Replies to post #43091 on Discover GOP Opprobrium

[teapeebubbles]

During the Republicans presidential primaries, exit polls showed John McCain struggling to win over the most conservative Republican voters, but since this contingent was divided between Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson, McCain was able to excel anyway.

After effectively having wrapped up the nomination in February, McCain began the task of bringing the various GOP factions together, and as far he’s concerned, it’s going pretty well. At least three times on the campaign trail last week, the senator boasted that the Republican Party is “united.”

The Wall Street Journal took a closer look at this claim today, and finds some of the conservatives who hated McCain earlier this year are still not quite ready to close ranks.

Some prominent conservatives say they remain disenchanted with the party’s likely nominee. Sen. McCain isn’t doing enough to persuade them of his conservative credentials, they say, or win them over to his side…. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, once said he would stay home rather than vote for Sen. McCain. He has softened his tone, but he has yet to warm to the Arizona senator.

“I have seen no evidence that Sen. McCain is successfully unifying the Republican Party or drawing conservatives into his fold,” he said in a written statement, reflecting his personal views. “To the contrary, he seems intent on driving them away.”

Mr. Dobson took issue with a litany of Sen. McCain’s positions, including support for embryonic-stem-cell research and opposition to a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Those stances, plus Sen. McCain’s discussion of global warming and his push to outlaw torture and shut down the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have “frustrated” conservatives “whom McCain seems to have written off,” Mr. Dobson said.

I suspect most of this is sincere — Dobson really won’t tolerate anyone who neglects to agree with him on every issue, in every instance — but to reiterate a point from a couple of months ago, I don’t think Dobson has a lot of choice here. He has to keep opposing McCain’s candidacy.

Folks like Limbaugh, Coulter, and other far-right voices who railed against McCain early on will be fine whether he wins the presidency or not. Their “stature” (I use the word loosely) in Republican circles will remain unaffected no matter what happens on Election Day.

Dobson is facing a different future, and doesn’t have the luxury of being deemed irrelevant. He collects checks from donors who expect him to help drive the Republican agenda and shape the conservative movement. If he can’t even stop McCain, whom the religious right hates, why should his followers bother to send him more money?

The same is true on Capitol Hill. Dobson maintains clout based on fear — it’s his supporters who provide the party with foot-soldiers. If McCain can persevere despite the bitter opposition of Dobson and other religious right leaders, the fear factor is gone, and GOP leaders will begin to perceive the movement as a paper tiger. Why jump when Dobson demands it if he has no real electoral influence?

Indeed, it’s already quite apparent that far-right concerns about McCain don’t amount to much — despite not getting much in the way of attention, a lack of funds, and the religious right’s ire, McCain is still doing quite well in national polls.

With this in mind, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Dobson (and guys like Pat Robertson) work to undermine McCain at every turn. If he’s successful, and McCain loses, Dobson will say, “See? We still have power, and you still need to take the religious right seriously.”

And if McCain wins in spite of Dobson’s enmity, his power and influence may never be the same.

[teapeebubbles]

here's johnny....

[teapeebubbles]

In 2003, the Justice Department issued a legal memo “asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.” Former Justice Department lawyer Marty Lederman says the memo “effectively gave the Pentagon the green light to disregard statutory limits on torture” and “maltreatment.”

[teapeebubbles]

McCain bows to right wing, keeps GOP platform on same-sex marriage untouched....

Two weeks ago, the conservative Family Research Council called on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to “clarify his stance on marriage and life as it relates to his party’s existing platform.” McCain has remained silent on the issue, but today, the Washington Times reports that “advisers” to his presidential campaign “say he will not try to “soften” the Republican party’s platform on abortion and same-sex marriage to appeal to more voters.” The advisers’ assurance to conservatives comes at the same time that prominent religious conservative James Dobson has told the Wall Street Journal that he sees “no evidence” that McCain is “drawing conservatives into his fold.” “To the contrary, he seems intent on driving them away,” says Dobson.

[teapeebubbles]

Marty Lederman has argued that Yoo's March, 2003 memo is "in effect, the blueprint that led to Abu Ghraib and the other abuses within the armed forces in 2003 and early 2004." Well, we decided we needed a brief timeline to size it all up. You be the judge. TPM Research Hound Peter Sheehy provided research for this post.

August 1, 2002
John Yoo authors and Jay Bybee, then the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, signs a memo (now known as the Bybee memo or the Torture Memo) that narrowly defines what constitutes illegal torture.

October, 2002
Major General Geoffrey Miller assumes command of Guantánamo Bay and pushes his superiors hard for more flexibility in interrogations.

December 2, 2002
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gives formal approval for the use of “hooding,” “exploitation of phobias,” “stress positions,” “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” and other coercive tactics ordinarily forbidden by the Army Field Manual.

Early, 2003
In part to satisfy internal administration critics of the Pentagon's interrogation program at Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 convenes a "working group" of lawyers from all branches of the armed services to develop new interrogation guidelines for the Pentagon.

March 13, 2003
Jay Bybee resigns from his Office as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, to become a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

March 14, 2003
The Justice Department sends Yoo’s legal memo to Pentagon's general counsel. The memo forms the basis of the working group's report.

April 2, 2003
The Pentagon's “working group” (unbeknownst to a number of members of the working group) endorses the continued use of extremely aggressive tactics. Secretary Rumsfeld signs it.

April 16, 2003
The Pentagon issues a memorandum to the U.S. Southern Command, approving twenty-four of the working-group's list of thirty-five possible interrogation methods for use at Guantánamo, including isolation and what it called “fear up harsh,” which meant “significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee.” Gen. Miller is also "briefed" on the working group's report.

June 25, 2003
Haynes writes a letter back to Leahy saying that the Pentagon’s policy was never to engage in torture, or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

August, 2003
The Pentagon sends General Miller to Iraq to advise officials there on interrogating Iraqi detainees.

October-December, 2003
There are numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib, as outlined in Major General Antonio M. Taguba's report.

December, 2003
Jack Goldsmith, the new chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, decides that both the Bybee memo and Yoo's March, 2003 opinions must be rescinded.

April 28, 2004
The Abu Ghraib scandal breaks.

[teapeebubbles]

I think the electorate is less concerned with the Iraq occupation 100 years from now than they are with where it will be, say, 4 years from now. With McCain, we’ll still be there, bleeding money and losing troops in an incoherent war on behalf of one or another pro-Iranian shiite faction. With Obama, we won’t be. McCain’s “100 years” statement helps make that clear.

The fact that McCain has flip-flopped on this par for the course. As others have noted, he’s flighty and superficial (part of why he’s such a media darling).

[teapeebubbles]

What we need to do, and IMHO the only thing we can do, is to tie McCain to Bush. Even the idiots know Bush has screwed the pooch hard, and if McCain is seen as Bush Part 3, then we’ll have a chance. Any attempts to show how stupid McCain is regarding Iraq will bounce off the people we need to convince, because they’re even dumber than he is in that area. Anyone who can be convinced that McCain is an idiot about ME politics is already on our side.

McCain is pissed about the 100 years thing because he knows it’s that kind of simple statement which can actually cut through the chatter and penetrate the heads of the low-information voters he depends on for his election. Stupid soundbites actually work on those people, and we need to realize that or we are going to suffer yet another disastrous Republican presidency.

[teapeebubbles]

The problem with quoting McSame is that one can find another point in time when he said exactly the opposite, as you have so aptly demonstrated. The 100 years thing will stick though, and Obama needs to hammer it. Also, put some young people in the “town meeting” audiences to ask questions. Young people really piss McSame off, and he insults them, and looks petty and stupid in doing it.

This guy is a MORON who has never dealt with his PTSD issues, and he will, when pressed hard, get pissed off and say something insulting. Obama needs to get him pissed off by challenging him hard, and we can watch McSame melt down and self-immolate.