Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A Time blog digs up an interesting quote from John McCain in 1999:
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in 1999. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
I've said all along that the religious right is correct not to trust McCain. He isn't one of them and he never has been. He's been frantically pandering to them for the last few years because he knows he has to do so to have any chance of winning the presidency, but that isn't what he really believes. His real beliefs were stated when he called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance." He's not really anti-abortion, nor is he a particularly religious man at all.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 27, 2008 9:54 AM
The problem is Ed, how can you trust him on anything if he is willing to do and say the things he has in order to get the nomination? Which of the issues that he is pretending to be a "real conservative" on is he willing to throw under the bus to keep the right-wing loonies happy?
About 10 years ago I liked the guy, then he voted in the impeachment fiasco with Clinton, that started a decade of him pandering to the extremist right that leaves me not trusting the guy at all.
Before anyone misunderstands my points; first, I know politicians have to compromise, reframe their positions, even out and out lie, that doesn't change the fact that prospective voters for McCain have no idea which of the issues his position has become convenient to change he is willing to sacrifice. Second, I didn't particularly like Clinton, but the impeachment was a gross misuse of power that has crippled bipartisan politics for the last decade. Also the fiasco has, I believe, been one of the major reasons why Democrats haven't legitimately tried to impeach Bush. They know hey haven't got the votes to convict, but without the argument of "we impeached your guy, you impeached our guy," to taint the process and make it seem simply partisan attacks, we may actually have a legitimate argument against the abuses of the Constitution Bush has so happily employed.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 27, 2008 10:01 AM
Does it matter what he believes? The question should be "what would he do if elected president?" and we don't have any way to know, now that it's clear he's willing to act at odds with his beliefs.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 27, 2008 10:33 AM
Ed said:
I've never cared for these "Well x says y but really believes z" types of arguments. This kind of approach fails the basic skeptical tenet of being falsifiable -- there is nothing someone can say or do to establish what they do or do not believe, because any statement or any action can be interpreted any way you like. Pending the advent of practical telepathy, arguing about what someone believes in their heart of hearts is a futile endeavor.
The far more reliable and sensible guide is to go by what they say and what they do. GWB's administration should have finally proved this. I recall how confidently so many on the other side of the aisle assured us that all of Bush's rhetoric was just to get him elected, and once he was in office he'd revert to the more pragmatic, conciliatory approach he used while Governor. But a funny thing happened on the way to gutting the Constitution -- it turned out he meant exactly what he said, almost every time.
Prior to 2000, McCain tried to change the Republican Party platform plank on abortion to include exceptions when the life of the mother was at stake. This time around he didn't even try.
Even if you think he's "just pandering" to the Religious Right and he's not really one of them, why would you imagine that if elected he wouldn't be beholden to them for having elected him? At a minimum he wouldn't do anything to actively betray them, even if he wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about pushing their agenda.
You can engage in trying to read the tea leaves as to a politician's true, hidden agenda if you like, but I'll stick with looking at what they're saying now, and what their actions have been all along. That seems a much more reliable guide to me.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 27, 2008 10:34 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 27, 2008 10:56 AM
I agree that McCain has sold his soul to the religious right, and that's the commitment he will honor if elected.
Posted by: Taz | August 27, 2008 11:02 AM
Did mroberts call in sick? I'm worried; somebody should go check to see if he's picketing some abortion factory and turned his cellphone off.
Short story. McCain has no scruples.
Posted by: democommie | August 27, 2008 11:12 AM
In McCain's case what he said at one point really is irrelevant. He has a strongly pro-life voting record, with inconsistent voting records on stem cells and abortion exceptions.
And he explained that RvW quote thusly more recently (quote taken from, I think, NARALs site):
"Q: In 1999, you said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007 "
I'm still not sure what the heck that all means, but it certainly sounds like the original quote is was as likely to be incoherent pandering as anything he's said since. Who knows what he really believes?
Posted by: Bad | August 27, 2008 11:20 AM
War hero my ass -- McSame is a cowed coward. His craven sucking up to the "agents of intolerance" proves that, as does his continued employment of the very people who shafted him in 2000. His personal beliefs don't matter, because the power-base he needs to govern doesn't respect him, and won't let him do what he "really" wants. He's no less whipped than JFK was by J. Edgar Hoover.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 27, 2008 11:24 AM
And here's the really sad thing: McCain didn't have to pander to the far right at any point in his career. If he had stood up for himself and his principles (assuming all that maverick stuff were his principles, that is), he could have had a solid base of support independent of the far right, and would have been lionized this year as the sensible conservative who could save the GOP from the loony right. The Democrats wouldn't even be taken seriously.
McCain should have learned from Bush Sr. and Steve Forbes that sucking up to the far right is a losing proposition: they know their own from the panderers, and they never respect the panderers. How can a man as intelligent and experienced as McCain fail to see this? There can only be one answer: spinelessness, possibly resulting from Stockholm syndrome. Abuse him, and he's yours, no questions asked.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 27, 2008 11:35 AM
Dittoing everything the other commenters stated with one additional point on a very narrow topic that was covered previously but more broadly.
I absolutely believe that McCain will nominate a SCOTUS justice that social conservatives approve us as the price for their supporting him in this election if wins no matter what he really believes. This makes this whole argument moot, by going over to the dark side post-2000, even if he governed as a freethinking maverick on all other issues, we can not rely on McCain returning to his old principles when it comes to SCOTUS nominations. And it's not just about abortions, it's about every civil liberty we currently enjoy where we already possess overwhelming evidence that we will see future restrictions if we get more justices like Roberts and Alitos.
This one issue to me is the deal-breaker that has me rejecting my party's candidate for the second election in a row, and wishing it was three in a row.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2008 11:40 AM
... but he is a panderer. So his future actions cannot be trusted. He will gladly give away important rights for choice and for gays in pandering to the RR's.
Posted by: George | August 27, 2008 11:56 AM
Damn it - hit post instead of preview, please read this, not the previous post:
Dittoing everything the other commentors stated with one additional point on a very narrow topic that was covered previously but more broadly.
I absolutely believe that McCain will nominate a SCOTUS justice that social conservatives approve of as the price for their supporting him; no matter what he really believes. I believe this makes the "is he? or is he not? a true con" argument moot. By going over to the dark side post-2000, even if McCain governed as a freethinking maverick on all other issues, we should not rely on McCain returning to his old principles when it comes to SCOTUS nominations given the current make-up of the court and projected retirements.
And it's not just about abortions, it's about every civil liberty we currently enjoy where we already possess overwhelming evidence that we will see future restrictions if we get more justices like Roberts and Alito. They don't have to be Thomas- or Scalia-clones to greatly damage this country's interests given how Roberts and Alito have voted since coming on-board. Their voting record is clear, which has primarily been pro-government power and corporate-rights when considering the interests of the individual or minority, with minor exceptions that impact only a few.
This one issue to me is the deal-breaker that has me rejecting my party's candidate for the second election in a row, and wishing it was three in a row.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2008 12:00 PM
Meh, he's still a conservative, god-soaked asshat. So he thinks abortion's a necessary evil, but yet he thinks that two people of the same sex adopting a child would not be in the best interest of the child or society. Fucking idiot. Well, to look at the bright side, at least there'll be fewer abandoned kids who NEED adopting if we keep to this philosophy.
Posted by: paul | August 27, 2008 12:07 PM
I don't doubt for a moment that McCain will appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court. I've said many times that I have no doubt he's already cut that deal with Dobson and others. I just don't think that's really what he believes himself, I think it's the way he behaves out of political expediency. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, it's pretty much routine for politics.
Didn't Obama do the exact same thing on the FISA "compromise" (the one that wasn't a compromise at all but a total cave-in to the Bush administration)? As I wrote at the time, the justifications he offered for it were patently absurd and he's far too smart a man to actually believe them. He made a simple political calculation that it was better for him to vote for the bill than to be painted as "soft on terrorism" in the middle of an election.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 27, 2008 12:35 PM
Unfortunately, this is only one of the many issues he's been inconsistent on (and by many, I mean pretty much all of them).
It's too bad he hasn't stuck by this position, because I'd love to see a pro-life Republican running for the Presidency, even if I wouldn't vote for him.
Posted by: JStein | August 27, 2008 12:50 PM
Ed: Obama's FISA cave-in was a much more isolated incident than McCain's longstanding spinelessness in the face of the far right. In fact, I really don't see why you threw that reference into this at all. Are you now adopting the MSM's habit of pretending to be "evenhanded" (a habit you've rightly condemned)?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 27, 2008 1:05 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
No, I've condemned the mainstream media for presenting the arguments of "both sides" without pointing out that one side's argument may be bullshit. And here's why I brought this up, dogmeat's comment:
If we are to apply that standard consistently, then we can't ever trust any politician - which is fine by me, of course, because I don't trust any politician. But if you're going to make such an argument, it has to be applied consistently. Unless we're going to get into a silly argument about how many times one has to do this before we can't trust them, which I certainly hope no one will bother with. The bottom line is this: politicians change positions publicly for political posturing. Anyone who thinks that only the other guy does that is living in a fantasy world.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 27, 2008 1:16 PM
I think your comparison of the issues doesn't hold weight Ed.
It's not just about abortion, but about civil rights in their totality. Obama's sin on FISA is one vote on one issue, and even if we find a pattern of several cynical votes by Obama that didn't support our civil rights so he can get elected President, that does not compare to the nomination of SCOTUS justices holding a majority who won't respect our civil rights, that will directly impact all of us for a generation and beyond.
Ed, I think this is only the second topic with which I've disagreed with you. I gotta admit, I'm a little nervous about the response. :)
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 27, 2008 1:21 PM
I think that two points need to be made here. First of all, it is theoretically possible that John McCain really has studied the issue and come to the hard-right position which he espouses now. Theoretically possible in the same sense that it is theoretically possible that evolution is false and the Earth really is only 7000 years old. But give the old man his due -- perhaps he has evolved, albeit in the wrong direction. But the more serious point is that this is the terrible tragedy of the country in which I was born and in which I have not lived now for nearly 20 years. One is required to be stupid to become the candidate of the Republican Party for president. Incumbent presented as case in point. Let us not forget that the sentient being who came in second in the Republican primary still claims to believe that the Earth is 7,000 years old. For the Democrats, in turn, this has meant sacrificing true belief in the attempt to tack toward the "center." Barack Obama's absolutely nonsensical answer to the "superpreacher's" question about abortion presented as case in point. Ten years ago John McCain wouldn't have been forced to prostitute himself like this. Ten years ago the Democratic presidential candidate wouldn't have dreamed of going to a "debate" before a "superchurch" which apparently believes that the two key tenets of the Bible are "get as rich as you possibly can" and "ignore anything you learned in school if it's not written in the Bible." It's utterly pathetic. I will root for Obama largely because it would be great to get the American fascists away from appointing judges for awhile. I will hope very much that the Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to that same purpose. But I will also really, really be waiting for someone at the top of the political heap in America to stand up and say loudly to the Huckabees and Limbaughs and Coulters and who nots of the USA "You are not only wrong, but to quote the future senator from the great state of Minnesota, you are big, fat idiots." And shame on John McCain for becoming a lickspittle in the world of same.
Posted by: eeuropean2000 | August 27, 2008 2:15 PM
Michael Heath wrote:
But I'm not making a consequentialist argument here. I would agree that the resulting damage of McCain appeasing the religious right by naming justices that they want to the court would be far more damaging than Obama pretending (and I sure hope he's pretending) to support the FISA compromise (since his vote didn't make the difference between it passing and not passing anyway). But that's not what this argument is about. I am merely pointing out that if one is going to take the position that you can't trust a politician because they take politically motivated positions that they don't really believe in, that argument must apply to every politician that does so - which of course means every politician in the world, practically.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 27, 2008 2:21 PM
The McCain team realistically has to be looking at a 2-3 year window to enact his agenda (while praying for a 2nd term) and we have every reason to believe that it will be a radical, militaristic, hard-power projecting foreign policy agenda. I suspect that no matter what he has said in the past he, and his advisers, will be more than glad to scrap Roe v.Wade if they need to consolidate far-right Christian support against the enemies of God (Iran, Russia, China, Social Security, Democrats, Liberals).
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 27, 2008 2:22 PM
McCain knows what he has to do to get elected. Unfortunately, in the Republican Party you have to pay lots of lip service to fundamentalists and their Lear Jet flying, mansion dwelling, televangelist leaders. That's just the way it is. Better McCain than Huckabee. McCain really is more aligned with those of us that are secularists and/or (in my case)agnostics.
Posted by: soboco | August 27, 2008 2:33 PM
I am merely pointing out that if one is going to take the position that you can't trust a politician because they take politically motivated positions that they don't really believe in, that argument must apply to every politician that does so - which of course means every politician in the world, practically.
First, that is precisely why you CAN'T demand such foolish consistency, and have to judge each politician's compromises according to specific circumstances, reasons, intentions, and possible consequences. And second, I really don't think anyone here is taking the position you say we're taking.
Both Obama and McCain have made compromises, but McCain's compromises are clearly more craven, more spineless, less excusable, and more dangerous in their intent and that of his "base."
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 27, 2008 3:17 PM
It doesn't really matter what McCain thinks about abortion. As Michael Heath said, he will absolutely nominate one and probably two right-wing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court tipping the whole Court solidly right wing allowing them to begin rolling back all the "bad" decisions that social conservative detests.
With that, we will drift farther behind the free world in equality and civil liberties (the freedom of speech advantage notwithstanding) and we will garner more unfavorable comparisons with the Saudi Arabia's and China's of this world.
Posted by: tacitus | August 27, 2008 3:39 PM
If we are to apply that standard consistently, then we can't ever trust any politician - which is fine by me, of course, because I don't trust any politician. But if you're going to make such an argument, it has to be applied consistently.
Ed, I said in my post that I recognized that politicians have to shift, compromise, sometimes even lie. The problem is your argument for applying the standard "consistently." How do you compare McCain's long history of shifting on issues, especially his recent almost militant conservatism to Obama's FISA vote, or any of his other actions. Also, comparing the two, you have to take into account the actions of the existing administration and combine them with his "shift" in positions. Obama certainly isn't a perfect candidate, I don't agree with all of his stances on issues, but if you talk about trusting a politician, I'd trust Obama before I would McCain. This wouldn't be based on ideology, but simple evidence. You could also base this decision on damage you see them doing. McCain appears to be far more able, and willing, to continue the Bush administration's assault on our Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The two of these obvious comparisons make your "all politicians" lie a rather moot point.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 27, 2008 5:55 PM
Time my ass! I posted that last week. Not for the first time has Time stolen my material.
Posted by: tincture | August 27, 2008 6:59 PM
yes, believe in it or not, he will just let the religious right give him their list of appointees to HHS, NIH, and other health/science agencies. He really is not interested in this aspect of governing, just wants to do foreign policy and wear the cool military jackets with C-in-C and presidential seal stitched on them.
Posted by: BC | August 27, 2008 8:08 PM
The million dollar question is which is more important to McCain: going down in history as a good president, or getting a second term? None of this changes the fact, however, that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years in Iraq.
Posted by: Brandon | August 27, 2008 9:42 PM
McCain doesn't care about being a good president, I don't think McCain even cares about being a bad president. I think McCain just wants to be president for the sake of it.
McCain has shown himself to be the lowest form of opportunist. He has people working for him who 8 years ago said he was a manchurian candidate who had a secret black baby.
Posted by: tincture | August 28, 2008 2:10 AM
Ed, I used to think the same thing, but after reading this article I think you're wrong on this one.
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b
I think the pandering was in the other direction, to briefly make himself look less anti-choice than he really is.
Posted by: Jamie | August 28, 2008 4:28 AM
I think the protest against your post are not so much centered on the premise that you cannot trust politicians, but rather as to why we should assume that this one quote disproves McCains record on right to privacy issues.
Remember that at the time he was gearing up for a bid to the presidency, going against a born again wasp,backed by the militant Christian right.
Taking a stance supported by a great majority of the US, would have been strategically convenient for McCain back then.
His record seem to show that if anything, the quote from 1999 is out of character for him, which is supported by the vehemence with which he has tried to distance himself from it since.
Posted by: Soren | August 28, 2008 5:08 AM