except for a few hours of exploring along its side of the colorado river, the only time i've spent in arizona has been transiting east to west or vice-versa on my way to somewhere else.   last time i was in the grand canyon state,  i just dropped in for about 74 minutes due to a layover in phoenix.   had i been thinking, i would have saved myself a few bucks by drinking a lot of arizona water. 

i'm not totally sure there's something special in arizona water. it might be the air. or perhaps its just an arizona attitude that's responsible for producing two truly exceptional conservative republican senators in the past 50 years.

i chose that adjective because both senator barry goldwater and senator john mccain are among the very few elected or appointed office holders in recent history to evidence integrity by taking exception to demands they subordinate personal philosophy and principles to a party line. 

fearless and outspoken throughout his entire public career, barry goldwater was solidly conservative at a time when the  republican party mainstream was arguably more liberal than todays democrats.  during the late 50s and early 60s, he was the embodiment of american conservative politics, a champion of small government and individual liberty.  credited with remaking the republican party, he would later find himself vilified by opportunists cloaking themselves in his own banner to further their individual agendas.  

goldwater's battle to win the 1964 republican nomination was an uphill battle but not impossible.  today it would be unwinnable.  i don't believe i'm overstating the case by saying john mccain has sacrificed whatever slight remaining chance he'd had to be a republican presidential nominee by speaking out against whats popularly referred to as the 'marriage amendment'.  here's all it took:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

please note senator mccain's reasoning regarding the proposed constitutional marriage amendment  is based solely and solidly on one of the most basic conservative/federalist tenets.  the very same argument one would anticipate--although not necessarily expect--from justices scalia, renhguist and thomas.

how can such a  quintessentially conservative position  possibly doom the good senator from arizona's presidential prospects? 

by protecting the constitution, senator mccain put himself on the wrong side of america's homegrown reigning political clerics.  that's the kiss of death in a time when the grand old party is in bed with that old time religion culminating a same sects marriage of the most politically perverse kind. 

44 years ago, americans expressed reservations about electing a catholic president.  the concern then was jfk might be secretly beholden to the vatican. yet its no secret that one cannot hope to win the republican nomination without ordination from the grand ayatollahs of what is generally called the religious right.. like iraq's sistani, they can and do deliver bodies, votes and contributions to their chosen one. as no one knows better than senator mccain, when displeased, they taketh away even faster than they giveth.

in 2000, mccain not only refused to play along....he denounced robertson and falwell as agents of intolerance (in response, george bush claimed mccain was 'shamelessly using religion' as a campaign issue before declaring himself a 'uniter not a divider'.)   when gary bauer--who resigned his position as head of a christian right family group--endorsed mccain over bush, the flock turned on him as well.

in contrast, george w. bush learned which side of his consecrated bread was buttered--and by whom--in 1988 when he became george h w bush's liaison to the higher plane after being brought into the fold by doug 'amway diamond' wead. (several years later when wead ran for an arizona congressional seat, barry goldwater endorsed his democratic opponent.)  it might have seemed that the current president had long ago paid enough tithes--or dues--that he'd be wholly holy approved for election by the elect in  the 2000 primaries.

in fact,  protestant and mormon evangelicals like  jerry falwell, pat robertson, james dobson, donald wildmon, lou sheldon--just to name a few--eschew the use of latin except for the verbal trinity that brings them into communion with the roman church: quid pro quo.  nobody outside the congregation will ever know for certain, but it's not unreasonable to conclude the now-failed sanctity of marriage amendment was part of the current term's covenant. 

so much for cleanliness being next to godliness.

during a speech back in 1981, the late senator goldwater said--in response to falwell, robertson and the rest of the choir being characterized in the media as  the 'new right' or 'new conservatives': "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.'  And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.  The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

after learning jerry falwell's faith in then newly-appointed supreme court justice sandra day oconner's abilities had faltered to the point that falwell announced to the press 'all good christians should be concerned' , barry proclaimed "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
 
 in my heart--and hopefully in yours--we know both he and senator mccain were and are right.  too bad mccain had to choose between being right and being president.