McCain Campaign runs questionable advertisement on stem cells, giving pro-lifers reason to doubt their integrity

Via Jeff Cullbreath comes word of a disturbing radio advertisement from the McCain-Palin campaign on stem cell research. The text of the ad runs as follows (click here to listen):

They’re the original mavericks. Leaders. Reformers. Fighting for real change.
John McCain will lead his Congressional allies to improve America’s health.
Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease.
Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness.
Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns.
Stem cell research to help stroke victims.

And, John McCain and his Congressional allies will invest millions more in new NIH medical research to prevent disease.

Medical breakthroughs to help you get better, faster.
Change is coming.

McCain-Palin and Congressional allies.

The leadership and experience to really change Washington and improve your health.

Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

I don't think, as Jeff does, that this advertisement can be taken as a "campaign promise to aggressively fund ESCR." But the (deliberate) ambiguity is indeed the issue.

The abundance of medical breakthroughs that have occurred have been with adult stem cells -- indeed, adult stem cells, not embryonic, have played a role on successes related to the diseases and ailments mentioned in the advertisement. And given the media's propensity to over-hype what few advances made with ESCR and practically bury from the public eye adult stem cell accomplishments, the McCain campaign could have used this as an opportunity to emphasize this point.

On his campaign website, McCain now states:

will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

But with the publication of this advertisement, they've given pro-lifers reason to doubt their integrity on this matter.

Update (Via Jay Anderson)

According to Jeffrey Young @ The Hill, the McCain campaign confirms the reason for the "ambiguity":

The ad does not specifically refer to embryonic research, which is opposed by most politicians and activists who, like McCain, do not support abortion rights.

The omission is not a signal that McCain is backing away from his record in favor of embryonic stem cell research, spokesman Brian Rogers said.

“Clearly, John McCain supports it,” he said, emphasizing that the ad is intended to refer to all forms of stem cell research, including experiments using human embryos and those using cells from adults.

The Obama campaign dismissed the radio spot, charging that McCain should have fought harder when President Bush twice vetoed stem cells legislation and that his choice of Palin signifies weak support for embryonic stem cell research.

Jeff Cullbreath was right and I stand corrected: what an extremely disappointing (and stupid, stupid, stupid) move on McCain's part.

Related Perspectives

• McCain-Palin: “Change is Coming” on Stem Cell Research Policy:

  Indeed, “change is coming” to Washington. It looks like no matter who is president, we can say goodbye to our current stem cell policy as laid out in the White House stem cell report: Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life.

• Off the [McCain] bandwagon? - Colleague Jay Anderson re-thinks his support.
  
• The ever-provocative ZippyCatholic on why a vote for McCain is a vote for a "Human Cannibal", with a rebuttal by Dr. Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae).
  
• Dale Price: "McCain-Palin: Because the alternative will make you vomit."
  
• Not just abortion - Paul Zummo (Crankycon)
  
• Perfect vs. Good, by Red Cardigan, addressing the question: is it morally acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports that which is intrinsically evil?
  

Measuring presidential candidates by the "Non-Negotiables"

In terms of judging the quality of our political candidates, Pope Benedict gave us a clear example of the "non-negotiables":

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
  

• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
  

• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
  

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

In light of which, I'd like to note -- to disagree with a colleague -- that "character" and "personal fortitude" are not among them.

This is not to say I don't commend McCain for his courage as a POW survivor, for maintaining his Christian faith and spirit in the face of incredibly trying circumstances; or for his unwavering support of a policy in Iraq (even at a time when he was resisted by many in his party, including the President) which has in effect turned the war around and will bring our troops home with honor.

But to describe such as distinctly Catholic merely adds to the confusion. McCain embodies Catholic ideals to the extent that he carries out the true non-negotiables as specified by our Holy Father.

McCain and Obama at the Saddleback Civil Forum

NRO's Mark Hemingway on Obama's response to abortion during the Saddleback Forums:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

That spectacularly inept metaphor is going to haunt Obama throughout the rest of the campaign. News flash: There's not a job on the planet above the pay grade of the President of the United States. If you can't solve every problem and are humble about it, that's fine — but you can't get away with being unsure about the most defining moral issue in politics. Of course, he didn't put down the shovel:

But let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. Because this is something, obviously, the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue is not paying attention.

So after completely hedging on the question and declining to give a specific answer — he wants to speak "more generally" about the issue? And, lo and behold, speak more generally he does: "I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." In related news, Obama is also "absolutely convinced" that the sky is blue, water is wet and puppies are adorable. None of this, however, tells me a thing about his judgment and moral worldview.

Obama did, however, assert definitively that he was "pro-choice," which should go over well with the 500 evangelicals present in the audience.

Related

• Obama, Matthew 25, and Infanticide: A comment about the Saddleback Valley forum, by Francis Beckwith (What's Wrong With The World August 17, 2008):

  When Senator Obama, while in the Illinois senate, had the opportunity to require by law that medical professionals provide nutrition (something to eat), hydration (drink), protection (clothes), and shelter (inviting them in) to the smallest and most vulnerable strangers of all, the true "least of these," newborns who had survived abortions, Senator Obama stood with the goats.

• National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez asks What exactly is Barack Obama’s problem with Clarence Thomas?
  

  
  

• Obama finished off the evening by calling the National Right to Life liars on a question of fact, the latter having the documents on his Illinois "Born Alive" vote to prove his distortion of the matter. (UPDATE: Life Lies: Barack Obama and Born-Alive, by David Freddoso. NOR August 17, 2008).
  

  
  

• Enough about Obama, how'd McCain do? -- Deacon Kieth Fournier thinks "Senator McCain and Pastor Warren took the Gold", and here's Byron York on How McCain Won Saddleback (NRO August 17, 2008).
  

McCain Hints at Pro-Choice Catholic Tom Ridge as Potential Running Mate

From The Washington Times:

Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that he would not rule out naming a pro-choice vice-presidential nominee, saying the abortion issue amounts to "a disagreement" and that he thinks conservatives would accept former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, as a potential running mate.

"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," Mr. McCain told the Weekly Standard in an interview published on the magazine's Web site Wednesday afternoon. "And I also feel that - and I'm not trying to equivocate here - that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out."

But social-conservative leaders say a pro-choice nominee would cripple Mr. McCain politically with the Republican Party base.

[More]

Obama, McCain and Pope Benedict's "Non-Negotiables"

In remarks to the European People's Party on 30 March 2006, Pope Benedict XVI presented the following principles which he describes as "non-negotiable" for Catholic voters:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
  
• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
  
• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

With respect to which, Jay Anderson examines Obama's position wanting.

Does that make McCain the ideal choice for Catholics? -- Well, no. McCain has a commendable pro-life record on abortion, meriting the endorsement of the The National Right to Life Committee. (See also McCain's record on abortion PDF). He has also recently expressed his support of parental choice in education.

However, as Jay points out McCain himself falls short of Catholic standards on embryonic stem cell research; and, it would appear, the matter of gay adoption as well (hat tip: Creative Minority Report).

At this stage in the game, with neither a fully desireable choice, "we're left with the prudential analysis of which candidate is the lesser of grave evils."

As Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) noted in a memo to the U.S. Bishops in 2004:

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

Back in February, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who oversaw the drafting of "Faithful Citizenship" while chairman of the USCCB's domestic policy committee, provided his clarification of what "proportionate reasons" mean:

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) -- A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.

"Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits. ...

"In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.

"Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.

(Tip of the hat to: Rich Leonardi; Fr. Martin Fox).

McCain as Burkean Conservative

That's "Burkean" in the sense of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the British parliamentarian (see link), who was, by the way (and maybe due to social and political necessity) an Anglican but had a Catholic family background. Burke is especially appreciated by us Americans for his support of the American Revolution against his own country.

Our links source at the Catholic Analysis blog sends this May 2008 Atlantic Monthly link (that will expire in three days for free viewing) to a short article in which the writer argues that McCain is a "truer" conservative in the tradition of conservative hero Edmund Burke than many of his critics on the right because McCain does not favor drastic and dramatic short-term policy changes but rather a process of gradual and balanced reform efforts. In fact, after reading the article, the Burkean style of gradual reform reminded me of the liturgical writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope. Ratzinger argued for organic, gradual change in the liturgy. Ratzinger recognized that liturgical change was inevitable and desirable in order for the Church to pursue her mission. Yet, he strenuously objected to drastic, quick changes imposed by elitist academic liturgists who overestimate their capacity to anticipate all the consequences of their schemes and all of the variables affected in their proposals. It's an interesting article--but then again that's what our links source specializes in favoring us with on the Catholic Analysis blog.

A Good Political Sign for McCain

Lately, I have been noticing a string of attacks by Democrats on John McCain. No surprise. The tracking polls show that McCain is extremely competitive and often actually ahead of either of the Democratic candidates. My guess is that any polling at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) shows something similar or worse from the Democrats' point of view and thus disturbing to them. Even more disturbing to the Democrats are the polls showing McCain very competitive in some states that are usually safely Democratic--for example, one poll showed McCain actually running ahead of Obama in New York state! My first hint of the Democratic anxiety over McCain was seeing the strange Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, starting to attack McCain's age. That's a dangerous thing to do: all of us, Lord willing, will become senior citizens--but none of us, in the normal course of events (I need to keep in mind certain medical procedures), will eventually become female like Hillary or become African-American like Obama, as the years pass. When you attack age, you are attacking everyone, especially in a society where people are living longer due to medical advances and are seeking to maintain fulfilling, productive lives as long as possible. McCain the presidential candidate is a living and inspiring example of that radical change in our expectations for what is possible as we all, without exception, grow older. The set of people who are growing older is the one demographic group that excludes no one at all. We are all getting older, even Obama. Some Democrats want you to think that McCain is a reprise of the older, war hero Bob Dole who lost to Bill Clinton in 1996. That's a big Democratic lie proven by their own, now open anxiety about McCain and their plans to attack him aggressively. They never bothered to do that with Bob Dole because they never feared him. They fear McCain.

Update: See this link for an example of this fear of McCain as expressed by a reliably liberal commentator.

Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

From CBNNews:

This afternoon, Barack Obama’s campaign will announce the formation of what they are calling their, “National Catholic Advisory Council.” More details to come on an afternoon conference call but Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer will be on that conference call.

A couple interesting notes: First of all, this Catholic Council seems to be set up not so much for the Democratic primary as it is for the General Election. Why? Obama has two high profile pro-lifers in prominent roles on this Council. Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer have taken flack from the Democratic Party in the past because they are not pro-choice. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to send a message. This is an “in your face” signal to voters of faith that Obama is a different kind of Democrat. They want Catholics and Evangelicals to know that while Obama may be pro-choice, the pro-life point of view is not going to be so easily discounted. Critics will call it deceptive. Supporters will call it an “olive branch”.

Also, let this be considered the opening salvo in the potential battle to come over faith voters. Obama will not concede this block. He’s not going to get the single issue life or marriage voters but get ready for the Obama campaign to make a major push for the Evangelical vote. John McCain already had some work ahead of him on getting out the faith vote. If Obama is the nominee, it gets even harder. McCain and the Republican National Committee will need to figure out a way to cast Obama as an out of control liberal so he doesn’t pull a certain percentage of the Evangelical vote away from McCain. This will be a key battleground area and in a close election it could make all the difference in the World.

John McCain has already set up his Catholic Advisory Committee. It's more than one hundred strong. Below is a quote from the Senator who leads it, Sam Brownback:

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

More here.

(emphasis added)

Here's more on the story from LifeNews.com.

John McCain for School Vouchers--A Crucial Economic Issue

Here is an excerpt from his recent speech in Alexandria, Virginia (the entire speech is well worth reading). There is a lot of talk currently about the economy; but the Democrats refuse to "let our people go," those students, especially in the inner city, who are held captive to failing school systems because the Democrats bow down to the modern Pharaoh of the teachers' unions (what a terrible and distressing irony that Obama refuses to liberate those same inner city students). What a great engine for economic growth we would have if we were really serious, as John McCain is, to invest in the social capital of quality education for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money their parents can pay for tuition. Here is the excerpt:

If a failing school won’t change, it shouldn’t be beyond the reach of students to change their schools. Parents should be able to send their children to the school that best suits their needs just as Cindy and I have been able to do, whether it is a public, private or parochial school. The result will not be the demise of the public school system in America, but competition that will help make public schools accountable and as successful as they should be in a country as great and prosperous as ours.

Teaching is among the most honorable professions any American can join. After our parents, few people influence our early life as profoundly as teachers. Theirs is an underpaid profession, dedicated to the service of others, which offers little in the way of the rewards that much of popular culture encourages us to crave – wealth and celebrity. But though it might lack much in the way of creature comforts and renown, teaching offers a reward far more valuable: the profound satisfaction that comes from knowing you have made a difference for the better in someone else’s life. Good teachers occupy a place in our memory that accords them a reverence we give few others. We should be wise enough to understand that those who work diligently and lovingly to educate the children we entrust to their care, deserve the gratitude and support many of us wish we had given those of our own teachers, who once made such a difference in our own lives.

We should reward the best of them with merit pay, and encourage teachers who have lost their focus on the children they teach to find another line of work. Schools should compete to be innovative, flexible and student-centered institutions, not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. They should be able to compete for dedicated, effective, character-building teachers, hire them and reward them. I believe we should encourage military veterans to enter the teaching profession, and I’ve advocated the Troops-to-Teachers Act. The sense of heightened responsibility and duty to a cause greater than themselves that veterans were taught in the discipline and code of conduct of the armed forces make many of them excellent candidates to impart those virtues to our children, and help them see the value of learning as a means to self-improvement and much nobler ends. There is no reason on earth that this great country should not possess the best education system in the world. We have let fear of uncertainty, and a view that education’s primary purpose is to protect jobs for teachers and administrators degrade our sense of the possible in America. There is no excuse for it.

Source link (emphasis added).

McCain and Catholic Voters

Robert R. Reilly, a former special assistant to President Reagan who served as his liaison to the Catholic Church, writes at InsideCatholic on what John McCain should do to appeal to Catholic voters:

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. He needs to appear on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo and speak to that significance. He needs to do interviews in the National Catholic Register and other Catholic journals, and on Sirius radio's Catholic channel, which will cover the pope's visit by the hour. He needs to say that what the pope is expressing goes beyond a sectarian Catholic audience, as it addresses the core issues of Western civilization. He needs to say that Benedict was right at Regensburg in assessing moral relativism as the greatest threat to the West and to the integrity of reason, and that he was right also about the nature of the threat from an unreasoning version of Islam...

[Read the whole thing]

A fairly lively discussion is taking place in the comments to Mr. Reilly's piece.

Southern Appeal on McCain & Hagee

The recently-resurrected Southern Appeal on McCain & Hagee's anti-Catholic remarks:

To be sure, I would rather McCain completely disassociate himself from Hagee, but his failure to do so (no doubt as a matter of political prudence) is not nearly enough for me to sit out an election that may, among other things, decide who gets to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years. I mean, seriously, do the dems really believe that faithful Catholics are just going to sit on the sidelines this November because one of McCain’s high-profile supporters is a bigoted twit? Do they honestly think that this sort of thing matters more than Senator Obama’s unwillingness to support legislation designed to provide basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions?

The bottom line is this: On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics (even with his deeply troubling support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research). And no amount of jeering by dems over Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is going to change this fact. Besides, I would think Obama and Clinton supporters have plenty of other things to be concerned about.

Catholics and McCain

Recent stories on McCain and the Catholic "vote".

McCain “categorically rejects” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements

In an interview with the Associated Press the Republican presidential candidate said, "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics”.

John McCain rallies Catholics as he prepares for general election

Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months. McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

It is my prayer that Senator McCain will see the light on ESCR and change his position.

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Todd Aglialoro at InsideCatholic links to this piece at Slate by former Catholic University law school dean and advisor to Mitt Romney, Douglas Kmiec:

... But now that Romney's out, whom might Catholics turn to? Since I served at one time as Reagan's constitutional lawyer, it would be natural for me to fall in line behind John McCain. Don't worry about his conservative lapses, says President Bush, the foremost expert on lapsed conservativism. There is no gainsaying that McCain is a military hero deserving of salute. But McCain seems fixated on just taking the next hill in Iraq. His Iraqi military objective is laudable, but it assumes good reasons to be there in the first place. It also ignores that Catholics are looking to bless the peacemakers.

Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." ...

***
Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural...

***
So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Brian Saint-Paul responds to Mr. Kmiec at InsideCatholic:

Reaganites for Obama? How precisely is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan?

***
So Obama is ambiguously inspiring in the same way that Reagan was. That's great, but it doesn't take us very far. An inspirational speaker needs to inspire the listener to do something, or what's the point of it? Given that, what specifically does Obama want us to unify over? What are the particular fears he wants us to abandon? How does he think we're being divisive... and who are our nation's dividers?

These are all questions that Kmiec might have answered in his 1300 word essay. Of course, had he done so, he might not have ended up with much of an essay at all.

UPDATE
Brian Saint-Paul again:

Douglas Kmiec is pro-life -- let that be understood. But that doesn't stop him from employing the flawed ethical arithmetic of the religious Left...

***
... The Democrats support abortion and the Republicans support the death penalty, so it all comes out in the moral wash. But of course, this is wrong. While abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty is not. We may oppose the death penalty vociferously, as I do myself, but it is of a different moral quality than abortion.

Douglas Kmiec knows this. So why didn't he say it?

[Cross-posted with commentary at Pro Ecclesia]

Catholics Back McCain in Potomac Primary

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

McCain won Catholics in Maryland 59% to 21% over Mike Huckabee. In Virginia McCain won Catholics 73% to 23% over Huckabee. McCain's attractiveness to Protestant voters is about the converse in Virginia, losing 38% to 49% to Huckabee, but in Maryland winning Protestants, 51% to 37%. When the "born-again" Protestants are scored separately, McCain loses to Huckabee 33% to 54% in Maryland, and 31% to 60% in Virginia.

[More]

McCain Asks for the Vote of All Conservatives

Here's the text of his speech today before the Conservative Political Action Committee in Washington, D.C. Notice the unambiguous pro-life references which I have put in bold print. The text follows:

Remarks By John McCain to CPAC

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following remarks by John McCain as prepared for delivery:

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today.

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan's defense of America's cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton's words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn.

Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country."

Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep. I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for President, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing. I will make my case to voters, no matter what state they reside in, in the same way. I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. I will stand on my convictions, my conservative convictions, and trust in the good sense of the voters, and in my confidence that conservative principles still appeal to a majority of Americans, Republicans, Independents and Reagan Democrats.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love. My life experiences in service to our country inform my political judgments. They are at the core of my convictions. I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you. I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and ta ke comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.

You have heard me say before that for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it.

Thank you and God bless you.

McCain Scores with Catholics on Super Tuesday

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic that John McCain did well among Catholic voters on Super Tuesday.

Bob Novak Backs Up John Fund's Story on McCain and Alito

Columnist Robert Novak writes at The Washington Post:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.

***
That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I think some of those who called into question the veracity of Mr. Fund's account owe him an apology. At least one person commenting at Pro Ecclesia the other day - a prominent Catholic pro-lifer supporting McCain - called Fund's piece "a slime job" that "should be ignored".

Well I'm not ignoring it, especially now that Bob Novak has confirmed the story as true. As for "slime jobs", McCain has become an expert at sliming conservatives over the last 8 years in order to curry favor with liberal Democrats and the MSM. So far, I haven't been convinced that that's about to change.

Catholic GOP Voters in Florida...

...went for Senator McCain.

37% of weekly Mass attendees (13% of total vote) voted for McCain, 31% for Governor Romney, and 22% went for Mayor Giuliani.  42% of Catholics who go to Mass less often (16% of total vote) voted for McCain, 26% for Romney, 19% for Governor Huckabee, and 12% for Giuliani.

More McCain

I see McCain denials on the Alito comment have been made. Given that Fund actually wrote that he "might draw the line" on another Alito (the operative word being might) I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, former Senator Rick Santorum has recently been critical of Senator McCain:

Although McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, Santorum — who led on pro-life and marriage issues in the Senate — cautioned against misunderstanding McCain’s public stance: “Not only was he wrong on embryonic-stem-cell research, but on a whole host of conservative issues, where he may have voted with us.” Santorum took radio listeners into the back-room workings of the Senate, emphasizing how the first step toward legislative success is finding time on the floor to discuss and vote on the issues: “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them,” agreeing that these were divisive issues that the Senate should not bring to a vote.

“That’s wrong,” Santorum added, “and that gives me an insight into what he would really be like [on these issues] if he were president of the United States.”

More.

I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.

And more.

I talked to Rick Santorum briefly tonight. He told me that he “can’t in good conscience give details about what happened in senator-only meetings.” But in response to Ramesh’s question on abortion-related legislation, the former Pennsylvania senator offers to NRO: “the one that comes quickly to mind was a ban on cloning. While the House passed a cloning ban at least on one occasion, we never voted on the issue despite pleas from social conservatives as to its importance. Many senators including Senator McCain wanted to avoid casting votes.”

John McCain's service to our nation is more then commendable, it is more then we should ever ask of our sons or daughters. For many issues important to Catholics he has been there fighting the good fight.

What Senator Santorum claims though is disturbing. If the above is indeed true, what can we expect from a President McCain if the Congress attempts to repel DOMA or the PBA ban? Would he want to avoid having to veto such legislation? And is he really willing to put up SCOTUS nominees like Alito, Roberts, and Scalia in the face of Democratic opposition in the Senate?

These are serious questions for Catholic Republican voters to consider.

More on McCain and his Views on Judicial Nominees

From John Fund today:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."

Senator McCain needs to provide some answers on this disturbing comment.