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.
Written in the Year 1781
by Thomas Jefferson
Notes on the State of Virginia (excerpt)
Marriages must be solemnized either on special licence, granted by the first magistrate of the county, on proof of the consent of the parent or guardian of either party under age, or after solemn publication, on three several Sundays, at some place of religious worship, in the parishes where the parties reside. The act of solemnization may be by the minister of any society of Christians, who shall have been previously licensed for this purpose by the court of the county. Quakers and Menonists however are exempted from all these conditions, and marriage among them is to be solemnized by the society itself.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/JEFFERSON/ch14.html
Think about it. Most if not all states will agree to reciprocity, without the federal government to act as overseer. Why do you insist on ignoring the Constitution? If we have no laws, then whoever is in power can rule as they please. Tomorrow that might be your guys, but it won’t always be that way. The Constitution is our protection against that sort of government dominance. God forbid you get inconvenienced along the way.
I don't get it. Why would a prince marry another prince?
Thanks for the backup. That was a reference to a state, not the federal government. The powers NOT granted to the federal government, i.e., everything not in the Constitution, are reserved for the states and the people.
You have a socialist view of government. That is not the American system. For example:
Excerpt:
Tom Paine wrote a pamphlet in 1775 entitled “Common Sense.” Ordered read to colonial soldiers by their commander, George Washington, it helped unite and inspire those who fought the British in the rebellion then gathering momentum.
It began, “Some writers have confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.” He went on to say, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”
http://www.populistamerica.com/communal_sense
Doesn't really matter what he 'embraces'. His word is no good.
Sorry Rick, McCain wants to win in Pennsylvania...
“Or we could act like free adults and ask why we need permission from the government to get married?”
Damned straight, it should be between church & family.
For the record, I am NOT, repeat, NOT in favor of Gay marriage as rule. However, I do believe that if a State wants to make it legal, that is between the state and its citizens and I don’t think other states should have to recognize it.
I don’t think there should be a federal law or amendment saying that these issues cannot be decided at the state level.
You didn’t answer the question. You say the federal government is evil. Are state governments good? Are state governments that legalize abortion good? Are county governments good? municipal governments? Is all government evil? Are you a libertarian? or an anarchist?
Our founders didn’t believe government was evil. They discarded the Articles of Federation and created a stronger central government by adopting the Constitution.
There are certain issues that require federal legislation to overrides state government; for example, Utah was required by the federal government to make polygamy illegal before it would be admitted into the Union.
My opinions are Not socialism. I did not mention economics or who should control the means of production. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ is not an opinion I hold.
this morning MSNBC is carrrying the excuse bucket for obama, noonan is pushing why obama is the stronger candidate.
If it is obama vs mccain it will be old vs young. If we thought thompson ran a weak campaign just wait for the DBM to compare Old man McCain vs Young JFK Obama.
>> If you move to Texas, and they don’t recognize your license, you could, get a Texas license, do nothing or not move to Texas. <<
“Do nothing” can’t be one of your options, since it would allow people to invalidate their marriage simply by moving. The reason why the state has an interest in marriage is because a marriage contract is a business arrangement, even if it is also so much more than that.
Having states disagree as to whether to recognize the validity of a contract is lethal to whatever matter is being contracted, which is precisely why the commerce clause exists: so that on issues where there is a critical lack of standards among the states, Congress can establish uniform laws.
The founding fathers never imagined was that the definition of marriage would become so perverted that Congress would need to establish a consistent definition of marriage among the states, so there’s no clause to enumerate that Congress may protect marriage contracts across state lines in the way that the commerce clause enumerates that Congress may protect business transactions across state lines. (The commerce clause, infamous for permitting the federal government to dominate or strangle business, was actually intended to protect commerce from inconsistent state action.)
>> However, I do believe that if a State wants to make it legal, that is between the state and its citizens and I don’t think other states should have to recognize it. <<
A state has no authority to create laws contrary to natural law. And gay-marriage laws are being created by courts, not by democratic actions. What you are inadverdantly arguing is that if any one state court creates an outrageous travesty of injustice, than all citizens of all states must live by that decision, with no appeal to a higher court or to democratic action.
>> Sorry Rick, McCain wants to win in Pennsylvania... <<
Don’t forget why Rick lost in Pennsylvania: He staked his career on the re-election of John McCain’s soulmate, Arlen Specter. The right-wing media then portrayed Santorum as soft on pro-life issues, and the Democrats nominated the scion and namesake of a governor who was heroically pro-life.
So the federal government is already acting as an overseer of marriage, without a Federal Marriage Amendment, and has been for some time. I'm glad we've established that.
I'm curious to know why this wasn't an issue prior to the FMA and the gay marriage issue. Of all the Constitutional champions on this forum, I can't recall a single thread or post in my eight years here that addressed this ongoing Constitutional crisis outside the context of a gay marriage debate. And I can't think of a single politician who advocated the position you're advocating prior to this discussion. Not one.
Since this is so important to you, I'm going to assume that your interest in de-federalizing marriage predates the gay debate. Maybe you could help me by directing me to some evidence of a discussion showing this was on anyone's radar prior to the homosexual agenda's newfound interest in federalism.
Thanks in advance.
If you want to argue an issue based on their premise, go ahead, good luck, I hope you win. That strategy gave us Roe v. Wade. I don't see it working any better this time, especially considering the Presedential candidates we have to choose from. NONE of them will nominate an Alito, and I doubt an Alito would be confirmed after the next election.
Our time in the wilderness is coming.
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.