« Paul Weyrich
May 30, 2008
Weyrich Duped Again?
Not too long ago, Paul Weyrich complained that he was duped into signing an anti-Mitt Romney letter and now he is complaining that he was duped into endorsing the Bible Literacy Project: "When I was made aware of the 'Bible Literacy Project' I rejoiced, thinking that this was a way for students to study religion in the Godless public schools. I endorsed the Project. Now that I have been made aware of what this Project is really about ... I hereby withdraw my endorsement. Once again liberals stole what began as a worthwhile initiative. This is worse than public schools without God. This may well cause young impressionable young people to lose their faith and to be contemptuous of those who have faith."
Posted by Kyle at 4:13 PM | Permalink
May 7, 2008
Right on Voter ID: Those People 'Should Not Be Voting Anyway'
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding Indiana’s partisan voter-ID law, like other recent cases with conservative outcomes, received generous praise from the Right. “This victory continues conservatives’ good run of Supreme Court decisions dating back to last term,” wrote Human Events columnist Sean Trende, who called the case evidence that John Roberts’s appointment as Chief Justice “mark[ed] a sea change” in pulling the court “rightward.”
Paul Weyrich praised the Court and called objections to the law—which closes access to the ballot box for many otherwise eligible voters, primarily minorities and the elderly, in pursuit of the phantom threat of voter fraud—“overblown and sensational,” adding, “We do not compel people to vote.” (As Weyrich said in 1980, “I don't want everybody to vote. … [O]ur leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”)
And Gary Bauer boldly asserted that “all citizens have photo I.D.s, and the only people who don’t are illegal aliens, who are, by definition, not allowed to vote. The only ones disenfranchised by the photo I.D. requirement are those who should not be voting anyway.”
Of course, by the time Bauer sent that remarkable claim out to his e-mail list, the AP was already reporting on some of these people he said “should not be voting”:
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. …
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back within the 10 days allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."
Posted by Ezra at 4:42 PM | Permalink
May 6, 2008
Give ‘Em What They Want, John
As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat:
In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.
"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.
Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."
As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election:
Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.
Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it.
Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform.
“I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said. Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president.
“You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich.
And while McCain is delivering his remarks, Republican National Committee officials will be courting right-wing leaders on this effort having “invited social conservative leaders based in and around Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting Tuesday morning where former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) will give them a preview of McCain’s remarks.”
Already McCain surrogate Sen. Sam Brownback is making the rounds assuring the Right that it’ll like what it hears and, judging by excerpts of McCain's remarks and preliminary press coverage, it certainly looks like that will be the case:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Tuesday he would appoint judges in the mold of conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he were elected in November.
In an excerpt from a speech McCain was to give in Winston-Salem on Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference," McCain said.
In fact, so sure is the McCain camp that this speech will win over the Right that it is reaching out to them via GOPUSA seeking donations:
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular - the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
Posted by Kyle at 9:53 AM | Permalink
April 9, 2008
Weyrich Repents, Again
Things have not been going very well for Paul Weyrich lately. First, he endorsed Mitt Romney for President, but when Romney was forced to drop out, he threw his support behind Mike Huckabee. Then, when Huckabee too dropped out, Weyrich apparently had a crisis of conscience and confessed his sins to his allies on the Right at a meeting in New Orleans last monthy:
Weyrich, a Romney supporter and one of those Farris had chastised for not supporting Huckabee, steered his wheelchair to the front of the room and slowly turned to face his compatriots. In a voice barely above a whisper, he said, "Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong."
In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.
In what was perceived to be a public act of penance for his earlier support of Romney, Weyrich signed on to an ad warning John McCain that the idea of naming Romney as his running mate was “utterly unacceptable” and that doing so would destroy the GOP’s long-standing ties with its right-wing base.
And that seemed to be the end of it … until The American Mind reported that Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation had quietly sent out a press release trying to distance Weyrich from the anti-Romney ad:
Recently I received a phone call from someone asking if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney should be Arizona Senator John McCain’s selection for Vice President of the United States.
I said, “No” because I did not think this was the best path for Romney right now; nor was it, in my view, the right fit for McCain. My understanding was that this was to be a personal letter to the Senator; it was not clear to me that this was to be an advertisement.
Thus, I now request that my involvement in this effort be disregarded as this effort to influence the Senator moves on.
If Weyrich is to be believed, he either didn’t read the letter or didn’t know that it was going to be made public. Of course, even if that was the case, the text of the ad, with Weyrich’s signature attached, was made public a few days before it ran, giving him plenty of time to disavow it or demand that his name be removed. He did neither, choosing instead to furtively issue a press release to a conservative blog begging that his role in this entire imbroglio simply be "disregarded."
Posted by Kyle at 3:32 PM | Permalink
April 8, 2008
Perkins Pal Runs for Congress
Former state legislator Woody Jenkins won the Republican nomination Saturday for the special election to replace Louisiana Rep. Richard Baker, who retired this year to become a lobbyist. During Jenkins’s unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaigns in 1978, 1980, and 1996, he received his strongest support from far-right groups such as the Christian Coalition, Americans for Life League, and the Christian Action Network, and this run is no different: He’s received endorsements from James Dobson, Paul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye, and Family Research Council Action, as well as the Club for Growth’s PAC.
While it’s unusual to see FRC Action making an outright endorsement of a candidate, it should be no surprise, as FRC President Tony Perkins managed Jenkins’s 1996 Senate campaign. Many will recall that Perkins gained some notoriety for his role in buying Ku Klux Klansman David Duke’s phone bank list for Jenkins’s campaign and attempting to cover up the payment.
But what’s not commonly known is that Jenkins helped found the Council for National Policy in 1981, serving as its first executive director. “One day before the end of this century, the Council will be so influential that no president, regardless of party or philosophy, will be able to ignore us or our concerns or shut us out of the highest levels of government,” claimed Jenkins. For the past year, at least, Republican candidates for president have been hard pressed to ignore the secretive Religious Right gathering’s finicky vetting of candidates and its brief threat to ditch the GOP entirely. Even after he won, John McCain felt he had to go back before the council and plead for their grudging support.
What can voters expect from Jenkins? The Weekly Standard wrote in 1996 that he was “best known for leading the 1990 fight to pass what would have been the nation’s most restrictive abortion law and for occasionally bringing a plastic fetus onto the floor of the legislature.”
Posted by Ezra at 8:58 AM | Permalink
April 4, 2008
Paul Weyrich’s Penance
Back in the Fall of 2007, Gov. Mitt Romney was riding high, having barely won the Values Voter Summit’s straw poll and positioning himself as the candidate favored by both Religious Right Beltway-insiders like Jay Sekulow and outsiders like Lou Sheldon and Bob Jones. In fact, Romney was being pitched as the only alternative to unacceptable Rudy Giuliani, the unelectable Mike Huckabee, the unexciting Fred Thompson, and the unforgiven John McCain.
Romney’s efforts to position himself as the Right’s candidate of choice received a significant boost when, in November, he secured the endorsement of right-wing icon Paul Weyrich:
Today, Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, announced his support for Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign to be our country's next President. Paul Weyrich is one of the premier leaders in the conservative movement, having founded the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council.
"As he travels across the country, Governor Romney has outlined a blueprint to build a stronger America rooted in our common conservative principles. With a clear conservative vision to move America forward, he will strengthen our economy, our military and our families. More importantly, he already has an exceptional record of putting conservative values to work. Because of his experience, vision and values, I am proud to support Governor Romney," said Paul Weyrich.
But over the coming months, Romney’s campaign failed to catch fire and he eventually dropped out of the race and Weyrich threw his support to Huckabee, whose campaign likewise failed to generate significant support and folded.
Since then, Weyrich appears to have done some soul-searching and has come to regret his support of Romney at the expense of Huckabee:
In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.
The extent of Weyrich’s remorse appears to be even deeper than anyone could have imagined, as he has now joined a group of former-Huckabee backers and other right-wing activists in warning McCain that picking Romney as a running mate would be “utterly unacceptable”
Conservative leader Paul Weyrich – who endorsed Mitt Romney’s presidential bid – has signed on to an open letter from more than two dozen movement activists to John McCain warning him not to select the former Massachusetts governor as his VP pick if he expects their support.
"If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket,” they write in a message posted online by a political action committee called “Government is Not God.”
The letter – topped by the headline “NO Mitt” — will run as a print ad in cities visited by McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, beginning with his Arizona stop this weekend.
How, in the course of just a few months, Weyrich went from citing Romney’s “experience, vision and values” as making him best-suited to be President to declaring that he is absolutely unqualified to serve as McCain’s running mate is utterly mind-boggling:
When a chief executive can violate multiple articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world and disobey statutes he solemnly swore to defend and execute faithfully, then blame judges who never even asked him to intervene, he mocks the principle of limited government and the separation of powers. He robs Americans of their unalienable right to self-government, for which so many soldiers, sailors and airmen have died.
These are just two issues (there are more) that absolutely disqualify Mitt Romney as a viable Vice Presidential option. He would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and social conservative commitments.
If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.
As citizens, activists, and leaders with our feet on the solid ground of real world Republican and Independent voters, it is our duty to alert you that the grassroots is nearing a point of breaking with Republican Party leadership on many issues, not the least of which is the relentless whitewashing of Mitt Romney as a so-called "conservative."
Posted by Kyle at 2:57 PM | Permalink
April 2, 2008
The Goldilocks Right Settles on a Candidate, After the Fact
It was at a Council for National Policy meeting back in September that the Goldilocks brigade of the Religious Right, led by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, threatened to break away from the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani won the nomination. And the CNP meeting in March was one of John McCain’s first stops after securing the GOP mantle—continuing his pandering to the fringe.
Now, Warren Cole Smith of the conservative-Christian World magazine relates a tense scene from the CNP meeting:
Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, an early supporter of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, chided the group for cold-shouldering his candidate until it was too late. Others, including Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, disagreed. The meeting quickly threatened to dissolve into accusations, rebuttals, and recriminations.
Then, venerable Paul Weyrich—a founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the Council for National Policy (CNP)—raised his hand to speak. Weyrich is a man whose mortality is plain to see. A freak accident several years ago left him with a spinal injury, which ultimately led to both his legs being amputated in 2005. He now gets around in a motorized wheelchair. He is visibly paler and grayer than he was just a few years ago, a fact not lost on many of his friends in the room, some of whom had fought in the political trenches with him since the 1960s.
The room—which had been taken over by argument and side-conversations—became suddenly quiet. Weyrich, a Romney supporter and one of those Farris had chastised for not supporting Huckabee, steered his wheelchair to the front of the room and slowly turned to face his compatriots. In a voice barely above a whisper, he said, "Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong."
In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.
Weyrich (much to Janet Folger’s delight) essentially validated Huckabee’s constant complaint about religious-right leaders not supporting one of their own. But with Huckabee gone, these activists (like Folger) appear ready to settle for McCain, at least for the sake of the Supreme Court, as Ohio activist Phil Burress put it:
With the election now just over six months away, he told the New Orleans gathering, "McCain wasn't my first choice, and I'm not sure about him now, but we've got a zero chance of getting a conservative Supreme Court justice out of either Clinton or Obama. I don't know whether we've got a 25 percent chance, or a 50 percent chance, or a 100 percent chance with McCain—but it's better than zero, and I'm going to do everything in my power to help get him elected. He's our best shot."
And what about Dobson, who led the bluff about abandoning the GOP, and whom McCain called an “agent of intolerance” back in 2000? Like the others, Dobson kept his distance from Huckabee, only endorsing the former Arkansas governor when it was basically too late—while reiterating that he would never vote for McCain.
Now Dobson—who voted for a third-party candidate rather than Republican Bob Dole in 1996—is apparently opening the door for McCain. “I will certainly vote,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity.
“I think we have a God-given responsibility to vote, and there are all of the candidates and the issues down the ballot that we have an obligation to weigh in on and let our voices be heard.”
Dr. Dobson, speaking as a private citizen and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, as he always does when discussing political candidates, added that he “has problems” with all three major presidential contenders, especially the Democrats.
What’s the price? Dobson wants McCain to change his position on embryonic stem-cell research. “[Y]ou can't really call yourself pro-life if you're in favor of killing those babies,” he said. After McCain’s years-long courtship of the Religious Right, that doesn’t seem like much more to ask.
Posted by Ezra at 9:20 AM | Permalink
March 19, 2008
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Pretend to Join 'Em
With the passing of right-wing luminaries such as Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy in recent months, coupled with the aging of many of the Right’s traditional leaders, the movement itself appears to be in flux and some are getting worried about just what will become of it in the future. Just last week, James Dobson voiced these concerns while addressing the National Religious Broadcasters Convention:
“It causes me to wonder who will be left to carry the banner when this generation of leaders is gone. The question is, will the younger generation heed the call? Who will defend the unborn child in the years to come? Who will plead for the Terri Schiavos of the world? Who’s going to fight for the institution of marriage, which is on the ropes today.”
The emerging conventional wisdom is that the Religious Right is on the verge of being replaced by a “new evangelical” movement that shares the old-guard’s opposition to gays and abortion, but also cares about issues like poverty and the environment. The standard-bearer of this “new breed” is Mike Huckabee who, as he puts it, drinks “a different kind of Jesus juice” than the traditional leaders and routinely says things like this:
I don’t see [the right-wing movement] going into decline. I see it going into a maturing process. I think the issues are going to broaden and force Evangelicals to expand their horizons of concerns to poverty, disease, issues of education and homelessness. These are issues that I think are going to become increasingly important along with the environment as part of an overall focus that you’re going to see from - I would use a broader term - values voters - that would include not only Evangelicals but also Catholics and conservative Jewish voters as well.
Of course, just because a bunch of young upstarts think that caring about the environment is important doesn’t mean that the old-guard has any interest in broadening their agenda. As we noted last year, when the National Association of Evangelicals started to voice concerns about the environment and global warming, right-wing stalwarts like Dobson, Tony Perkins, Don Wildmon, Gary Bauer, Rick Scarborough, and Paul Weyrich dashed off an angry letter essentially demanding that the NAE fire its own Vice President over it.
The NAE didn’t back down, but the Right didn’t give up. Instead, they formed their own organization, the American Environmental Coalition, and now seek "to bring balance to the debate by being an alternative source of reliable information to Americans who seek the best way forward for our country.”
Because if you are looking for “reliable information” on environmental issues, you couldn’t ask for a better group of experts:
# Pat Robertson, The Christian Broadcasting Network
# Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
# Gary Bauer, American Values
# Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law & Justice
# Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
# Rev. Rob Schenck, Faith & Action
# Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
# Steve Elliott, Grassfire.org
# Amy Ridenour, National Center for Policy Analysis
It appears as if AEC was set-up back in September, with the site being registered to Gary Marx, who, along with being head of the Judicial Confirmation Network, also served on Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
While the AEC has, to date, kept a pretty low profile, it appears as if the organization already has one key ally on the Hill - global warming denier Sen. James Inhofe:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today welcomed a letter signed by leading evangelical and conservative leaders opposing S.2191 - America's Climate Security Act (Lieberman-Warner). The letter, sent to all 100 U.S. Senators, urges the defeat of climate change legislation which they say would lead to “imperceptible” changes in temperature “while doing grave harm to our economy, the poor, and U.S. competitiveness.” The letter dispels the myth made by a few on Capitol Hill that people of faith have somehow embraced the more radical climate change proposals. Over 70 religious leaders, economists, scientists, state legislators and public policy advocates signed the letter.
“Leading evangelical and conservative leaders made a bold statement by joining together and sending a letter to all 100 Senators outright rejecting the economic wrecking Lieberman-Warner bill,” Senator Inhofe said. “I welcome this letter and encourage each of my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments made by these leading evangelical and conservative leaders. In particular, the letter states their concerns over the severe economic impact on American families as a result of millions of job losses, skyrocketing energy costs, as well as increased price of food, especially on the poor.
“Further, this letter clearly dispels the myth advocated by a few on Capitol Hill that leading evangelicals support Lieberman-Warner.”
Signatories to the letter include AEC founders Norquist, Weyrich, Sheldon, and Bauer as well as others like Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Ken Blackwell, Roy Innis, Jerome Corsi, and dozens more.
The Religious Right has made no secret of the fact that it opposes efforts to broaden its agenda because it fears that doing so will ultimately distract the movements from his anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda. But they have apparently concluded that they can’t win that argument and have decided to set-up their own anti-environmental front group instead.
After all, what need is there to be concerned about global warming when it is really just a sign of the Second Coming?
Posted by Kyle at 4:13 PM | Permalink
February 25, 2008
The Right’s Continuing Outrage Over the “Gang of 14”
It has been nearly three years since fourteen senators - seven Democrats and seven Republicans – hammered out a deal that preserved the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees and, judging by an article in the New York Times, the Right still hasn’t gotten over it:
Back in 2005, Senator John McCain of Arizona and fellow members of the so-called Gang of 14 were hailed as heroes in some quarters when they fashioned an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.
Now Mr. McCain’s central role in that effort, which cleared the way for confirmation of some conservative jurists, is cited as one reason for lingering distrust of him among many conservatives. The power to appoint federal judges is seen as one of the most crucial presidential roles by many on the right, and some continue to believe the agreement undermined the Republican leadership at the precise moment the party was about to eliminate the ability to use procedural tactics to block judges.
James C. Dobson, an influential conservative leader, noted Mr. McCain’s role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 in his announcement that he could not support the lawmaker as the Republican nominee under any circumstances. Other conservatives still resent it as well.
“When people hear he was part of the Gang of 14, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said Phil Burress, president of the Citizens for Community Values, based in Ohio.
Considering that, thanks to the deal, President Bush managed to seat right-wing ideologues such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen on the federal bench – not to mention John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court – a lot of people have been wondering just what the Right is so upset about and why they insist on holding McCain’s participation against him.
In short, they were outraged, and seemingly continue to be outraged, that Senate Republicans failed to take advantage of an opportunity to jettison tradition in order to squash Democrats beneath their feet.
The “nuclear option” -- as the proposed attempt to do away with the filibuster was known despite Republican attempts to rechristen it the “constitutional option” -- was first floated back in 2003 in response to filibusters against Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Immediately, the Right rallied behind the idea, with groups like Committee for Justice, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Center for Reclaiming America, Concerned Women for America, and the American Center for Law and Justice all serving as vocal advocates.
When, two years later, their attempts to destroy the filibuster and squash the Democrats were seemingly thwarted by the "Gang of 14," the Right was apoplectic, as we chronicled in the days that followed the announcement:
When the agreement was announced, [Jan] LaRue belittled the Republicans who had agreed to it as “seven dwarves [who] have handed the filibuster key to the Supreme Court Castle with [sic] the Democrats.”
In keeping with his recent tirades about what the filibuster battle means to the right wing, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson, blasted the arrangement as a "complete betrayal.” "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," he said as he warned that “voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”
Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said the agreement was akin to forfeiting “the World Series … for some dumb reason" and berated the Republicans for failing to “have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority."
…
Rick Scarborough, Chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, likewise voiced his outrage over this “betrayal of democracy, decency and fairness” and called the deal a “complete capitulation.” Scarborough pledged that the JCCCR will “re-double our efforts to eliminate the permanent filibuster – now and in the future.”
In an e-mail update sent to supporters later in the day, Scarborough declared that “I have rarely been more sickened than I am at this moment.” He went on to state that “this devil's bargain must not be allowed to stand and I give you my word we are expressing our outrage” and urged his supports to “let Senators know that you deplore this move and are determined to see the filibuster ended now or latter [sic].”
…
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins likewise blasted the “ignoble judicial compromise” and likened the seven Republican Senators who signed the deal to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister known mainly for appeasing Adolf Hitler. Later in the evening, when Perkins appeared on “Hardball,” he made it clear that he considered Sen. John McCain to have “betrayed the majority leader and I think he betrayed the conservatives that gave the Senate expanded majorities.” He went on to complain that the seven Republicans who had agreed to the deal “stole defeat out of the mouth of victory.”
Pat Buchanan echoed the World War II surrender theme, though it was unclear who among the US Senators Pat Buchanan was comparing to Hitler and/or Mussolini when he characterized the agreement to table the nuclear option as “a Munich; a Munich of the Republican Party” on Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning” show the day after the agreement had been reached.
…
On Dr. James Dobson’s Monday morning radio program, before the agreement was announced, Dobson and his guests made it clear that they would not support any sort of compromise because this was a must-win battle for the Right. Dobson said that the fight over the filibuster was “the most important issue that has come before the Senate since World War II.” He saw it as “a battle royal [about] everything we care about, and I think a collision between right and wrong and good and evil is all wrapped up in the outcome of this particular issue.”
One of Dobson’s guests, American Values’ Gary Bauer, likewise opposed any potential compromise on the issue, warning that “any effort to have a so-called ‘compromise’ would undercut our attempt to get this country’s culture back on the right road.” Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s VP of Government and Public Policy, echoed the “no compromise” theme: [T]here really is no compromise that is acceptable. You either preserve the filibuster for use against good Supreme Court nominees … or you end this unconscionable, unprecedented use of the filibuster that the Democrats have been employing.”
The Right was fully invested in seeing the Senate Republicans’ go through with the “nuclear option,” as evidenced by Paul Weyrich’s exhortation to carry it out:
[Senate Republicans will hear] screams of anguish from the minority, echoed by the national media. But who cares? [They need to] stop the whining about how powerless they are and at last use their power for the good of this country.
For the Right, the “nuclear option” was less about its real long-term impact and more about exploitation of power and sticking it to the Democrats – and they’ve never forgiven McCain and other members of the “Gang of 14” for denying them the thrill of that power play.
Posted by Kyle at 3:55 PM | Permalink
February 4, 2008
McCain’s Delicate Dance
With John McCain seemingly poised to emerge from Super Tuesday as the de facto front runner in the Republican primary, the question will become just how much he intends to try and make nice with the Religious Right base that does not much like him.
As the McCain campaign admitted last year, his previous efforts to win them over were entirely half-hearted and purely political, but now that he might very well become the nominee, it looks as if some on the Right might be starting to warm up to him out of political necessity:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain today publicly thanked two prominent conservative Christian leaders who have rallied to his defense in recent days.
``I was very pleased to see comments made by people like Tony Perkins and Dr. Richard Land,'' McCain told reporters after a rally in Nashville, Tennessee. ``I appreciate the words that they have been using.''
Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative public policy group, and Land, a leader in the 16- million member Southern Baptist Convention, have criticized McCain in the past. Perkins told the New York Times that he has ``no residual issue with John McCain,'' while Land told the newspaper McCain ``is strongly pro-life.''
But even in accepting this praise, McCain went out of his way to make it clear that it was not he who did the reaching out :
“I will continue to reach out to all parts of the party but I did not call anyone,'' the Arizona senator said today. McCain's acknowledgement that he is not proactively reaching out to conservative leaders comes a day after he told reporters that he doesn't listen to conservative Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
Should he win the GOP nomination, McCain will undoubtedly change his tune on this issue – but quotes like this won’t be easily forgotten
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.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that right-wing activists who care only about social issues are attacking him, such as BOND’s Jesse Lee Peterson, Faith and Action’s Rob Schenck, Janet Folger’s RoeGone front group, and various others:
"Most Texans I know think that McCain is the second-least desirable candidate" among all those who ran this year and with Rudy Giuliani out, he's now officially the worst, says Cathie Adams, head of Texas Eagle Forum. "McCain's policies are awful."
…
"He is no conservative. Yes, maybe on the war, although many of us are not happy about the war," said Mitt Romney supporter Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation and a founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. "McCain hates strong conservatives. McCain hates the religious right. Thus far he has made no overtures to us."
When it comes down to it, McCain needs the Right if he hopes to win the presidency – and some of the Religious Right’s political leaders seems to realize that they might have the upper hand at the moment, with Tony Perkins saying that what happens between McCain and the Right going forward entirely "depends on how bad he wants to be president. Really it does."
Posted by Kyle at 3:58 PM | Permalink
Older Paul Weyrich posts: