Another Reason McCain Won't Get The Nod

[Bruzilla]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_co/climate_change_alaska_2

Here's the best quote of the story...

McCain said the trip has been valuable for the accumulation of evidence that can be used to push the bill. Ultimately, he said, Americans will demand laws to decrease emissions, just as they demanded campaign financing reform.

"It's coming up from the bottom," he said. "It's the special interests vs. the people's interests and I still have enough confidence in our system of government that the people's interest will ultimately prevail."

Yeah... I remember all of those hordes of torch and pitchfork-wielding citizens who surrounded the Capital DEMANDING campaign finance reform. I think Johnnie needs to get a serious reality check going.

 

[rraley]

I wouldn't bet on John McCain getting the nod from the GOP...he's too willing to work with Democrats on high profile issues and he isn't "conservative" enough for the GOP base, especially the religious right. It really is too bad because I believe that a McCain ticket would GUARANTEE another GOP win for the White House.

 

[vraiblonde]

I believe that a McCain ticket would GUARANTEE another GOP win for the White House.

Yeah! Unlike that piker, Bush, who...uh...wait a minute...

Anyway, get off the "religious right" kick. That's a phrase the liberal media made up as an excuse why their boy tanked.

 

[willie]

Yeah! Unlike that piker, Bush, who...uh...wait a minute...

Anyway, get off the "religious right" kick. That's a phrase the liberal media made up as an excuse why their boy tanked.

We should not get too overconfident about any past victory. John and Tereeza Heinz-Kerry didn't do that bad considering they had absolutely nothing positive to offer and the more they spoke, the worse they looked.

 

[rraley]

Anyway, get off the "religious right" kick. That's a phrase the liberal media made up as an excuse why their boy tanked.

Actually, the religious right hit the stage in 1980 with the start of the Moral Majority. It started to flex its muscle when Pat Robertson was 2nd in the Iowa Caucuses, in front of President George H.W. Bush. Pat Buchanan rode the religious right to get quite a close showing against a sitting preisdent in the 1992 primaries then boldly declared the culture war at the 1992 Convention. Exit polling for 2004 says that a 1/4 of voters in some states were members of the religious right and they voted almost completely for Bush. It ain't no made up liberal media term. The religious right is powerful in the GOP.

 

[vraiblonde]

We should not get too overconfident about any past victory. John and Tereeza Heinz-Kerry didn't do that bad considering they had absolutely nothing positive to offer and the more they spoke, the worse they looked.

Brf. Good point.

 

[vraiblonde]

The religious right is powerful in the GOP.

I disagree. That merely plays into the stereotype of religious fanatics and zealots making up the party as a whole.

Pat Roberston is not our spokesperson. If you remember, no one denounced his post-9-11 comments louder than the Republicans.

Jerry Falwell is not our spokesperson. He has never won so much as a primary, let alone an election.

If the "religious right" is so powerful, why don't they get guys like this into office?

Bush is a Christian - so what? Clinton said he was a Christian, too, and the "religious right" didn't come out for him either time.

 

[rraley]

Bush is indeed a Christian but his first run for the GOP nomination was dependent on their support and his reelection campaign was focused on getting out more religious right voters. Karl Rove stated very publicly that if the number of religious right voters went from 20 million to 25 million between 2000 and 2004, his candidate would win. He was indeed right. The 2004 Campaign, while not entirely tailored to gain the support of more religious right voters, was based on an attempt to push more of them to the polls. Proof that Bush wanted to get more support from these base Republicans...

1) First action in office was signing an executive action to prevent abortion services from being offered at military installations overseas as well as outlawing RU-486.
2) Gay Marriage Amendment right before the 2004 Conventions

The religious right is close to 20% of the GOP, in my estimation. It is incredibly higher in the South. That is quite a large percentage and any person who wants to win the GOP nomination has to have them at least ambivalent to their candidacy in order to avoid sinking.

 

[FromTexas]

Bush is indeed a Christian but his first run for the GOP nomination was dependent on their support and his reelection campaign was focused on getting out more religious right voters. Karl Rove stated very publicly that if the number of religious right voters went from 20 million to 25 million between 2000 and 2004, his candidate would win. He was indeed right. The 2004 Campaign, while not entirely tailored to gain the support of more religious right voters, was based on an attempt to push more of them to the polls. Proof that Bush wanted to get more support from these base Republicans...

1) First action in office was signing an executive action to prevent abortion services from being offered at military installations overseas as well as outlawing RU-486.
2) Gay Marriage Amendment right before the 2004 Conventions

The religious right is close to 20% of the GOP, in my estimation. It is incredibly higher in the South. That is quite a large percentage and any person who wants to win the GOP nomination has to have them at least ambivalent to their candidacy in order to avoid sinking.

So, the democrats push for the support of the fanatic leftists... but last I checked the dem's weren't pushing to outlaw war, meat, and the cutting down of any tree. The moveon'ers, etc make up at least 20% of the Dem base, as well. Take your own argument and flip it... its there. The difference is people don't listen so much to Falwell and Roberts on our side, but you all have Micheal Moore getting kudo's from large parts of the party.

 

[vraiblonde]

1) First action in office was signing an executive action to prevent abortion services from being offered at military installations overseas as well as outlawing RU-486.
2) Gay Marriage Amendment right before the 2004 Conventions

1) Abortion services shouldn't be offered at ANY military installation. Why should my tax dollars go toward someone murdering their unborn child??? As far as RU-486 goes, I was unaware that it was outlawed. The Planned Parenthood site says all you have to do is make an appointment with your doctor (http://plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-medical-abortion.xml).

2) And Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act about a month after the 1996 Democratic National Convention, after it overwhelmingly passed through the House and Senate. Did that make the "religious right" come out for him in droves?

 

[Ken King]

Proof that Bush wanted to get more support from these base Republicans...

1) First action in office was signing an executive action to prevent abortion services from being offered at military installations overseas as well as outlawing RU-486.

Can you provide a specific cite for this information regarding abortion services at military facilities. Here is what is in the law which does allow for certain services to be performed under specific circumstances:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 55 > § 1093

§ 1093. Performance of abortions: restrictions

(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.— Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
(b) Restriction on Use of Facilities.— No medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Additionally I do not think the following has been rescinded.

Privately Funded Abortions at Military Hospitals

Memorandum of the President of the United States, Jan. 22, 1993, 58 F.R. 6439, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Section 1093 of title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the use of Department of Defense (“DOD”) funds to perform abortions except where the life of a woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. By memoranda of December 21, 1987, and June 21, 1988, DOD has gone beyond what I am informed are the requirements of the statute and has banned all abortions at U.S. military facilities, even where the procedure is privately funded. This ban is unwarranted. Accordingly, I hereby direct that you reverse the ban immediately and permit abortion services to be provided, if paid for entirely with non-DOD funds and in accordance with other relevant DOD policies and procedures.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton.

 

[FromTexas]

Yes, Rraley, support that RU-486. Notice how illegal it is... so much so its being used and killing people.

 

[willie]

McCain would get all of the Republican votes, even Vrai. The far right voters might not like it but they sure wouldn't vote for anyone the Dems are going to present. There are a lot of Dems that are fed up with the party of "NO" and would easily consider someone like McCain. If the election were today, McCain would own it by a landslide.

 

[Lenny]

Yes, Rraley, support that RU-486. Notice how illegal it is... so much so its being used and killing people.

Can you provide a specific cite for this information regarding abortion services at military facilities. Here is what is in the law which does allow for certain services to be performed under specific circumstances:

C'mon guys, don't keep putting rraley on the spot like this. He's only relying on the unrelable Democrat talking points. They are the ones who need to put up or shut up.

 

[vraiblonde]

McCain would get all of the Republican votes, even Vrai.

He'd have to make it past the primary.

 

[rraley]

To clarify...earlier I was going off of memory and did not represent Bush's first action in office. He did indeed sign an executive action regarding abortion policy, but it did not outlaw RU-486 or outlaw abortion on overseas military installations (which have not been allowed since 1973 due to the Helms Amendment. Rather the executive order ended American funding for "international family planning." Link

This was done out of 1) Bush's conviction regarding abortion rights, and 2) Bush's desire to push for greater support from anti-abortion groups.

Sorry for the earlier gaffe, but while it was inaccurate, the spirit of the action is the same.

FT...I agree with your characterization of the influence of the fanatic left on the Democratic primaries; but this thread is about the GOP primaries and John McCain, not the Democratic Party and its demons. Both parties have radical bases that only seek to polarize and demonize rather than provide rational thought and reasonable public policy. The only way that either party can overcome those demons is to have so many far-left or far-right candidates run that the relative middle of each party overcomes.

And vrai, I agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used to provide abortions...I was just pointing this out to illustrate the point of Bush's attempt to gain more energized base support. As for Clinton, he signed DOMA for the reason that it was overwhelmingly approved by both houses of Congress (so any veto would be overridden) plus he was entering a campaign and we all know how Clinton loved the polls.

 

[Ken King]

To clarify...earlier I was going off of memory and did not represent Bush's first action in office. He did indeed sign an executive action regarding abortion policy, ... Rather the executive order ended American funding for "international family planning."

Not exactly so, the funding would not go to those that already actively promote and provide abortions as a part of their family planning programs with their own funding.

The following caveat still exists within the restored "Mexico City Policy" (also known as a Global Gag Rule) implemented by Reagan in 1984;

Certain actions are technically permitted under the Global Gag Rule, including the provision of abortion services in cases of rape, incest or threat to the pregnant woman's life. Providers are only permitted to "passively" respond to a question from a pregnant woman regarding where a safe, legal abortion could be obtained if she "clearly states that she has already decided to have a legal abortion, and the family planning counselor reasonably believes that the ethics of the medical profession in the country requires a response regarding where it may be obtained safely."

 

[vraiblonde]

As for Clinton, he signed DOMA for the reason that it was overwhelmingly approved by both houses of Congress

So was the Iraq War Resolution.

And the partial-birth abortion ban enjoyed overwhelming approval from Congress, and Clinton vetoed it anyway - so what does that mean?

I think you're grasping at straws, trying to make sense of a non-sensical situation. Clinton bans gay marriage and the Democrats kneel before him. Bush bans gay marriage and the Democrats call him Hitler. At least Republicans are consistent.

 

[rraley]

So was the Iraq War Resolution.

And the partial-birth abortion ban enjoyed overwhelming approval from Congress, and Clinton vetoed it anyway - so what does that mean?

I think you're grasping at straws, trying to make sense of a non-sensical situation. Clinton bans gay marriage and the Democrats kneel before him. Bush bans gay marriage and the Democrats call him Hitler. At least Republicans are consistent.

The partial birth abortion ban wasn't passed without veto-proof majorities. DOMA was. The margin in the Senate 85-14 (Kerry was one of the 14 in opposition, so you can't say that he isn't consistent). In the House it was 342-67. A veto would have been futile because of an easy, easy override, which is complicated by the fact that it was an election year. Democratic politicians did not want to be tied to the gay lobby, so they had to vote in order to maintain their reelection prospects. There was no bowing involved and because of Clinton's political move, the gay rights issue was virtually removed from the 96 Campaign (in which he won by 9% and the Democrats picked up several seats in the House and Senate). A constitutional amendment, however, was and is not politically popular (very controversial, whereas DOMA just seemed to be common sense). It is an issue that people seem to want the states to decide and that is what DOMA does...allows the states to decide. Now, is this consistent? No, but neither is the GOP's mantra on gay marriage that it should be banned via the federal amendment process while ignoring states' rights.

Plus, vrai, recall how much criticism Clinton got from far lefties during his time in office due to things like DOMA, the welfare reform act, his inability to bring Health Care back, etc. I have met liberals who refused to vote for him and who criticize him just as much as President Bush.

 

[vraiblonde]

Plus, vrai, recall how much criticism Clinton got from far lefties during his time in office due to things like DOMA

No. The only person I've ever heard even mention this, let alone criticize him for it, was Bertha Venation on here.

The rest of that is just splitting hairs. "This orange has a tiny brown spot on it, see? So it's not the same thing as this orange over here with no tiny brown spot."