McCain's Evangelical Problem

[RunInRed 16,492]

Shortcomings by John McCain's campaign in the art of politics are alienating two organizations of Christian conservatives. James Dobson's Focus on the Family is estranged following the failure of Dobson and McCain to talk out their differences. Evangelicals who follow the Rev. John Hagee resent McCain's disavowal of him.

The evangelicals are not an isolated problem for the Arizona senator. Enthusiasm for McCain inside the Republican coalition is in short supply. During the four months since McCain clinched the nomination, he has not satisfied conservatives opposed to his positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and how to ban same-sex marriages.

Among all constituency groups, evangelicals are most crucial to McCain. After supporting Jimmy Carter in 1976, Christian conservatives switched to Ronald Reagan in 1980 and since then have been indispensable to Republican presidential candidates. Dobson and Hagee, not merely inside-the-Beltway interest group chairmen or think tank managers, command substantial followings.

"I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," Dobson said in January 2007, adding, "I pray that we won't get stuck with him." After McCain clinched the nomination, however, Dobson privately invited him to Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs. When members of the Family Policy Council gathered there May 9 for an annual conference, word spread that McCain's campaign staff had rebuffed Dobson.

It was not that simple. The McCain campaign had responded that the senator would be in Denver on May 2 and would be happy to see Dobson in his hotel suite for a visit not limited by time. Dobson declined and asked McCain to come to Colorado Springs. McCain then also declined.

As the stalemate with Dobson continued, McCain had in his pocket an endorsement he had sought from popular televangelist Hagee. Founder and pastor of the Cornerstone megachurch in San Antonio, Hagee endorsed McCain at a joint news conference Feb. 27. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, immediately asked whether McCain agreed with Hagee's description of Catholicism as a "Godless theology." McCain started backing away, asserting that his courtship of the pastor was "probably" a mistake.

Donahue, accustomed to no remorse by Catholic-bashers, was surprised when Hagee apologized in writing and then engaged him in a warm private meeting at Catholic League offices in New York. But Obama supporters seeking the McCain equivalent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were not done. The Huffington Post featured a decade-old video of Hagee asserting that Adolf Hitler was God's "hunter," who forced Jews to create the state of Israel as their natural home.

Actually, Hagee was a founder of Christians United for Israel and the first non-Jew named "humanitarian of the year" by the San Antonio B'nai B'rith. Donahue, his former adversary, called Hagee "the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met." But McCain, who held his fire when reacting to Hagee's anti-Catholic remarks, had no patience with less clear evidence of anti-Semitism.

Hagee tried to preempt McCain by withdrawing his endorsement, but the candidate beat him to the punch by disavowing him (along with another megachurch supporter, the Rev. Rod Parsley of Columbus, Ohio, because of harsh words about Islam). Hagee's phone lines were clogged with calls from worshipers asking whether they should vote for McCain. Hagee replies that he doesn't know but asserts to friends that McCain "threw me under the bus."

A prominent Christian ally of McCain's understands his reluctance to make a pilgrimage to Colorado Springs with no assurance that Dobson would endorse him or even restrain his criticism of him. But this evangelical sees the treatment of Hagee as cold calculation designed to ensure that McCain does not lose the Jeremiah Wright issue.

McCain strategists are encouraged by polling data showing that their candidate is much more popular with rank-and-file conservatives than with their leaders (he leads by more than nine to one against Obama among self-identified conservative Republicans). The McCain strategy is to paint the idea of Obama in the White House as a daunting prospect, suggesting that even if the Republican candidate is no day at the beach, his Democratic opponent would be a weekend in hell -- whether or not James Dobson and John Hagee agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060801689.html

[Tigermike 3,055]

So with Obama's extreme positions on abortion you expect evangelicals to flock to him? Don't count on it. Even with Obama and the dims going out of their way to not advertise his previous votes and his positions on abortion.

Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL

by Amanda B. Carpenter

Posted: 12/26/2006

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647&page=1

Yeah that going to fly with evangelicals isn't it?

[RunInRed 16,492]

What do you think will happen with the evangelical vote? Will the choose "the lesser of two evils" and vote McCain or will some just stay home?

[Tigermike 3,055]

What do you think will happen with the evangelical vote? Will the choose "the lesser of two evils" and vote McCain or will some just stay home?

I think they will take a good look at Obama's very extreme positions and votes and vote for McCain.

Obama's extreme far left positions on abortion and his "problems" with Rev Wright can not help him with evangelicals.

Speaking of Rev Wright. Did you notice that he has decided not to retire? Even with Obama leaving the church, do you think there will be a few more verbal bombs going off over the summer?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If the Dems had someone that had demonstrated a more moderate, balanced position on abortion, even with all of Obama's other positions just as they currently are, they might have seen some measurable evangelical crossover. But you can hang it up if you think any statistically significant amount will vote for him. And thanks to Obama being so ardently pro-choice, I think they'll end up voting for McCain rather than staying home.

[RunInRed 16,492]

If the Dems had someone that had demonstrated a more moderate, balanced position on abortion, even with all of Obama's other positions just as they currently are, they might have seen some measurable evangelical crossover. But you can hang it up if you think any statistically significant amount will vote for him. And thanks to Obama being so ardently pro-choice, I think they'll end up voting for McCain rather than staying home.

If you are looking for the Democratic party to take a "pro-life" turn you are living in a fantasy land. This is a core principle of the party. I find your opinion interesting that Obama's positions will rally the evangelical vote - I have not heard that projection put forth yet - do you think your personal preferences prop that notion up or do you think it is more widespread?

I personally think the majority of the discussion will be on the economy, Iraq, and any "incidents" that occur between now and the fall. I see the abortion issue getting little play.

[RunInRed 16,492]

What do you think will happen with the evangelical vote? Will the choose "the lesser of two evils" and vote McCain or will some just stay home?

I think they will take a good look at Obama's very extreme positions and votes and vote for McCain.

Obama's extreme far left positions on abortion and his "problems" with Rev Wright can not help him with evangelicals.

Speaking of Rev Wright. Did you notice that he has decided not to retire? Even with Obama leaving the church, do you think there will be a few more verbal bombs going off over the summer?

I had not seen he had decided not to retire - is he still going to be at Trinity..or? I thought that church had hired a new pastor? Regardless, this guy is a disaster and the worst of worse political liabilities. Obama would be best served to never mention this guy again. As for further verbal bombs...I'm sure Wright and other extremist will spew them, but I hope we are collectively past making this the topic of discussion - we face much more important issues. The thought of glorifying these people and spending news cycle after news cycle talking about them makes me sick.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If the Dems had someone that had demonstrated a more moderate, balanced position on abortion, even with all of Obama's other positions just as they currently are, they might have seen some measurable evangelical crossover. But you can hang it up if you think any statistically significant amount will vote for him. And thanks to Obama being so ardently pro-choice, I think they'll end up voting for McCain rather than staying home.

If you are looking for the Democratic party to take a "pro-life" turn you are living in a fantasy land. This is a core principle of the party. I find your opinion interesting that Obama's positions will rally the evangelical vote - I have not heard that projection put forth yet - do you think your personal preferences prop that notion up or do you think it is more widespread?

I didn't say "pro-life", but I do think "not rabidly pro-choice" would help. I think putting forth concrete ideas for reducing abortions in other ways would be a start...at least showing some kind of commitment or caring about the notion other than "it's a tough, weighty decision but it's up to the woman and her doctor" and that it. That would help.

And actually I do think it's a widespread notion among evangelicals. It might not matter to all Republicans or conservatives in the same way, but what I espouse here on the subject is pretty well in line with how evangelicals feel. If anything many are more hardcore than I am in that they won't vote for anyone that's not willing to work to get Roe v. Wade reversed. I'm at least open to someone who shows a real commitment to virtually eliminating abortion such as the 95-10 Initiative put forth by Democrats For Life.

I personally think the majority of the discussion will be on the economy, Iraq, and any "incidents" that occur between now and the fall. I see the abortion issue getting little play.

You aren't evangelical either.

[Auburn85 432]

Evangelicals will vote for McCain. I'm sure overtime, several in the evangelical movement will try and put McCain through a litmis test. It will just be to see what can be bargained. In the end regardless, the vast majority will go to McCain.

People like Pat Robertson are seeing their influence/power (for lack of a better word) start to decline over the last several years.

Pat endorced Guliani for crying out loud.

And although it was too late, Dobson endorced Huckabee. McCain was already way ahead of Huckabee at the time of the endorcement.

And was it the Right to Life group who endorced Fred Thompson? That turned out well didn't it?

And not to derail the thread, but just say my peace... I wish some Democrats were as pro choice on social security as they are on abortion

[Tigermike 3,055]

If the Dems had someone that had demonstrated a more moderate, balanced position on abortion, even with all of Obama's other positions just as they currently are, they might have seen some measurable evangelical crossover. But you can hang it up if you think any statistically significant amount will vote for him. And thanks to Obama being so ardently pro-choice, I think they'll end up voting for McCain rather than staying home.

If you are looking for the Democratic party to take a "pro-life" turn you are living in a fantasy land. This is a core principle of the party. I find your opinion interesting that Obama's positions will rally the evangelical vote - I have not heard that projection put forth yet - do you think your personal preferences prop that notion up or do you think it is more widespread?

I personally think the majority of the discussion will be on the economy, Iraq, and any "incidents" that occur between now and the fall. I see the abortion issue getting little play.

Evangelicals on the other hand take that "core principle of the party" and vomit at the thought of it. They also know that Obama thinks of it as a "core principle of the party" and they will vote accordingly. There will be very little evangelical cross over votes for Obama.

Fiscal conservatives also have a good look at Obama and want nothing to do with him.

Free traders also have a good look at Obama and want nothing to do with him.

In a nut shell Obama can look to the black vote who will vote for him in the 90 - 98% range. The unions are in the tank for Obama (but that could be phrased in the opposite way - Obama is in the tank for the unions.) Far left nut jobs and yellow dog dems who no matter who is on the dem ticket will vote dem.

What do you think will happen with the evangelical vote? Will the choose "the lesser of two evils" and vote McCain or will some just stay home?

I think they will take a good look at Obama's very extreme positions and votes and vote for McCain.

Obama's extreme far left positions on abortion and his "problems" with Rev Wright can not help him with evangelicals.

Speaking of Rev Wright. Did you notice that he has decided not to retire? Even with Obama leaving the church, do you think there will be a few more verbal bombs going off over the summer?

I had not seen he had decided not to retire - is he still going to be at Trinity..or? (Yes he will) I thought that church had hired a new pastor? (They did and Wright has told him he will remain a junior pastor. That is unless there is a split in the church. Some it seems actually took Wright at his word to retire.) Regardless, this guy is a disaster and the worst of worse political liabilities. Obama would be best served to never mention this guy again. As for further verbal bombs...I'm sure Wright and other extremist will spew them, but I hope we are collectively past making this the topic of discussion - we face much more important issues. The thought of glorifying these people and spending news cycle after news cycle talking about them makes me sick.

I think Wright is of the same narcissistic mold as Obama (or vise versa). Bear with me here. As soon as Obama was elected Senator (1st term) he started running for president. Wright for the most part stayed in the back ground but look again at him at the Press Club. He was liking the attention and actually thought people liked him and agreed with what he was saying. He does not want to be out of the lime light and does not realize he was only in the lime light because Obama was running for POUS.

When it came to Wright some on this board (you and Tex) said there was nothing to worry about and that Wright and the church would not be a distraction to Obama's elect ability. Do you still feel that way?