The Rocky Mountain News reports that John McCain and Sarah Palin are heading to Colorado Springs, home of James Dobson and Focus on the Family, for a rally on Saturday and that a long-sought-after meeting between the two just might be a possibility now that McCain has sublimated himself to the Right’s demands:
[Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action] said Dobson's evolution from being anti-McCain to adamantly supportive of the Republican ticket can be attributed to three things — McCain's "strong responses" at Pastor Rick Warren's summit in Orange County, "the pro-life, pro-family platform adopted by the party," and the selection of Palin.
But despite the change of heart, Minnery said Dobson has not had a meeting with McCain since he became a presidential candidate last year and that he hasn't met personally with Palin .
That could change Saturday when McCain and Palin arrive in Colorado Springs for a rally.
While the McCain campaign and Minnery said no meeting is scheduled, neither left the option off the table.
"Who knows what may happen?" Minnery said. "So far nothing has been planned. But we're happy to see political leaders of any and all stripes."
[UPDATE: Dan Gilgoff reports that there's no meeting planned and Dobson will be out of town.]
The article also relates a rather odd anecdote from Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Clarkson explaining how he got a call from Focus on the Family back in 2006 about concerns that Palin may not have been anti-gay enough and how he assured that that indeed she was:
It was when [Palin] beat Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the 2006 primary that Clarkson got a call from Focus on the Family asking him questions about the strength of her social conservative credentials.
"There had been some entries made under her name in Wikipedia that were of concern to them (Focus on the Family)," Clarkson said. "The main one cited in Wikipedia was her veto of a bill that would've limited marriage benefits to married couples."
Clarkson explained that it was a convoluted process that led to the veto. Acting as legal counsel, Clarkson advised Palin to veto the bill that he said, because of confusing legislative machinations and existing court challenges, would've had the opposite effect and locked in benefits for all couples.
Clarkson said he had to explain the whole decision to Focus on the Family to put minds at ease.
Presumably, the veto in question was of HB4001, a bill designed to block a state Supreme Court ruling “giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.” In her veto statement, Palin said that the bill was “unconstitutional given the recent Court order … mandating same-sex benefits” and that “signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office.”
How exactly would a bill “prohibiting the commissioner of administration from adopting, allowing to become law, or implementing regulations that grant or extend employment-related benefits to same-sex partners of state employees” really end up locking in “benefits for all couples”?
The only thing “convoluted” about this is Clarkson’s explanation.
