McCain Abortion Position--flip flop?

[smartestnumber5]

McCain was recently on ABC talking about abortion and said he supports the full reversal of Roe v. Wade. This seems to be a reversal of his softer position in 1999 when he told the San Francisco Chronicle:

I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "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.

At that time, he also told CNN that,though he favored undoing Roe v. Wade in the long run,

we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.

There were questions even in '99 about whether McCain had flip-flopped (though nobody was using that term) as it seemed prior to those statements that McCain was in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Apparently now McCain has flipped back to his original more conservative position:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

What happened to all those women who would have to undergo dangerous, illgeal abortions if Roe is overturned? Do they no longer exist? Or does he just not care about them anymore? Or did he really not care about them in '99, but was trying to appear more moderate?

Anyway, in addition to the flip-flopping I'm disturbed by his contradictory thoughts about the legality of abortion. He says he think Roe should be overturned because he's a federalist--that is, the states should get to decide for themselves about whether abortion is illegal. (We know what would happen if Roe were overturned--numerous states have laws on the books which would automatically make abortion illegal. Redder states would likely make it illegal ASAP. Swing states would have to fight over it. And blue states would keep it just as legal as it is now.) Well, okay, I don't agree with federailsm about this is an issue, as it is an issue of fundamental rights which are constitutionally protected--but I can at least understand his reasoning.

But wait, at the same time as he proclaims that Roe should be overturned because of the rights of states, he also says he's for a Constitutional Amendment. Huh? A constitutional amendment would take the choice out of the hands of the states. (Sure, they'd get a say in whether the amendment passed, but I believe only 3/4 need to vote in favor to pass an amendment. Hence if there were less than 1/4 of blue states who voted against the amendment, it would pass, therefore taking the decision out of the hands of the blue states.) Isn't this quite clearly anti-federalist? And if he's anti-federalist, then what was that reason that Roe should be overturned again?

Why doesn't he just come out and say what he thinks? "I don't like the decision. It has nothing to do with poltical philosophy or state's rights or any of it. I just don't like the decision." (Or, better yet, "In order to be elected as a Republican I must come out against Roe v. Wade--so here I am, coming out against Roe v. Wade.")

 

[KristinBelle]

I think it's just him trying to position himself for a 2008 Presidential run but he's going to lose people like me in the process.

 

[cardaway]

And the people he is flopping for will love him for it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is my problem with the primary system. Candidates have to shift to the extreme side of their party in order to win the primaries, because most people don't vote in primaries. Only the party faithful go out for those, so the candidates shift left or right to appeal to the base. I think that's a major reason why we get less than satisfactory candidates to vote for by the time the general elections come. We would probably have more moderate candidates that better reflect the composition of the country if this wasn't the case.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Too bad Goldwater is dead, he was a real Republican.
Reagan and Bush have ruined the Party. McCain is
pandering to the religious right, he's lost before he runs.

 

[Chuck S]

A few years ago, I thought McCain was someone I could vote for, if the Democratic candidate was really "off the wall", but this isn't the only issue where he seems to have done an about face. I don't trust him at all anymore.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I wonder what will happen with the Democratic side. Will Hillary have to move from her more recent center position back to the left? Or is the Democratic base more accepting of moderates?

 

[singingpixie]

I wonder what will happen with the Democratic side. Will Hillary have to move from her more recent center position back to the left? Or is the Democratic base more accepting of moderates?

Well, if they're smart, the one thing the Democrats learned this election is that moderate democrats can be elected. That said, who knows if the high-ranking party members are smart enough to learn that lesson and apply it to 2008!

 

[TheDoctor]

Yes it is a flip flop. McCain is trying to win the support of the religious right because that is the only way that he can win the nomination.

 

[eclectics]

Yes it is a flip flop. McCain is trying to win the support of the religious right because that is the only way that he can win the nomination.

Exactly. Watch Giuliani. He will be next. I was hoping the moderate voices of the Republican party would finally have a bit more say, but I guess not. Too bad. I think they are making a mistake and they are actually making it easier for a Dem to win in '08.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Too bad Goldwater is dead, he was a real Republican.
Reagan and Bush have ruined the Party. McCain is
pandering to the religious right, he's lost before he runs.

I likes me some pandering, Unc! OT, but isn't that just a grand word -PANDERING. I just like way it feels when I type it. Who doesn't like a little pandering every now and then?

 

[olena]

Primary season is coming and candidates for BOTH major parties tend to appeal to the base at the far ends of their respective spectrums.

 

[Crankyshank]

A majority of the voting public is on both sides of the middle. It always amazes me how much both sides pander to the money bags on the extremes while alienating the common man.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I wonder what will happen with the Democratic side. Will Hillary have to move from her more recent center position back to the left? Or is the Democratic base more accepting of moderates?

Bill Clinton always understood that you had to win the moderates to win the whole thing, and the Democratic part demonstrated that they had no problem with that by electing him twice.

Hillary gets this too, and she's spent a lot of time and effort moving towards the center as well. I give you her shift on the Iraq war as exhibit A. Ironcially, just as she moves to the center, the country as a whole may be moving left of Hillary on this issue. It'll be interesting to see if she does a deliberate recalibration on her positions as a result.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Exactly. Watch Giuliani. He will be next. I was hoping the moderate voices of the Republican party would finally have a bit more say, but I guess not. Too bad. I think they are making a mistake and they are actually making it easier for a Dem to win in '08.

It's funny you mention that. I've read two different Giuliani puff pieces from conservative sources in the last ten days trying to boost up his prospects, and I couldn't help but note that while both pieces talked about his appeal to the far right, neither piece brought up his highly publicized extramarital shenanigans while in office.

It will be downright fascinating to watch how many people on the far right will be willing to enthusiastically support Rudy but will continue to speak ill of Clinton for his extramarital conduct......

 

[Charade]

A Democrat has NEVER changed their position on a hot issue like this???

 

[fabshelly]

Tucker Carlson calls it "growing", not flip-flopping. It's only flip-flopping when a Dem does it.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

McCain flip flopping and pandering...are we really surprised?????

 

[eclectics]

McCain flip flopping and pandering...are we really surprised?????

It's a shame. He had a lot of potential to appeal to moderates of both sides when he first came into the national arena. He blew it big time, imho.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

It's a shame. He had a lot of potential to appeal to moderates of both sides when he first came into the national arena. He blew it big time, imho.

so true!!!!