in green technologies, reducing fossil-fuels consumption, boosting Earth-friendly energy alternatives and creating a cleaner environment. Nothing. Count me in. But his global-warming legislation does much more than that and would hurt the U.S. economy. At the very least, McCain should require full global participation - China and India - before the United States implements these climate-change initiatives.
New science also has upended the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. It is now clear that the pursuit of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research is not only unnecessary, but with the advent of embryonic-like adult stem cells, it is now counterproductive, since it would displace money for more promising research. One of the scientists responsible for recent adult stem-cell advances predicted an end to our stem-cell wars. As James Thompson told the New York Times: "A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote."
When McCain voted to support federal research that destroys human embryos, things were different. The science - and the moral components of the debate - have changed. Can he?
Social conservatives see all three issues as moral issues. Yes, even global warming. Why? Because too many global-warming zealots appear to worship the creation instead of the Creator and view man and his actions as only suspect disrupters of nature.
I've known John McCain for almost two decades. Honor and integrity underlie everything he does. I can testify it's hard to persuade him that there is another way when he believes he has taken the honorable position. He is stubborn in the best sense of the word.
Conservatives are not asking him to execute a series of 180s. We're looking for policy adjustments that show he has the independent spirit and pragmatic sense to change prior stands not simply because of new political realities, but new facts. Facts - which, as Ronald Reagan used to say, are also stubborn things.
Not inspired by McCain?
How inspired are you by the anti-American marxist radical and the criminal megalomaniac?
Time to push for a good Veep and hold our noses. There is no other responsible choice in wartime.
“I thought that Reagan was in favor of limited Federal Govt”
Reagan created the federal drinking age.
though i pretty much agree with the sentiments here i would give Ricky S more credibility had he gotten himself reelected
I believe the guy who admits to being a communist over the guy that pretends to be a capitalist.
“(as happened with the Shiavo case)”
That’s a good example of everyone rushing to the feds when they had absolutely zero business being involved.
That is why we are a growing socialist country even with Republicans in power.
BUMP!
I am really rather surprised there seems to be such ignorance of the US Constitution on here, of all places.
Aticle IV, Section 1:Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Someone has said if MA recognizes homosexual marriage, TX would not have to do the same.
Bull.
Just as TX honors a marriage of a man and a woman performed in MA, so, too, would it be required, by the Constitution, to recognize a homosexual marriage performed in MA, regardless of what TX’s voters may approve or disapprove. Btw, would you like to leave this issue in the hands of some of our fine Federal judges? Thus it IS a federal matter and we might well need a marriage amendment to the Constitution; though I hate seeing the Constitution used in this manner.
It is 100% a federal issue due to Full Faith and credit.
We now have immigration law being dragged into the homosexual based marriage issue. The 1996 DMA prohibits immigration from homosexual marriages outside the USA. HOWEVER the state of NY has now JUDICIALLY forced the state to recognize canadian homosexual marriages.
It all flows via Full Faith and Credit to the rest of the nations.
Federally recognized marriage also affects inheritance taxes, income tax, property rights, child rearing issues, immigration visas, and on and on.
Keep in mind we USED to have a voluntary no recording system of marriage but that was fraught with fraud and misrepresentation.
Oh, dishonest, well, excuse me. Then by all means, carry on your discussion which is based on unConstitutional laws. Keep the unConstitutional train rolling. In fact, you should argue every left wing proposition based on their definition of the facts. That seems to have worked out so well in the past.
How is Rick Santorum NOT a RINO? After all he supported uber-abortionist Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. I think he is very hypocritical writing this about McCain.
BTW, this is the strategy that gave us a federal abortion law. Good luck!
You’re not getting it...
Marriage is a federal issue because the states are obliged to recognize each others’ marriages. The alternative is that you would have to resubmit for a marriage license every time you crossed state lines... and then you’d have multiple marriage licenses, creating all sorts of legal contests over jurisdiction in the event of separation.
which is which? hard to tell with three democrats running...
“I thought that Reagan was in favor of limited Federal Govt yet some want unlimited Federal Govt in the name of Reagan when it comes to promoting certain social policies.”
It’s only other peoples social policies that aren’t worthy of Federalizing.
I believe issues not enumerated in the Constitution should be handled by the States. I know that’s archaic but....
I won’t say the A word as it will start a sh#t storm.
I'm sorry if the Constitution is not as convenient as you would like, but it is worth it. You, me and everyone here are slowly trading freedom for convenience and one day we will all be slaves because of it.
True enough. Santorum’s support of RINO Specter is most certainly what cost him the election. You wonder what these guys must be thinking.
Barak Hussein Obama is the radical , Hillary is the criminal.
McCain is the biggest disappointment of my life as a Rebublican. But go check out Obama’s pastor’s (Jeremiah Wright) comments on Youtube. Search his name and “2003”. There’s a “goddamn America” post there. Osama Hussein was in his flock voluntarily for 20 yrs. Now Wright is working for the campaign.
And remember the revulsion you felt about our president from 1993 to 2001?
Only one thing to do. Hope he picks Romney or Thompson.
Just out of curiosity, it is your contention that every time a married couple in the United States re-locates, they should have to be re-married? Or should no marriages be recognized by the government for any reason, ever?
Pat Toomey didn't cost Santorum the election. Pennsylvania isn't nearly conservative enough for that to have made even a little bit of difference, let alone to account for the 19-point drubbing that he received.
Rick Santorum lost for two reasons:
1) Iraq. Approval for the war in PA was polling under 30% in November, 2006. The Democrats (who won everywhere, mind you) had declared the war lost. The media breathlessly proclaimed it a hopeless "sectarian civil war". Santorum didn't back down, didn't flinch. He supported the war clearly and forcefully until the very end, and he paid a big political price for it.
2) Bob Casey. Pro-life son of a great, beloved pro-life Governor. People in PA love familiarity. And pro-lifers who didn't like the war were given an easy alternative to Santorum.
You can even throw in the fact that Ed Rendell was hugely popular, and Lynn Swann turned out to be a non-existent challenger. It's not like the base -- whatever base still exists in PA -- was motived in Pennsylvania. It was a perfect storm for the Democrats. Santorum never had a chance.
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.