McCain’s heart still isn’t in ‘this stuff’

John McCain’s position on abortion hasn’t always been especially consistent, and by all appearances, he doesn’t even like to talk about it on the campaign stump.

It’s what made this development yesterday rather interesting.

[B]arnstorming today through three conservative Southern states that will hold primaries on Tuesday, McCain is touching on abortion.

And I do mean touching on.

“For 24 years, I’ve fought for the rights of the unborn,” McCain said mid-speech at a jam-packed rally in Birmingham this afternoon, noting that pro-lifers could count on him.

Then, intentionally but revealingly, he quickly pivoted to the war and threat of Islamic terrorism by saying, “Let me talk to you just for a minute about why I’m running for president.”

In other words, fighting for the “rights of the unborn” is clearly not why he’s running for president.

That’s hardly a surprise, given his record on the issue.

Despite consistently opposing abortion rights in Congress, during his last presidential campaign, for example, when McCain was trying to reinvent himself (again) as a moderate reformer, he angered much of the Republican base by offering a tacit defense of Roe v. Wade.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appeared to soften his position on making abortion illegal in separate interviews in recent days, drawing criticism from social conservatives and some of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination.

Aides to McCain said perhaps he could have been clearer in comments he made to the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, but that he had not wavered from his long-term opposition to abortion or his belief that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, should be repealed.

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

McCain eventually moved away from his stated opinion, and now likes to pretend he never said it (this happens a lot with him).

I’m reminded of an incident from the summer of 2006, when McCain appeared at an Aspen Institute discussion. It was rather embarrassing when the senator tripped over himself trying to explain his position on science in science classes, saying intelligent design creationism does and does not belong in public schools. A former McCain aide acknowledged at the time, “[H]is heart isn’t in this stuff…. But he has to pretend [that it is], and he’s not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can’t fake it well enough.”

McCain is awfully lucky to be running in a crowded Republican primary, in which conservatives are split among his rivals.

From the days of the Keating Five scandal I believe McCain’s only interest has been staying on the federal gravy train. Whatever he has to do, he’ll do.

  • McCain is damned lucky that his principle opponent is regarded as an arriviste in the conservatives’ tight little world of gay bashing, unfettered bellicosity and fetus protection.

  • McCain is awfully lucky to be running in a crowded Republican primary, in which conservatives are split among his rivals.

    Given up for dead 3 months ago by that great moral pundit Josh Marshall…
    Broke on the day he won the Florida primary…
    Press-enabled to run amok in his teflon-plated Straight-Talk express…

    A war hero of yesterday.
    A son in today’s battle.

    McCain is now THE trumpeting Bull-elephant.
    His party will rally for him.
    Arguably: It is better to be lucky than good…
    I like his chances in November.

    Side note:
    He is going to have fun parsing these quotes from General Hillary:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4327894

  • That’s part of the reason why for many independents it doesn’t really matter if McCain or Clinton wins. Neither has shown much consistency towards liberal or conservative principles.

    You could have just as easily written a post on how Clinton’s heart isn’t into liberal stuff. She was a cheer leader for the war until it became politically safe and expedient to oppose it. We’ve seen her support restrictions on flag burning and video games. Her presumptive co-president Bill advised John Kerry to back Constitutional amendments against gay marriage in the states where they were on the ballot in order to pick up socially conservative votes and I wouldn’t expect Hillary to be any different.

  • Whether you agree with abortion or not, it’s important to remember the legal precedents involved. The Supreme Court didn’t find a “right to privacy” in the Constitution in their Roe v. Wade decision.. That happend a couple years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut.

    In 1965, the General Statutes of Connecticut said,
    “Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.”

    Planned Parenthood appealed their being fined by Connecticut for counseling married couples on how to avoid pregnancy. The Supreme Court agreed that a Connecticut violated the Constitutional rights of married couples and overturned Connecticut’s law. Roe v. Wade was simply an extension of those privacy rights.
    http://www.thisnation.com/library/griswold.html

    When the debate turns to Roe v. Wade, Democrats need to ask Republicans whether they’re saying they want to go back to a time when states could outlaw contraception. When the idea of outlawing abortion comes up, Democrats need to ask whether Republicans intend to outlaw the I.U.D. and the birth control pill. The I.U.D. prevents the wall of the uterus from allowing fertilized eggs to be implanted. The birth control pill not only prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs, it also prevents any egg that gets released and fertilized from being implated in the uterus. The “morning after pill” is basically just several birth control pills taken at once.

    It’s all about shaping the debate — something Democrats usually suck at.

  • It’s hard to imagine the country banning contraceptives.

    Unfortunately it’s not hard to see them trying. They’ll never get an actual ban, but if the religious right gets its way there will be more and more areas where it is hard to obtain them. You know, those “pro-freedom” Republicans will defend the “right” of pharmacists to deny selling contraceptives on “moral grounds.”

  • In other words, fighting for the “rights of the unborn” is clearly not why he’s running for president.

    Agreed. McCain’s main focus has been, and still is; on the most important issue facing America today – The WAR that the Muslim world has been conducting against America for decades. It seems, that this issue is also very important to many Americans, no matter what Party they may be registered with, and is the reason that McCain has done so well recently. I found this article today:

    Older Belligerent Men
    http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/62a3164c-48ff-46e3-8720-4a1cb36b7b31

  • scary, somewhat related thought from telemundo journalist on the chris mathews show this morning — if mccain wins the white house lieberman resigns from the senate to become secretary of state.

    subsequent scary thought — to which state would his allegiances apply?

  • From the Washington Post today:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202074_2.html

    McCain seems distinctly uninterested when asked questions concerning abortion and gay rights. While campaigning in South Carolina, he told reporters riding with him on his bus that he was comfortable pledging to appoint judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution in part because it would reassure conservatives who might otherwise distrust him.

    “It’s not social issues I care about,” he explained.

  • “It’s not social issues I care about,” he explained.

    Great point! If we don’t win the War, then social issues won’t matter anyway. We need a President who would at least keep the same pressure that ‘W‘ has placed on the Muslim world, or better yet, one who would increase that pressure.

  • ***Look Seabutt*** There is no war against the Muslim world. You keep talking such bullshit. Win what? Win what war? Exxon?Mobile has got you believing bullshit. There is no war…there is an Occupation…a violent occupation policing one group against another group both in a Muslim country. You’ve been sold a bill of goods about an external enemy in order for the war profiteers to continuing gaining power and wealth. Please tell us what the hell you win or expect to win by America’s military aggression against countries no bigger than one of our states. It’s always been about stealing the resources (mainly oil) from other countries. Read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, read “Broken Government”, read “the Shock Doctrine”, but by all means start reading so you you will quit showing your ignorance because you are spouting Fox Noise right wing talking points thrown out there to keep you ignorant because the neocons state they need that 30% of war supporters who will swallow anything for their base in order to continue doing what they have been doing…war profiteering. The only way to not know is to not want to know. Be smarter than those trying so hard to manipulate you. It’s disaster capitalism…it’s the politics of shock(as in shock and awe) used to gain power and money. The Muslim world certainly has not been conducting a war against America. That is a stupid comment…so why make it?

  • McCain is now THE trumpeting Bull-shitter.
    His party will rally for him.
    Arguably: It is better to be lucky than good…
    I like his chances in November.

  • Comments are closed.