To NemoParticularis re 11:07 PM: I am a lawyer who graduated from Harvard Law School and who practices law in Manhattan. I don’t do what you refer to; I don’t even drink during the weekdays; I am cold sober and serious with what I write here. Your glibness does not hide the fact that you do not respond to my substantive points why consrvatices should vote for McCain.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM

To SimplyKimberly: lets take your issues.

1. “Gang of 14″

Please recall that there was a Schumer led Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees. While it was said that the fillibuster had not been invoked historically with respect to judicial nominations, that was because judicial nominations were once not political. They are now, because of the Democrats, and Schumer intended to block conservative nominees.

There was under consideration a so-called “constitutional option” of changing the fillibuster rules so that they could not be invoked as to judicial nominees. The problems with that “option” were: (i) that it was not known whether it would have been passed — many Senators were quietly leery of changing fillibuster rules; and (ii) if it did pass, if there were a Democrat Congress with the White House in Democrat hands, the road would be open to appoint left wingers to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. We of course now have a Democrat Congress as a result of the 2006 election and may have a Hillary Clinton Presidency as a result of the 2008 election. Also, had the constitutional option not been passed, it would have meant a blockage of all or almost all of Bush’s judicial nominees.

What the “Gang of 14″ refers to was a compromise brokered by a group of Republican and Democrat Senators to allow Bush nominees to be voted on and thus approved unless there be extraordinary circumstances. That way, the Bush nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and most of the Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals could be confirmed without changing fillibuster rules or running the risk of having a complete blockage on conservative confirmations. In fact, John Roberts and Sam Alito were confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a great number of Bush nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals were confirmed. As a result, Chuckie Schumer is complaining that the Democrats were snookered. Yet, McCain is pilloried because of the Senate compromise that can fairly be said to have snookered Chuckie. Wrong.

I realize that there are a number of conservatives who complain that the Senate compromise consisted of shenanigans that were indefensible and that the constitutional option needed to be implemented. All I can say is that I think that view is childishly indefensible. It does not take into account the long term consequences of changing fillibuster rules, the consequences if the constitutional option had been voted on and not passed and what was secured by the Senate compromise. More than indefensible, the Senate compromise was the better way to go. An adult such as John McCain understood that. An uncivil screamer such as Levin — who calls callers “dummies” on the air — apparently cannot.

2. Bush Tax Cuts

John McCain originally opposed the Bush tax cuts because they did not include spending cuts and spending then got out of control, which did cause problems; to McCain, the more Reaganesque position was to call for both tax cuts and spending cuts, which he did. John McCain has stated for some time now, that he would make permanent the Bush tax cuts (otherwise there would be an effective tax increase) while working to cut federal spending. More than any other candidate, McCain is a fiscal hawk serious about cutting spending.

3. Immigration

John McCain has been saying for months that he got the message, that law enforcement in immigration matters comes first. Actually, the current problem stems from the fact that the law enforcement provisions in the 1980s law signed by none other than President Reagan were not enforced. Last summer’s bill had law enforcement provisions that if enforced would mean that there would not be amnnesty, but as McCain acknowledges, the American people did not believe that the law enforcement provisions would be enforced and until they are, no other measures are acceptable. What you should be worried about is if Hillary of Obama is elected President; they fault Bush for not being successful in persuading Congress to pass last summer’s immigration bill and they don’t care about law enforcement. It will be full speed ahead to amnesty.

4. McCain-Feingold

Just what has you upset? As for respecting the First Amendment, John Mccain has a good record on that. What you presumably are concerned about is campaign finance reform, which was an attempt at regulating the electoral process so as to reduce the influence of money on politics, which on its face is not a violation of the First Amendment. The problems in the law are not its intent but are definitional ones that are in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt that it is an issue in the future; radical jihadism will be.

5. Bashing Evangelicals in 2000

McCain did not bash and never has bashed evangelical Christians as a group. He did lash out against some evangelical leaders who were engaged in hard ball politics in the 2000 South Carolina primary. This year in the South Carolina primary, McCain did fairly well with evangelicals as a group; only Huckabee got more of the evangelical vote. You should not doubt that McCain is a believing Christian; he is. You must have missed what was the best Christmas ad when he describes being a P.O.W. and one of the North Vietnamese guards who showed him kindness made a sign of the cross.

Now, SimplyKimberly, will you deal with the points that I was obviously making in my 11:09 PM post? Among other things, John McCain really is the most qualified of the candidates to be thenext Commander in Chief, which is no small matter in this time of war with the radical jihadists.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM

To NemoParticularis and Pilgrim: I will remind you that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I think that conservatives were quite happy with his nomination and confirmation, as they should have.

Your clever but empty reporte still does not hide the fact that you can’t deal with my substantive points.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:36 PM

To Stashiu3 re 11:13 PM post: no, the John McCain campaign did not send me to post comments here. I am posting because I am concerned who will be the next Commander in Chief. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant with Ranger tab who until last October served 15 months in Iraq as a platoon leader and who earned a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal for actions under fire; and my younger son will be commissioned a U.S. Marines Second Lieutenant in May having already passed officer training at Quantico. When you have flesh and blood on the front lines, it matters who is and will be the Commander in Chief; and John McCain is by far heads above all other candidates in terms of who is qualified to be the next Commander in Chief.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:43 PM

To Harry Star re 11:47 PM post: see my 11:33 PM post for detailed responses as to the list you put up. As for pushing TV to digital, the one new issue you raise, your post is not clear why there is a problem (and I have not seen this raised before). What I can say is that the move to digital is toward a better TV future. It would happen with or without John McCain.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Stashiu3 re 11:53 PM post: you attacked me for being planted by the McCain campaign, which is not true. So I explained why I care, and you attack me for cutting and pasting comments. What you don’t do is to deal with the substantive points I am making. What is tacky is the kind of attack you make coupled with the failure to address substance.

You say you don’t trust McCain but don’t say why. You can go to the McCain web site and see how many military people who do trust McCain. And speaking of trust, I don’t see in any of the other candidates someone who is as nearly trustworthy as McCain when it comes to military matters.

Phil Byler on January 22, 2008 at 12:00 AM