Skip to comments.The Elephant in the Room: McCain must change views on social issues (Rick Santorum)
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.
Now that’s what I call whistling in the dark. McCain the RINO doesn’t represent me. Nor will he ever.
I thought conservativism meant Federalism and now Rick Santorum wants the Feds to dictate to the State aboout marriage.
Why not leave it up to the States?
Mccain must change views period. Not only that, he must prove it.
He can start by embracing the word “fence” and appointing Tancredo or Sheriff Joe as his “Immigration Czar”
This succintly states why I cannot and will not vote for McCain. Any issue that he now "agrees" with me (a conservative) (e.g. taxes, supreme court nominations & immigration) is because of politics.
Santorum lists many issues where McCain does not agree with me/conservatives and I'm not at all interested in political year conversions.
because federalism isn’t an item on single issue voter checklists
Worried about global warming? I suggest trusting in the Lord will do a lot more than reducing your carbon emissions. Fear God, not global warming.
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.
That’s up to the people of the Commonweath of Massachusetts, not to the Federal govt.
not just that but in the name of conservatism they want the govt to impose trade barriers on our allies and non-enemies, a Japan style industrial policy, ethanol and other agricultural subsidies and all kinds of defense projects that the military doesn’t need in the name of creating jobs.
I ran across this by accident today..make up your own minds folks.
what the federal govt should do is ensure that other states are not forced to accept MA’s gay marriage.
Santorum nails it.
McCain will get votes but he will not get volunteers and effort from citizens.
It will NOT be “YEAH! vote McCain!”
it WILL be “whatever, vote mcain.”
THIS is the danger for the DOWN TICKET.
I can’t even get to the “whatever, vote McCain’ part.
The man is as uninspiring as a doorknob.
McCain is running like a Democrat. His positions are off limits and we aren’t supposed to be talking about them. 2012 can’t come soon enough, is Amerika is still here, of course.
One state recogtnizinf homosexual marriage will eventually force all 50 to.
Who wants unlimited government except for McCain?
Some video of McCain at youtube::
McCain shows his zeal for global warming regulations (and is a pompous, arrogant, disrespectful jerk) at the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, June 8 2005.Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier
"...single most important issue affecting the world - climate change... "
Debate is over... solution is through development of technologies that will help our economy... cap-and-trade ... climate change is real... an obligation of the stewardship of the earth ... In my view, the debate is over.John McCain on Global Warming
In this video, he says while Kyoto was opposed, if China and India would join, the US should consider a global agreement.
(overwhelming evidence.... yada yada...)
I think because the Uniform Code Law requires that states accept and recognize the laws of other states. That would mean that non-same-sex marriage states would have to accept same-sex unions granted by another state.
Now I hear he's the elephant in the room?
Could be, I may have to hold my nose to vote for the McTurd, but I sure as hell don't have to claim to like him when I don't.
Still hoping for the best, meaning natural causes takes him out and we can substitute a real candidate.
If not for the two Marxist running on the Democrat side, no way I'd vote McTurd.
Santorum in ‘12
If anyone knows about winning an election, it’s Rick Santorum, right?
That is why it is a Federal matter.
So, Rick Santorum thinks that McCain can make up for his extremely faulty reasoning by speechifying? McCain has been poking conservatives in the eyes for so long that it’s going to take more than words to convince.
Barral is quite the good commie, isn’t he? Here is a five pager of the interview that was published back in 1970.
This document is a transcript of an “exclusive” interview of POW John McCain by Spanish psychiatrist Dr. Fernando Barral. The meeting between Barral and POW McCain took [place] away from the POW camp in an office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. The interview was published January 24, 1970 in Havana, Cuba.
How true, if Rick had morphed into another Snarlin Arlen, he might be in the senate right now.
Hey, Rick Santorum, how is your support for Arlen Specter working out for you?
Does Arlen call? Does he write?
Because marriage is a legal contract like any other.
Bingo. McKook’s version of reaching across the aisle.
Before September, we need a new nominee.
Santorum’s displeased because McCain doesn’t want to run on the queers and mexicans platform.
If I have a choice of believing McCain or a communist, I’ll believe McCain easily.
Do you need a license to buy a house? A car? Accept a job? All legal contracts. Try again.
Generally, Conservatism is about federalism and states rights. But there are some things that are too important to be left up to the states; for example, issues of morality (marriage [gay marriage, polygamy], assisted suicide [Oregon]), social and individual well-being (legalizing marijuana and other drugs [California]), government (banking, coining money, war and peace).
Conservatives realize that when issues like these arise and states want to pass state laws that are immoral or should be illegal, the power of the Federal Government is needed to prevent states from committing these wrongs (as happened with the Shiavo case).
Deed of Trust, Car registration, employment contract.
I think I'm seeing a new "syndrome": BLS (battered legislator syndrome)
Perhaps we could start a new party and offer counseling services.
The point is, our founders set up government to avoid the nanny state we have now. To allow choice. If Mass. wants to license marriage, and they want to include homosexuals, fine. If Texas doesn't, fine also. If you are moving from one state to another, learn the laws and either accept them, work to change them, or don't go there. If your state enacts laws you disagree with, move.
We are free people and we should not have to get our government's permission to get married, buy a house or move. THAT is what sets us apart from the rest of the world. At least, it used to.
Everything you said is so unconstitutional.
The feds are not supposed to be involved in any of those things. The judiciary has overstepped it’s bounds and interfered in all those things. The fed government redistributes tax money based on marriage status - it’s all wrong.
Santorum and those that agree with him want to correct the judiciary by passing more laws. I have little hope that any of it will work.
Bottom line, the federal government is evil. You cannot depend on it to decide moral issues. That is the opposite of what the founders intended.
We have 60,000,000 dead babies to prove it.
McCain will not change and I will not vote for him....even if he said he did.
I disagree. You say the federal government is evil. Does that mean state governments are good?
Do you realize that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned abortion will be legal in many states? Aren’t those state governments evil? That is why even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned we will need a federal statute making abortion illegal. Plus all the other immoral or illegal acts state governments sometimes try to legalize.
The federal government represents all the people of our nation, not just the people of one area like state governments. That is why it is up to the federal government to enforce American morality and legality when state governments fail.
I came to the same conclusion a while back.
The government needs to be out of the marriage business - we as a people need to demand it. It's doubtful that this will happen, however, because people now look to the government for approval and protection.
Ironically, for those concerned about such things, government involvement in marriage won't prevent gay marriage - at some point it will help facilitate it.
Continued government regulation of marriage simply means that in addition to gay marriage, the government will have an excuse to further regulate our private lives.
And the groupie Weasnicks make excuses for him..
Leaving the room is the only way to regain any self respect..
Amazingly some will sacrifice all self respect at the polls in Nov..