Skip to comments.McCain Faces Fight on the Right (Dobson Will Not Support McCain 'Under any Circumstances')
Posted on 02/13/2007 8:37:03 AM PST by meg88
McCain faces fight for the right David Reinhard Portland Oregonian February 12, 2007
When successful Republican presidential candidates talk about their base, they're usually talking about the GOP's social conservatives. When Arizona Sen. John McCain talks about his base, he's referring to the mainstream media.
Which helps explain two things. One, why McCain was not a successful Republican presidential candidate eight years ago. Two, why he's taken steps over the last few years to get right with the religious right.
Will it work? As Democrats cogitate over Barack Obama's challenge to front-runner Hillary Clinton, will the new McCain complicate matters for the old McCain and threaten his front-runner status among Republicans?
For most successful candidates, politics is about addition, not subtraction. This presidential campaign, however, McCain is involved in something of a zero-sum game. Securing a traditional GOP base could come at the expense of losing his old media base.
In 2000, his admirers in the mainstream media loved the tough-talking war hero of "Straight Talk Express." The Arizona maverick opposed George Bush and famously railed against "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other conservative religious leaders. Since then, he's been a conquering hero of Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show," a Republican worthy of puff-ball questioning. But McCain has committed two unpardonable sins in the eyes of the media clerisy. He has backed Bush's Iraq war to the hilt and gone out of his way to make up with Falwell and religious conservatives. Sacre bleu!
McCain's wooing of GOP social conservatives has not been pretty to watch. And, if recent developments are any guide, the effort might prove unproductive.
Recently, perhaps the most influential Christian conservative gave McCain a stiff-bristled brushoff. "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said Focus on the Family's James Dobson in a radio interview. "He is not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we will not get stuck with him."
McCain's alleged opposition to traditional marriage would probably astonish the most determined McCain watcher. Didn't he, after all, favor a traditional marriage measure that was on the Arizona ballot last November? Why, yes, he did. But right before Dobson let loose, his radio-show host had run a clip of McCain telling "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, "I think, uh ... I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that. ... I don't have any problem with that."
McCain had, indeed, uttered the same words before an Iowa State University crowd last fall, but well, isn't there always a but? A quotation yanked out of context or something said in humor is treated seriously. In this case, "but" only highlights McCain's problem courting the GOP's traditional-values base.
In the same sentence that Dobson's radio interviewer found so damning, McCain had appended his own but: "But I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman." Yes, it made for an illogical sentence, and McCain and his handler realized they had a damage-control problem. After the next break, a student asked about a farm issue and McCain answered it. But before moving to the next question he said, "Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."
It's sad that McCain is sitting in Barry Goldwater's Senate seat.
I'm not sure which republican candidate I will support in the republican primaries as they have not all entered the "race" yet.
I will tell you one thing for sure:
1) I WILL DEFINATELY VOTE IN THE GENERAL 2008 NOVEMBER ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT
2) I WILL VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IS WHO IS RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON.
That is the position most people take. Who cares what people want to do on their own time?
I don't think there is much risk of McCain getting through the primaries. He will screw up somewhere and make a big mistake
I remember back in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush in the primaries. Quite a few people in my church, including the pastor, were supporting him.
Then right before the Carolina! primary he dissed Pat Robertson and other Christian conservatives. Overnight everyone switched to Bush. I never saw someone shoot themselves in the foot with such relish.
The MSM couldn't figure out what happened.
If conservatives don't unite behind the most electable of those three -- Mitt -- then it seems probable that we will end up with McCain or Rudy.
Amen, brother--we all better vote for whomever the Republican candidate is in this election. Having a democrat elected this go-around could very well be the end of this country, IMHO. I think the terrorists are waiting for a dem to win--then they will start massive attacks against us on our own soil. They already know that the dems are appeasers, not warriors.
McCain - Feingold '08
Yep. McCain has been an asshat for years. He's made his bed sucking up to the MSM and blowing off conservatives, now let him sleep in it.
I would not support McCain either. After he pi**ed on the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, I have no respect for him.
"McCain's wooing of GOP social conservatives has not been pretty to watch."
Yeah, what ever happended to the "Straight Talk Express"? It's in storage, replaced with the "Doubletalk Express".
Duncan Hunter appears to be the most conservative of the three. I will always vote for the most conservative candidate in any election - primary or general.
I am one of the 'I will never vote for McCain- EVER' people.
"Newt, Mitt or Duncan is the way the GOP needs to go if they want my vote.
If conservatives don't unite behind the most electable of those three -- Mitt -- then it seems probable that we will end up with McCain or Rudy."
Except Mitt is just as unelectable because of the Mormon thing.
Robertson is an idiot. Not refuting his BS would gove me reason to wonder about a candidate
No one will ever convince me there isn't an issue too outlandish, or principle too sacred that McCain wouldn't embrace or sacrifice it, whatever the case may be, if he perceived it would help him in his quest. Does he really think that media and the "friendly" dems won't turn on him in a heartbeat and destroy him viciously if he ever did get the nod? He really believes they are his friends? For all his faults (and they are legion) I'd take Rudy over the weasle any day. It's hard to vote for someone you wouldn't turn your back on.
I tend to agree, but am not so worried about it. It may need to get much worse before it can get better. We need a strong shot of something to wake people up. As I see things with RINO after RINO we will loose the country anyway - to globalist policies, rampant immigration. And we'll never have a flash point that would give us the chance to fight back.
The enemy within is just as, or more, significant than the Muz nutjobs. The 'enemy within' is on a long winning streak.
Voting for Hillary might be the only way to bring a lot of this to a head.
Romney with either Hunter or someone from the South with good credentials would be an electable ticket.
Why do you view Mitt as more electable than Hunter?
I agree with Dr Dobson, but not just because of the gay marriage statement. McCain has been slapping me and my beliefs in the face for years....everything from judges on down. In fact, his little band of 14 guaranteed that even if he is the Republican nominee, I won't vote for him. I believe him to be seriously unstable, and therefore even more of a threat to the country than the Democrats are (and that is a serious statement coming from one who has never voted D in 37 year)
You make some very valid points. Seems we're between the proverbial rock and hard place!
Just a few things off the top of my head - I am sure there are other reasons:
Strong and proven, executive leadership
Millions of dollars
Outside the beltway - not linked with do nothing (but spend) Congress
Fresh face, appeals to those who want a change
Charisma, "it" factor
Fiscally and socially conservative, but not extreme
Appeals to women, independents and democrats (elected in blue state)
Exudes confidence, optimism and intelligence
On a side note, while I agree with Dr. Dobson, I'd like to know why I should otherwise be interested in which candidates these religious leaders endorse?
I'm voting against Hillary/Bammy/Breck Girl/Kyoto's plan to destroy our freedom.
So who hasn't he ruled out then, just Gingrich and Romney (of the "big four")?
---"I'm voting against Hillary/Bammy/Breck Girl/Kyoto's plan to destroy our freedom."---
I'm adding Rudy to that equation. No Rudy!
Why, to punish the "two party cartel"? You people were telling us to vote for Algore in 2000 - half of the three-man team that brought us the conditions perfect for 9/11/01 to occur, and then wanted us to vote Hanoi Johnnie Boy in 2004, just because it "might bring things to a head."
No. I'll vote for McStain before I vote for Hillary, another half of the three-man team which created the conditions for 9/11/01 to occur, but will fight like hell to get Hunter and/or Romney on the ticket instead of McStain.
Yeah, that's what they said about JFK and Catholicism. Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney and Michigan elected George Romney 3 times.
Seems like plenty of Mormons are getting elected. Mormons account for 1.6% of the U.S. population, but more than 5% of elected representatives in congress.
Just a few examples:
In the House of Representatives there is Jeff Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). All, except Udall, are Republican. There are 21 Mormon members in the House of Representatives all together and 5 senators.
I would hope that our country has moved on beyond the religious bigotry that plagued JFK's run.
Before the Pavlovian knees start jerking, the only reason I say this is because no member of the House has ever run a successful candidate for president, and anyone who thinks the same media having orgasms over Bammy thinks they'll give an unknown like Hunter the time of day without the kind of gravitas he can gain as a former VP is living in a fantasy world.
I don't understand the "Skull and Bones" response to Romney. He's running for CHIEF EXECUTIVE, not as a LAWMAKER. People are afraid he's going to decree that Mormonism is our new state religion and we all have to wear Mormon underwear under threat of being arrested by the Mormon Morality police?? The president of the US doesn't have that kind of power.
I suspect there are quite a few Swift Boat Vets just waiting for McC to officially announce his candidacy.......
Why do you call James Dobson a scumbag?
McCain is a moderate at best. He has forgotten where he has come from, like all the other career politicians.
Goldwater was pro-gay too. Had a gay grandson, if I remember correctly. And like McCain, Goldwater didn't support a federal ban on gay relationships.
I will not support McCain in primary or general.
If he's the nominee or the VP, I will write in Hunter/Tancredo/Gingrich/(even)Giuliani.
The man has done all he can to undermine Pres. Bush; he has been anti-free speech; he has been anti-evangelical; he lied about Bush's statement that the war would be long and hard; and he is anti-family.
The media likes him.
That tells me all I need to know.
you forgot that great head of hair.
As soon as McCain gives the Aye vote for amnesty it'll be time for the fork. The non-senate candidates are thankful they won't have to stick their necks out like he will have to.
That's because Hunter has a great head of hair too, so that wouldn't count.
The "Gang of 14" was the straw that broke the third camel's back with me.