Gay-rights advocates woo Flake, McCain

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain could be key in determining the fate of a bill that would ban employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender workers.

The Arizona Republicans are among six GOP senators being lobbied heavily by supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill's supporters appear to be close to securing the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. A vote to proceed to debate on the bill is scheduled for tonight, potentially setting up a vote to approve it later in the week.

On Thursday, Arizona volunteers delivered more than 3,200 postcards and letters to McCain's and Flake's Phoenix offices urging the senators to vote for the proposed law. Supporters said they also have made more than 1,100 phone calls to the senators. Their efforts will continue until the vote.

"Our goal is to really show that the support is there for this issue among Senator McCain's and Senator Flake's constituents," said Dan Rafter of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

The bill would bar employers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion or salary decisions.

Flake supported a narrower version of the bill in 2007 when he was serving in the House. That bill did not include transgender workers. It passed the House 235-184 in 2007 but died in the Senate.

This time, Flake said he will oppose the legislation.

"Unlike a 2007 version of this bill, which I supported, the Senate bill includes new provisions that will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs, especially for small businesses," Flake said in a written statement. "For that reason, I oppose the Senate bill."

McCain has not yet decided how to vote, although an aide says he's leaning toward opposing the bill unless it is amended. The aide said McCain worries that the bill could lead to "lawsuit abuse by trial lawyers" and whether it adequately exempts religious schools and charities from having to hire gay employees if doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.

A September poll by Republican pollster Alan Lundry indicated about 63 percent of Arizonans support the proposed law.

"One thing we've found in conversations is that Arizonans see this as sort of a matter of the golden rule -- treating others as you would want to be treated," Rafter said. "No one would want to lose a job because of who they are."

To tap into that sentiment, the bipartisan Americans for Workplace Opportunity coalition sent three full-time field organizers to Arizona to lead the postcard-writing effort and organize phone banks to lobby Flake and McCain. The field workers have been in the state since August, shortly after the measure was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Arizona is one of seven states where the coalition has focused its efforts.

The challenge for the bill's supporters is that the Republican senators they are hoping to attract may worry about a challenge from the right in a GOP primary if they vote for the bill, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California.

"There are social conservatives in the Republican Party who would oppose just about any gay-rights legislation, so there is a political cost," Pitney said. "On the other hand, non-discrimination laws do not generate as much opposition as same-sex marriage bills. There are conservative Republicans, both in the electorate and among politicians, who don't support gay marriage but do support non-discrimination. They are very different issues."

Pitney said Republicans who oppose the law risk losing the support of younger voters.

"Younger people -- even those who are conservative -- are much more likely to embrace gay rights than older people, particularly on the issue of non-discrimination," he said. "And as societal attitudes continue to change on the issue, Republicans could risk alienating voters in the general election if they oppose this law."

The Senate's 53 Democrats and two independents -- led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- have all come out in favor of the bill.

Two Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- also support the legislation. But two Republicans who voted for it in committee -- Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- have indicated that their support is now uncertain.

That leaves advocates for the law about three votes shy of the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

If it passes the Democrat-led Senate, though, the legislation would face steep odds in the Republican-controlled House.

In addition to Flake and McCain, the Republican senators the Human Rights Campaign and its allies have focused on are: Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Opponents of the bill say they also have been in touch with Flake,McCain and other key senators to try to convince them that the proposed law would hurt businesses and infringe on religious liberty.

"Business will be hit with more litigation costs if this bill passes," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for public-policy research at the conservative Family Research Council, which opposes gay rights and abortion rights. "When you add a new protected category to the law, you are giving a license to sue to a whole group of people who didn't have it previously."

But advocates of the bill say there has been no significant increase in litigation in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has adopted a "neutral" position on the legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign cites a 2013 report by the Government Accountability Office that showed "relatively few" employment-discrimination cases in the 21 states that have laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On average, claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity were about 3 to 4 percent of the total number of employment-discrimination claims, the report said.

The Family Research Council doesn't believe that gays need to be protected from discrimination the way that racial minorities or women do, Sprigg said. "Most employers don't discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation because they have no way of knowing their orientation unless they declare it," he said. "It's an invisible characteristic; it's not like race or gender. For the vast majority of employers, they are not going to consider sexual orientation a relevant factor."

Those that do consider it relevant -- such as churches, Christian bookstores and other groups and businesses with religious affiliations -- should not be forced to hire gays, Sprigg said.

"While there is a religious exemption of sorts in this bill, we are not convinced that any exemption could be written in such a way that protects the rights of those who disapprove of homosexual conduct," he said.

But the bill's authors say they provide a broad exemption for religious organizations.

Any religious entity that is currently exempt from the employment-discrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also be exempt under the proposed law, the bill's supporters say.

"Americans understand that it's time to make sure our LGBT friends and family are treated fairly and have the same opportunities," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,who is the bill's lead sponsor. "Now it's time for our laws to catch up. People should be judged at work on their ability to do the job, period."

Rafter said supporters of the bill believe a victory in the Senate could lead to action in the House. "The House is a little tougher, but we do see momentum there," he said.

In just the last few days, Rafter said, Republican Reps. Jon Runyan of New Jersey and Chris Gibson of New York joined three other Republican co-sponsors of the House bill.

Sprigg said he has heard that House Democrats may try to force a vote on the bill using a procedural tool called a discharge petition. If they can get 218 signatures -- which would require support from 18 Republicans -- they can bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote.

"If it does come out of the Senate, that will put more pressure on the House," Sprigg said. "We can't be 100 percent sure what's going to happen there."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

McCain, Flake leading way

(PNI) Arizona's senators are leading. Arizona will benefit.

As part of the bipartisan group of eight who stood up for immigration reform, Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake began solving a problem that has hurt Arizona for years.

They are highly qualified to guide this effort, with a full history and understanding of the complexities.

Crafting specific legislation that embodies the principles outlined Monday will mean wrestling with the devils of detail. But the framework is there.

That's more than just a start. That's real progress.

McCain pointed out that this multipronged effort is not much different from the comprehensive package he helped craft with the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2005.

The re-emergence of comprehensive immigration reform as a bipartisan goal is long overdue.

A lack of a guest-worker program to meet labor needs is the biggest reason illegal immigration increased after 1986 reforms that included President Ronald Reagan's amnesty program.

The nation needs a guest- worker program that is robust and responsive to market demands without disadvantaging or displacing American workers. This framework reflects that.

A reliable system for employers to check the immigration status of job applicants is also critical. The framework reflects that, too.

The most controversial part of the plan creates "a tough but fair path to citizenship" for millions of men, women and children living in this country without proper immigration documents.

"We cannot continue as a nation with 11 million people living in the shadows," McCain said.

Those who have long opposed comprehensive reform instantly screamed: Amnesty! This is the tired, old battle cry that has long been used to stall progress.

Political realities suggest it has lost its power. During the press conference to announce the framework for reform, McCain pointed to the high stakes. "The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," he said.

Democrats also feel the push of politics. President Barack Obama, who benefitted greatly from the Latino vote, will offer his immigration proposals today. We hope they demonstrate a desire to foster cooperation and compromise.

Beyond politics, this is about the nation's need for immigration policies worthy of our commitment to human rights and dignity. As McCain reminded his party years ago, undocumented immigrants are God's children, too.

What's more, the nation's security is best served by knowing who is here.

The plan devotes a great deal of emphasis to border security, promising more resources for an effort that already has seen years of extensive expenditures on infrastructure, technology and Border Patrol agents.

We are intrigued by the idea of establishing a commission of border political and community leaders to monitor progress toward securing the border. The voices of those most closely affected should be heard. But this committee should not become an exercise in moving the goal posts or retreating to a security-first model.

Been there. Done that.

It's past time to move beyond the status quo. This bipartisan framework does that.

The support of Arizona's two senators gives comprehensive reform added credibility in Congress and puts Arizona at the forefront of fixing an immigration system that has enormous human, economic, environmental and social costs for our state.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Condoleezza Rice and John McCain to Speak at Republican Convention

Saul Loeb/A.F.P. – Getty Images; Frederic J. Brown/ A.F.P – Getty Images; Logan Mock-Bunting for The New York TimesCondoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley are among the speakers scheduled for the Republican National Convention.

Republicans plan to highlight three high-profile women as “headliners” during the national convention in Tampa later this summer, officials said this weekend.

Gov. Nikki Haley of of South Carolina, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state under George W. Bush, will each have prominent speaking roles.

“They are some of our party’s brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles,” Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement. “Ours will be a world-class convention, worthy of the next president of the United States.”

Republican officials did not name the convention’s keynote speaker, a coveted spot that is often used to highlight a rising political star. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, has been mentioned as a possible candidate.

The Democrats announced last week that Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, will be the keynote speaker at their national convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Republican convention officials did not indicate any role for the people most often mentioned as possible vice presidential nominees: Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota.

But the speakers’ list also includes a series of politicians whose speeches could help fire up the convention crowd ahead of Mr. Romney’s acceptance speech.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the party’s nominee in 2008, will get a speaking slot, as will Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Both men were rivals of Mr. Romney’s in the 2008 primary.

Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, will get a headliner slot, as will John Kasich, the governor of Ohio.

Follow Michael D. Shear on Twitter at @shearm.

View the original article here

Once a Rebel, McCain Now Walks the Party Line

Only there is a new iteration of the Republican lawmaker and defeated presidential candidate who has been a constant in the capital even as he regularly transforms himself. Absent is the maverick who bucked his party on the environment and campaign finance, and verbally towel-snapped Republicans and Democrats alike on the Senate floor.

Gone, too, is the far-right leaning Mr. McCain of 2010, who found himself in a primary fight back home that caused him to retreat from his stances on immigration and global warming.

Mr. McCain instead appears to have entered Version 3 of his long and multipronged Senate career — partisan warrior and party stalwart. He takes to the Sunday TV talk shows, the Senate floor and the Capitol hallways that are filled with more reporters than mosquitoes at a garden party to press his party’s agenda on taxes, military spending and national security.

He walks largely in step with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader with whom he previously had an adversarial relationship that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

“Senator McCain is a tremendous leader in the Republican conference as well as a trusted adviser to me on a number of critical matters, including national security and fiscal issues,” Mr. McConnell said. “Being on the same side of these recent battles has not only strengthened our friendship, but it’s helped clarify the broader debate.”

This latest John McCain has emerged in the aftermath of a stinging loss in the 2008 presidential campaign to a man he considered to have a very thin résumé compared with his decades of military and public service, a loss that left him bitter about politics and the news media — a group he once jokingly referred to as his political base.

Now, after nearly three years of sniping from the sidelines, Mr. McCain is a polestar on nearly every major issue consuming the Senate, from a cybersecurity bill to the debate over Syria to an investigation into national security leaks and the fight to head off $500 billion in Pentagon cuts. He is arguably the most active senator in a frequently sleepy chamber.

Often these days, he actually smiles.

“It took me three years of feeling sorry for myself,” Mr. McCain said to a group of reporters this week as he held court outside the polished doors of a waiting senators-only elevator, taking questions as he does daily on the major topics of the day, be it the budget, the Arab Spring, postal reform or the reshuffling of Marines in Okinawa and Guam.

Mr. McCain was in all of his McCain-ness recently on the Senate floor, where he derided a group of House Republicans for suggesting that a top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Huma Abedin, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Next week, he will roll through a series of East Coast cities, holding town-hall-style meetings to speak out against planned cuts to the Pentagon that resulted from last year’s debt-ceiling deal, another core fight in which he is front and center.

In some ways it seems as if Mr. McCain remains unable to reconcile the rightward lurch he took two years ago with his clear desire to continue to put his stamp on myriad issues — at times bridging partisan divides — to burnish his legacy.

For instance, on campaign finance — an issue he was so personally associated with that his name was tied to the legislation that Mr. McConnell fought at the Supreme Court — Mr. McCain has been unwilling to work with Democrats on new bills to force more disclosure of the names of wealthy donors.

“I’ve been disappointed,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “I was hoping John would carry that forward, but so far with the Disclosure Act and other things we’ve got on the floor he has not joined us. I just hope he goes back to his roots.”

Many of Mr. McCain’s other interests align neatly with the big issues of the day, particularly the debate over the role of the United States in conflicts in the Middle East — in which he has largely been a staunch critic of the Obama administration — and the planned Pentagon cuts.

The pattern is similar to that of other unsuccessful presidential candidates, like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who publicly sulked for a few years before becoming a major player on Afghanistan and other issues.

“I just think a lot of it has to do with the agenda,” Mr. McCain said of his re-emergence, in an impromptu interview with several reporters. “After I lost, I knew that the best way to get over it was to get active.” (Mr. McCain, who disputed some coverage of him by The New York Times during the 2008 campaign, has a policy of not speaking directly to reporters from The Times.)

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman who is working with Mr. McCain on a way to avoid Pentagon cuts, said that Mr. McCain was a “key spokesman” on the issue.

“It’s all relative around here in terms of partisanship,” Mr. Levin said. “Inside his party he stands shoulders above in terms of being willing to deviate from the grip of an antitax pledge.”

Mr. McCain is also a very useful advocate for his party in an election year. He provides credibility on military issues and can employ his rhetorical gifts on the Sunday talk shows (where he has appeared more than any other member of Congress this year, according to a tally by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call) to promote the party view in a way that Mr. McConnell and others cannot.

“He loves his job,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a longtime friend and ally of Mr. McCain’s. “He’s the template for someone in the future who runs for president and falls short. He didn’t take his ball and go home. I am just very proud of him. He’s very, very involved in all the things that really matter around here.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 28, 2012

An article on Friday about Senator John McCain’s transformation from a political maverick to being a leading Republican who walks the party line misspelled the given name of a Republican from South Carolina who is a longtime friend and ally of the Arizona senator. He is Senator Lindsey Graham, not Lindsay.

View the original article here

Obama tries to turn 2008 GOP rival McCain into asset

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON President Barack Obama seems to think that the world of politics would be better if someone like John McCain were running for the White House.

The Democratic incumbent and his re-election advisers are waxing nostalgic about the Republican senator from Arizona who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race. They're embracing McCain as a reasonable voice on climate change and immigration, someone who took on extremism in his own party.

It's all a way of drawing a contrast with Obama's current GOP rival, Mitt Romney, and trying to convince crucial independent voters that the former Massachusetts governor is outside the mainstream.

But Obama's flattering memories of McCain conflict with their campaign clashes of 2008. Back then, Obama hammered his rival as "out of touch" with many of the problems facing people in the United States.

Today's platitudes also conceal the reality of Obama's current dynamic with McCain. The senator is one of the president's staunchest critics on everything from health care to foreign policy, and he's a vocal Romney supporter.

To hear Obama tell it now, the McCain who ran against him in 2008 was an example of a principled Republican who knew how to reach across the aisle. The implication from Obama is that those qualities simply don't apply to Romney.

"John McCain believed in climate change," Obama told supporters at a fundraiser in Minneapolis on Friday. "John believed in campaign finance reform. He believed in immigration reform. I mean, there were some areas where you saw some overlap. In this election, the Republican Party has moved in a fundamentally different direction."

Obama's take on McCain has become a standard part of his fundraising appeal to donors. As the general election heats up, the Obama campaign is relishing more opportunities to try to turn its former foe into an asset.

When Romney didn't condemn his supporter Donald Trump for raising more questions this week about the president's citizenship, the Obama campaign dug up old video clips of McCain correcting supporters in the 2008 who said they were scared of Obama and one clip of a supporter who thought he was an "Arab."

"As the Republican nominee, John McCain stood up to the voices of extremism in his party," an Obama Internet video says. It then asks why Romney won't do the same.

The 90-second video ends with words on the screen that read: "McCain and Romney: Two Republican nominees, only one willing to lead."

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain, said Friday that if McCain and Obama "share so many priorities and are in such agreement, why didn't the president or his staff ever reach out to Senator McCain to work on them?"

Not surprisingly, veterans of the 2008 campaign are split down party lines over whether the 2012 Obama campaign's strategic embrace of its former rival makes sense.

Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist to McCain's 2008 campaign, said voters will see through the Obama team's attempts to use the former GOP nominee to paint the party's current standard-bearer as an extremist.

"It's very difficult to make the case that Mitt Romney is a right-wing nut, particularly because a lot of real right-wing nuts have spent a lot of time saying Romney's not one of them," Schmidt said.

Like Romney, McCain faced criticism from Democrats in 2008 who said the independent-minded senator had kowtowed to the conservative wing of the party in order to claim the GOP nomination.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

McCain: Hispanic vote 'up for grabs' (AP)

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the potentially powerful Hispanic vote in the upcoming presidential election remains "up for grabs" because neither President Barack Obama nor Republicans have convinced these voters that they are on their side.

The one-time GOP presidential hopeful, whose own 2008 candidacy was shaped in part by immigration, said that large Hispanic populations in his home state of Arizona and elsewhere are listening carefully to what Republican candidates have to say on immigration and could become a "major factor" in 2012.

"I think that the Republican party has to discuss this issue in as humane way as possible," he said. He later added, "the enthusiasm on the part of Hispanics for President Obama is dramatically less than it was in 2008, because he has not fulfilled his campaign promises either. So I view the Hispanic vote up for grabs."

McCain comment, on CNN's "State of the Union," is a warning to the GOP primary candidates who have mostly embraced a hardline on immigration, lest they be accused of supporting any kind of "amnesty" for the some 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. Newt Gingrich was most recently attacked by his opponents for saying he would grant legal status to those with longstanding family and community ties; he has since endorsed a South Carolina law that allows police to demand a person's immigration status.

McCain said he believes the Hispanic vote could sway Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. The key, he said, was for Republicans to address immigration in a humane and pragmatic way that every voter could appreciate. More specifically, McCain said, GOP presidential candidates should find a way to address the status of illegal immigrants already in the country while finding a way to secure the border to deter others from crossing the border.

"It's a careful balance of addressing this issue, which I think the majority of Hispanics would appreciate. . . . We have to have empathy. We have to have concern. We have to have a plan," he said.

In 2008, McCain watched his own standing in the election suffer when he backed a plan to give some illegal immigrants an eventual path to citizenship.

Gingrich has challenged his GOP opponents to come up with their own plans for dealing with the millions inside the U.S. illegally.

"What is it that you're going to do? Are you really going to go in and advocate ripping people out of their families?" he said.

In 2008, Mitt Romney had supported the idea of allowing some illegal immigrants to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship. More recently, he has said it would be a "mistake" for the GOP to allow anyone to "jump ahead of the line" and characterized Gingrich's approach as a "doorway" to amnesty.

In the interview Sunday, McCain declined to comment on the position of individual candidates. "I respect the views of the voters," he said.

View the original article here

McCain rips Republican candidates for "isolationism" (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican Senator John McCain, his party's 2008 presidential nominee, ripped into the current crop of Republican White House contenders, accusing them of breaking party tradition by preaching "isolationism."

McCain said if former President Ronald Reagan were still alive he would have been disappointed in last week's Republican presidential debate in which candidates voiced impatience with U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.

"He would be saying: That's not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world," McCain said.

McCain made the comments in an interview with ABC's "This Week" program that was broadcast on Sunday.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who was one of McCain's top advisers in the 2008 campaign, echoed McCain's concerns.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he's fearful "that there is an isolationist streak now running now through the Republican Party, Graham said, "Yes."

"If you think the pathway to the GOP (Republican) nomination in 2012 is to get to Barack Obama's left on Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, you are going to meet a lot of headwinds," Graham said.

At their first major debate last Monday, Republican White House hopefuls questioned the wisdom of U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.

Their performances marked a stark difference from just a few years ago.

In 2004, then Republican President George W. Bush successfully won a second term by embracing his war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the 2008 campaign, McCain and other Republicans also supported Bush's surge of troops in Iraq.

But at last week's debate in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidates made it clear that times have changed.

"A WAR OF INDEPENDENCE"

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, seen as the early front-runner for the Republican nomination, reflected the sentiment of many of those hoping to unseat Democratic President Barack Obama in next year's election.

"Our troops should not go off and fight a war of independence for another country." Romney said. "Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban."

McCain said he was not ready to endorse any candidate for his party's 2012 presidential nomination, but is concerned about what he heard from them in the debate.

"This is isolationism. There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party," McCain said. "But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak."

McCain said that some of the opposition from Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail to current military efforts is the result of partisan politics.

House of Representatives Republican leaders have warned they could move legislation to cut off funds for operations in Libya.

"I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?" McCain said.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

View the original article here

McCain uneasy over Republican 'isolationism' (AFP)

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Senator John McCain on Sunday expressed concern about growing isolationism in the Republican party, particularly among those vying for the 2012 presidential nomination.

McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, said he was alarmed to hear various candidates at a campaign forum last Monday express opposition to US military involvement in the NATO military assault on Libya's Moamer Kadhafi.

"There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican party, that Pat Buchanan (a former Republican presidential contender) wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak," he said.

There is no question that President Barack Obama, a Democrat, made the right choice in lending US military support to the NATO mission in Libya, McCain told ABC's "This Week" program.

"If we had not intervened, Kadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?

"That's not the Republican party of the 20th century and now the 21st century," McCain said.

Among Republican contenders voicing opposition on Libya at last week's debate in New Hampshire were tea party darling Michele Bachmann and Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney.

"It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can consistent with the word that comes from our generals that we can hand the country over," Romney said.

"I think we've learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. Our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban."

McCain said such views were inconsistent with bedrock Republican values.

"That is not the Republican party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world," the Arizona senator said.

Critics in Congress have said that in launching military operations against Kadhafi, Obama violated the War Powers Act, a law intended to check a president's ability to go to war without seeking congressional approval.

Lawmakers who feel Obama is not in compliance -- the War Powers Act allows 90 days for a president to notify Congress and 90 days were up Sunday -- are threatening to cut off funding for US military operations in Libya.

The White House said in a letter to Congress last week that the War Powers Act -- which has been largely ignored by past presidents -- does not apply to what's going on in Libya because there are no US troops on the ground there.

"US military operations are distinct from the kind of hostilities contemplated by the War Powers Act," the White House letter read.

McCain said he and John Kerry, a leading Democratic lawmaker who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were crafting a bill that would take the question of the venture's legality off the table.

"Senator John Kerry and I have the resolution that's ready to go that would comply with the War Powers Act," he told ABC television.

Outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, another Republican, also defended Obama's decision to lend US military support to the NATO operation in Libya.

"I believe that President Obama has complied with the law, consistent in a manner with virtually all of his predecessors. I don't think he's breaking any new ground here," Gates told the Fox News Sunday television program.

View the original article here