Did McCain say he wouldn’t nominate another Sam Alito? Update: McCain responds
posted at 1:32 pm on January 28, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
John Fund reports the quote today, in a long piece about how John McCain can patch things up with conservatives.
Then there is the issue of judicial nominations, a top priority with conservatives. Nothing would improve Mr. McCain’s standing with conservatives more than a forthright restatement of his previously stated view that “one of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench.” Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”
After NRO picked up that quote, McCain campaign staffer Steve Schmidt emailed the following to Rich Lowry:
“It’s absolutely false. Sen. McCain was instrumental is helping confirm Justice Alito. We relied on him a great deal during the confirmation process to reassure the American people that Alito was the kind of justice America needed. John McCain was a warrior to get Alito on the bench.”
Rich rightly notes that this response doesn’t directly deal with the Fund quote, which says that McCain wouldn’t appoint an Alito. That’s a world away from fighting for Alito’s nomination once President Bush had already made it.
Two questions arise from all of this. First, is the quote accurate? The Schmidt non-response suggests that it is; the response changes the subject to more favorable ground to McCain without addressing whether McCain actually said what Fund quotes. Second, is Alito really too conservative by McCain’s lights to be a SCOTUS nominee under a McCain presidency? McCain needs to answer this immediately. Different types of conservatives vote based on many things, but judges have to rank in the top five for nearly all of us. While most conservatives have soured on the Bush presidency either because of spending or immigration or this or that policy, most of us still consider Bush’s SCOTUS nominees (minus Miers) to be reason enough to consider his presidency, on balance, worth support and certainly better than the alternatives that were available in 2000 and 2004. If McCain won’t appoint nominees similar to Bush’s, no speech at CPAC will help him repair the rift with conservatives, and conservatives don’t have much reason to support him if he’s the GOP nominee.
If McCain truly does consider Alito to be too conservative, then on judges even Rudy Giuliani is to McCain’s right and would make a less problematic GOP nominee than McCain.
Update: Byron York spent some time with McCain today and asked about this issue.
“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”
“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.’”
I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.
Read the rest. It’s about as strong a response as one could hope for. McCain’s denial is strong enough that the question ought to shift to Fund to justify or retract his quote.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
What is the difference again between Hillary and McCain? A pair of ovaries, right?
Heck, I’d almost trust Hillary to keep us safe from terror over McCain: simply because she’d be sensitive to being too weak. Also, She doesn’t want a repeat of the Clinton being too soft. And I doubt she has any problem with torture.
Other than that, McCain is Hillary light, right? Is there any way in which McCain is more conservative than her?
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Gee…
Ya’ think?
Rudy’s a commited Federalist. He’s consistent and unwavering.
He has always–ALWAYS–said he’d appoint strict constructionists and you know: he’d fight for his choices and; ceratinly isn’t going to bow to the whi,s of the New York Times.
Glad to see you finally get it.
After it’s too freakin’ late.
Brother….
Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM
And the hits just keep on coming…
Theworldisnotenough on January 28, 2008 at 1:38 PM
The Gang of 14 was McCain’s death knell as far as I am concerned. He chose to make nice-nice with some Dems and build a bi-partisan coalition, rather than fix a structural problem in the Senate procedures. If he can’t stand up for that at the risk of pissing off some Senators, how is he going to stand up for originalist judges?
Mallard T. Drake on January 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Well, gee, I’m sure glad this man has made his way to the front of the pack. Imagine, otherwise we could’ve ended up with Fred, Mitt or Rudy…
amerpundit on January 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Please don’t let McCain win…
Darksean on January 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Wow, first AP kills Fred campaign, now Bryan has killed Rudy’s.
This has to be the most powerful blog in the history of everything.
ChrisM on January 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Could it be that McCain is attempting the good cop/bad cop tactic of the Clintons. By providing a non-response, McCain is attempting to have it both ways: For the Alito-type nominees while also on record as saying that he intends to stomp conservatives from the bench! Personally, it isn’t the big ticket nominees that I have problems with but the number of lesser nominees that were treated unfairly because of McCain and 13 other Senators who decided they could circumvent full and fair hearings of the nominees put forth by the President. That and the fact that Meirs was put forward specifically because of this junta.
Intentionally or unintenionally, I think McCain’s mother exposed the real strategy in play. Get the nomination and then force all the conservatives to “hold their nose” and vote for McNasty because he’s “more conservative” than Clinton or Obama. It’s like ordering a cheeseburger instead of a hamburger when what you really want is the prime rib that is no longer on the menu.
Put another way, McCain has yet to reach out and satisfactorily deal with the legitimate concerns of the conservative base of the GOP. He denies ever being in favor of amnesty without ever apologizing or explaining why I (as a conservative) should vote for a man that called me “unpatriotic” because I don’t support gifting away citizenship to illegal aliens.
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I can’t even imagine why he would even want to go to CPAC with all of those people wearing their conservatism on their sleeves.
For McCain it would have to be like having the national media follow him to a family reunion only to have them discover that all of the folks back home got cast as extras in Deliverance.
Deety on January 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Wow. That’s not what Rudy’s actual actions indicate.
The rewriting of history just never stops.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM
What is the difference again between Hillary and McCain? A pair of ovaries, right?
The difference between Hillary and McCain? One of them has balls, and the other one is named McCain.
Policy wise, they are about the same. I’d rather see Hillary as president, because I think with her personality defects it’d be easier to prevent her from accomplishing real harm than it would McCain.
Labamigo on January 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
amerpundit on January 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Yeah yeah yeah. Excuses. Same thing we hear from Romney and Huckabee. The liberals made them do it! Heh. They’re all frauds.
One more thing. If I hear one more person call McCain a hero I’m going to lose everything I’ve eaten in the last three days. I really don’t give a cr&p what he did almost 40 years ago. The man has absolutely zero interest in what the citizens of this country want, as displayed by his giving the finger to 80% of the voters on amnesty. He’s supposed to work for us. That’s the way this country is supposed to work, isn’t it?
John McCain is a traitor. ANYTHING that prevents this slime from becoming President is a good thing to me. ANYTHING!
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM
And this like Immigration is an issue that McCain should be hammered on.
McCain needs to step up and clarify what kind of judges he would nominate.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Rudy is done. His strategy did not work.
Romney can’t win, the Libs will pin his mormonism on him like Pin the Tail on the Donkey in a million different ways both subtle or not.
John McCain is a true American Hero that votes with conservatives 85% of the time.
If you people think he is the same as Hillary or Obama, then pull your ultra partisan head out of your Elephant Asses.
The world would be a different place today had McCain won instead of “W”. I think maybe even a better place.
Don’t be stupid. There is a phenomena called Obama growing on the Lib side. McCain can take the air out of the baloon of that Phenomena or he can crush Hillary.
Yes, I wish he agreed with me on Immigration and Campaign Finance. But I am backing McCain 100%.
McCain’s obvious and overwhelming personal integrity is what our party needs right now. I do not need a robot that mirrors my opinion on every issue.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
And BTW before I give Mitt a pass on this issue is this
Mitt asks judge he appointed to resign
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Yeah, what a lousy excuse. I mean, just because a majority of the electorate is Liberal, the local leaders are Liberal, much of the state officials are Liberal, the nominating board was Liberal, the powerful unions are Liberal…
You don’t like Rudy, Romney, McCain or Huckabee. Who are you supporting then?
amerpundit on January 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM
With any luck we in Florida will make sure McLame will never have the weight of that decision on his shoulders! Go take a nap John, you keep forgetting who you are talking to and who you are trying to impress.
FredHeads4Mitt
Bicyea on January 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Why do people assume the supposed 18-odd% “Mormon problem” is strictly confined solely to registered Repubilcans who are likely to vote?
If anything, it’s all lib-dems who have a problem with Mormonism, and they won’t be voting for a Republican anyway.
BKennedy on January 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Rudy is way better than McCain on judges, say whatever you want about the rest of his platform. As someone said above, it’s a little late perhaps.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Why? Nothing he says can be taken seriously. The man is a walking lie.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Before you call this man that has given so much to his country a “traitor”, could you please provide a paragraph or two to enlighten HotAir on your own personal heroisms committed in the name of America that qualifies you to disrespect this true Hero?
You are no different than those moveon.org pieces of sh*t that called General Petreus, “Betray Us”.
Please either back up or retract the moronic garbage you posted calling John McCain a “traitor”, people like you disgust me, no matter which side they are on.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:11 PM
You really need to change your screen ID to “HeeHaw.”
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Have you ever even served your country?
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM
1: His personal achievements are irrelevant to McCain’s traitorousness.
2: Benedict Arnold was far, far more distinguished than McCain at the time of his treachery. I don’t suppose ‘Ol Benny isn’t a traitor in your book.
Remember folks, JayHaw Phrenzie is a McCain troll. He cannot be trusted.
BKennedy on January 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM
No, Genius, I am a Rudy troll, check your Hot Air history.
I disagree with much of McCain’s legislative record, but anyone that would call him a “traitor” is pathetic and their opinion is absolutely worthless.
I’ll take this as aknowledgement of your LACK of personal achievements.
—–
John McCain chose to stay in a POW camp and suffer for additional years because he would not leave his comrades behind. Disagree with his legislative priorities, Don’t vote for him, but if you call him a “Traitor” you expose yourself as an idiot that does not deserve to be listened to. PERIOD.
Gregor, BKennedy and the rest of you do not have the slightest concept of Patriotism or Heroism and are merely partisan idiots. They might as well be Dems, that is how ignorant they are.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Although I’m hoping Romney beats the cr&p out of McCain, I refuse to support any of the remaining morons. Sorry, but I refuse to go along with this sham. If I DO vote, I’ll either write in Fred Thompson, or I’ll vote for Obama.
I’ll enjoy laughing at all of those who insisted on voting for “the candidate who can win.”
I’ll never stop being amazed at those of you who call yourselves conservatives, especially the Christians, who continue to stand here and defend candidates who compulsively lie to our faces.
Morons!
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Other than that, McCain is Hillary light, right? Is there any way in which McCain is more conservative than
hershe?fixed it for you, sorry father was an english teacher. I agree with everything you said by the way.
flytier on January 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I’ll never stop being amazed at those of you who call yourselves conservatives, especially the Christians, who continue to stand here and defend candidates who compulsively lie to our faces.
Morons!
You mean like Huckabee?
flytier on January 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM
O….k….
amerpundit on January 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM
McCain’s personal integrity is neither obvious or overwhelming. Perhaps you can show where we are mistaken (those of us who think the man has betrayed our values and the party). We don’t have to make it too hard. How about explaining how McCain demanding amnesty for all illegals shows “personal integrity” when he calls me unpatriotic for holding a different view. Perhaps you can explain how his “personal integrity” is overwhelming when he lies that his view has changed while having a staff full of open-borders pro-amnesty activists. Bottom line, McCain is a liar whose positions show little difference from those being put forth by Clinton and Obama.
There is nothing wrong about holding the same views as left-of-center Democrats but to put on the conservative mantle and proclaim himself a Reagan Republican is disgusting and repugnant behavior that we’ve (sadly) come to expect from a bitter old man.
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I still hope to vote uncommitted or for Fred. I dont want anyone left in the republican nomination
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I wouldn’t necessarily make that argument. Even though Giuliani said he would appoint “strict constructionists”, he also signaled that he would reject any potential nominee that also didn’t believe in stare decisis, specifically regarding Roe v Wade and follow-on decisions on abortion.
steveegg on January 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
flytier on January 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM
And there it is! Attacks aimed at the “Jesus Freaks” for not following the secular humanist/atheistic bent of liberals like Rudy and McCain. Gregor, you are the moron if you don’t understand something as simple as the fact that many conservative voters choose their candidates based on the individual that most expresses their values and view of the world. Rudy wants to legitimize sodomy by recognizing gay marriage. McCain wants to open our borders to illegal aliens, many of whom come across the border to sell drugs in our cities.
What’s “moronic” about supporting the candidate that holds the values that you do?
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Wow. What does it say when I (of all people) start thinking that the anti-Mitt/Rudy/McCain rhetoric is going a bit to far?
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I served two terms in the military you dumb a$$ piece of shlT. Have you?
Again, we have some absolute clown defending every lie and traitorous act by a man based solely on his prior military service, while no doubt being one of those who also had no problem attacking John Kerry or any of the many Vets who speak against McCain now.
Let me get this straight. Any Vet you happen to agree with is a HERO and should never be questioned no matter WHAT he or she does now, but at the same time, any Vet who you disagree with and who dares to question John McCain is open to be attacked by YOU?
You’re supporting a man who looks you straight in the eye and LIES to you. You’re supporting a man who listens to what 80% of the American citizens tell him they want, and then FLIPS THEM OFF!
People like you are why we’re all suffering right now. Clueless, spineless, followers.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Yes we are all thankful for Juan McCains service to his country, very admirable indeed. Having said that he can stop now. He is most definitely a liar and a traitor to his party.
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Yes. Exactly. He’s the worst of all of them, and his Christian supporters are anything but practicing Christians.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:32 PM
We can get our points accross without resulting to insults and name calling Gregor and JayHaw. Let’s keep it a civil debate and act like adults.
I agree with all you said even though I don’t agree with your candidate choice. I’d be more inclined toward Huckabee if he had any other redeeming values in policy decisions rather than his Christian values.
Luckedout on January 28, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Hey, if compulsively LYING is part of your “values” then have at it. Enjoy yourself. Last I checked, this was not a Christian value.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:34 PM
When selecting a President from a field of well qualified, talented candidates, I look for uniqueness and position on policies.
On policy, Amnesty McCain fails my test.
McCain’s strength is defense. He is not unique in this. There is a building in Virginia with four walls and a spare full of people better qualified to lead the defense of this nation. McCain is a hero. That does not qualify him for the Presidency.
Rudy and Romney have two very strong assets. Both have executive experience. Both have turned around problem entities.
Romney also has expertise on economic matters.
Romney also implemented a health care system based on the free market.
The Democrats want to beat us with three clubs:
1. The economy. That will not work against Mitt.
2. Health care. Mitt succeeded with a state legislature composed of 80% Democrat (enemy party) Hillary failed working with her own party.
3. Iraq. Mitt was not part of the decision to go in (nor was Rudy for that matter) but Hillary, Amnesty McCain and Obama could take a beating on that front.
Any Democrat who wants to take on Mitt on those three issues is going to look pretty pathetic.
Mitt brings a unique strenth to the Republican ticket that cannot be bought. It cannot be hired.
Mitt is a skilled executive, expert manager and economic genius. He is without peer.
His biggest weakness is defense (experience, not policy wise). He is smart enough to listen to the experts.
Anything that Guliani, McCain or Huckabee could bring to the Presidency is available from other sources. Not so with Mitt Romney.
The Rock on January 28, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Good posts, Gregor.
HebrewToYou on January 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I’m sure MCShamnesty would prefer judges that wear their liberalism on their sleeves, like he does. Maybe he could even find some that would finish political speech off completely, now that he and Feingold have wounded it.
Yeah, it’s really amazing how they accomplished that all by themselves. Well, all I have to say is, don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. Heh.
ReubenJCogburn on January 28, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Do you not remember what was going on here just a couple of months ago? I’d say there are a fair number of conservatives who will not vote for a Mormon. Too bad for us all.
melda on January 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM
This integrity you speak of, is this best exemplified by his First Ammendment shredding CFR bill OR by his shady, backroom crafted, “Screw YOU, America!” Amnesty bill?
SuperCool on January 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Psychological projection. It’s not just for John McCain anymore.
The fact remains is that a HotAir poster’s service or lack thereof has nothing to do with McCain’s traitorousness (or lack thereof). I don’t think JMac is a traitor.
He is a duplicitous, goal-post-shifting liar though.
And Benedict Arnold is still more distinguished than he was. Military distinction and duty don’t make you immune from becoming a turncoat the moment you start working against the security of your own nation. See John Francois Kerry for a modern example.
BKennedy on January 28, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Nugent/Thompson 08
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Yeah, they’re all voting for HuckaShmuck, thus providing a spoiler for McCain. I still don’t know of any conservative who hates Mormons more than socialists, though.
BKennedy on January 28, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Take a look at McCain’s senate record for some hints. He voted to confirm to the SCOTUS loony lefties like Breyer and former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
AZCoyote on January 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Simple question 1: Would you support McCain on his Senate voting record, if he had never been a POW?
Simple question 2: Does McCain’s POW experience contribute materially to his suitability as a President?
My answer to number 1: NO
My answer to number 2: NOT SURE, but tend to doubt it.
General observation: McCain loves media attention and approval, which in my mind is poisonous to good leadership.
drunyan8315 on January 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM
This is the last straw. I will not be voting for McCain if he is the nominee. I don’t want Hillary or Obama, but at least with them I know what I am getting. I will be voting libertarian if McCain is the only option.
bopbottle on January 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM
4 Years in the US Army, stationed in Augsburg Germany. INSCOM.
I doubt if you really served, but if you did, I am sure you received your fair share of blanket parties. If you really did serve, your DIs did a poor job of teaching you respect.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM
When did hotair become Moceon.Org?
Calling distinguished military veterens traitors is beneath a conservative.
I question the motives of the DU trolls that are attacking McCain this way.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Thanks for proving my point loser. It’s disrespectful to attack a vet in your mind, FOR ANY REASON, and you follow that up by then calling me a liar and suggesting I haven’t served, lol.
Precious. Keep it up HeeHaw.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Out of fairness, it should be pointed out that only 3 Senators voted against Ginsburg and 9 voted against Breyer.
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Neither is bringing Christianity into this discussion the way you did. It did nothing but show how much you hate Christians who hold more than the “many roads” arugments of the unchurched and unfaithful.
Compulsive lying is another medical term, like pathological liar that is being thrown around on this forum without any real understanding. At this point my support tends to lean toward Romney for values-based reasons:
1. Social Issues- Romney’s on his first wife, Rudy is not. Romney doesn’t support gay marriage, Rudy does.
2. National Security- This includes closing the borders and dealing with illegals in a way that doesn’t include amnesty. Rudy ran a sanctuary city and McCain called me unpatriotic for being against his piece of legislation. Yes Rudy was good in a crisis situation after the 9/11/01 atrocities and yes, McCain was a POW but I want a President that works to ensure that we don’t get to crisis situations. McCain’s irrational hatred of Rumsfeld and vocal opposition to waterboarding as a tactic to extract information from terrorists is disturbing when considering who should be CINC.
3. Faith- While I don’t agree with LDS doctrine, I’m not electing a POTUS based on a faith litmus test. Romney has been consistent with his faith (including its evolution concerning minorities). Rudy is the typical American Catholic that ignores the tenets of his faith. Huckabee is a hypocrite that gives Christianity a bad name by making claims in the name of Christ that are really nothing more than cover for a liberal social agenda. McCain, from what I can tell, doesn’t have a particular faith which I find more troubling than Romney’s LDS upbrining, Obama’s Islamic roots, or Huckabee’s faux-Christianity.
4. Economic experience. Romney’s been in business as an executive and has run a significant state government. Rudy ran a city but has little real business experience. John McCain is your typical career politician that doesn’t know what it means to stick to a budget. If the economy is going to be challenging in the next few years, I want somebody who knows what is like to run a business, not an individual that knows how to get earmarks into a piece of legislation.
That’s four values-based reasons why I support who I do. I’d thank you not to question my faith again.
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM
JayHaw;
McCain is a war hero. However, he is not a conservative. He could play VP to Hillary or Obama just as easily as he could be president. Just like he attempted to be Kerry’s side kick in 2004.
McCain-Feingold did nothing for campaign finance. It was a gift to incumbents.
McCain-Kennedy would of allowed illegal aliens, including enemy combatants to gain citizenship because of it’s 24 hour background check provision. Remember, all enemies, foreign and domestic.
John McCain is not a conservative. He’s a middle of the road Centrist RINO with left leanings.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM
We’re dealing with complete fruitcakes now in HotAir. Seriously. It’s not even enjoyable any longer. I’m Christian, but this clown suggests I hate Christians. It’s somehow “un-Christian to point out that those supporting Huckabee are supporting a man who’s unable to open his mouth without speaking a lie? Hmmm. What type of Christianity is that exactly?
Good grief. So, I guess you’re saying that Huckabee doesn’t have a “medical excuse” for his constant lying and manipulation of facts and reality. So, this would actually make his support among Christians even more bizarre.
Thanks for that.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Well since you’re referencing me in making this statement, is it fair to ask where you got from what I posted firstly anything about Fred at all, and secondly just where I said Bryan “killed” Rody’s campaign?
My point is that Rudy’s been very consistent in what he’s said he’d do as President with regards to the Supreme Court, and what he’s consistently promised is in actuality the very best outcome conservatives were going to get. That so much of the conservative punditry–this little blog included–has just completely missed that point over, and over, and over again, is–to me–a shame.
His record in NYC is actually very consistent with his position of being first and foremost a Frederalist, and–as importantly–there’s just about zero chance that he’ll cut a deal for the sake of comity with the Senate, or approbation by the New York Times. Something I cannot say I’m sure of in either the case of Mitt or McCain.
Chuckling…
Well now in the rewriting of history you claim I was doing, I posted that Rudy’s record and his actions have always been those of a Federalist. By the link you so graciously provided here, I am tempted to ask you if you understand what the word “Federalist” means.
Offhand, I’d say the answer is no, because it sure doesn’t relate at all to judges he appointed to the criminal and civil bench in New York.
Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Gregor, just ignore these goobers.
McCain is ignoring the safety of this nation in his pursuit of Presidential power. That is a traitorous act and you are correct for point it out. It has nothing to do with his military service which, while honorable, isn’t exactly a record to emulate.
As for your thoughts re: religioin: you and I may not see eye to eye — in fact, you had some fairly rude words for me earlier — but we agree that Huckabee is setting a bad example for true Christians the world over. And that goes double for his zealous supporters.
Keep fighting the good fight, Gregor. You’re on the side of common sense.
HebrewToYou on January 28, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I agree with everything you said and that is why I did not support McCain our of the chute when the proess started.
I respect everyone that has good reasons to vote against McCain, but I have zero respect for Partisan pieces of garbage (on either side) that refer to a Distinguished Veteren and Military Hero as a “traitor” merely to score points in an election.
It is no different than a red faced Bill Clinton wagging his finger and calling Obama Jesse Jackson.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 3:19 PM
This is getting curiouser and curiouser by the minute. Guess it’s time to renew my Political Diary subscription; I’m certain that any updates will be in tomorrow’s issue.
steveegg on January 28, 2008 at 3:20 PM
No. He didn’t ’signal” that at all.
And a little clartiy would be in order. There isn’t a jurist alive who wouldn’t say that that they believe in stare decisis. It’s not something you believe in or you don’t, it’s a fact of law.
And, the fact is that Roe vs. Wade is getting awfully close to landing firmly under its protection to any non-activist judge. That’s why this next selection is most likely the very last shot. Give it to a liberal, and by the time there’s ever another chance, it’ll be too late.
What Rudy has done is said that it would be up to a judge to make the call. That’s as it has to be unless you want judicial activism your own way, in which case I don’t consider you a conservative.
Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Anyone that thinks abortion will ever be illegal in America again is dreaming.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 28, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I’ve had problems with McCain since he stepped on the First Amendment. He knows the problem Washington faces– it’s awash in special interest money which has a growing corrosiveness on politics. His solution did nothing to solve that problem though.
But a ‘true’ conservative shouldn’t have a problem with his refusal to go along with the Bush tax cuts– as I remember it he wanted spending cuts to go with the tax cuts. I thought a ‘true’ conservative considered deficit spending anathema.
I’ll certainly hold my nose and vote for McCain if he’s the candidate.
I accept his acknowledgement that the country wants the border sealed. What we do with the illegals that are already here is really a different issue.
brian e. on January 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Then I guess I didn’t hear Giuliani say that Roe v Wade was settled law </sarcasm>
If reversing patently-wrong by the Constitution decisions by the courts is no longer conservative, then don’t call me a conservative. If getting social decisions out of the courts and back to the other two branches of government (specifically the state level) is no longer conservative, then don’t call me a conservative.
steveegg on January 28, 2008 at 3:26 PM
This is an issue that should be decided at the state level, and not at a federal level. It is not the federal governments job to legislate “morality”.
Leave morality to the Church.
However, since the genie is out of the bottle at the federal level, and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle; the best we can hope for is a repeal of the federal law, and for it to be returned to the state governments.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 28, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Exactly. The federal government’s job is to legislate Immorality, and they’re quite good at making it perfectly acceptable.
Sorry. I do agree with you, but I couldn’t pass that up.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Hey, his words good enough for me.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Nugent/Thompson 08
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 2:47 PM
How about Ted and Shaman 08, that would get both the men’s and men’s vote and Ted might even get a few women beside.
flytier on January 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 2:34 PM
After reading you this afternoon, I doubt you know enough about the Cristian religion to make an intelligent determination regarding their beliefs.
I do not know you personally thank God, but if your personality is anything like what your written words indicate, you come across lacking, seriously lacking. You cannot win respect and influence by name calling.
As far as your quest for the perfect politician, good luck. The rest of us will continue to live in the real word. We will pick the best of whats out there, and do our best to influence his decisions.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 3:43 PM
If you can show me any quote anywhere at any time where Rudy made such a statement–that Roe is settled law–I’ll cease to support him.
I say that absolutely convinced that he never has.
What I have heard him say is that if Roe were overturned by a strict-constructionist judge, or upheld on the basis of stare decisis, he’d be comfortable with either ruling.
And while I personally would not like the latter ruling, I would at least accept it as constitutionally somewhat acceptable if in such a ruling the fact that the original ruling was a farce was made plain.
But again–and I think the point’s been missed and that’s my frustration–you get one more vacancy, appoint one ore liberal, have it looked at one more time, and then, as far as I’m concerened, it’s very hard to make the case it isn’t settled.
Thus my frustration.
The right seems to be looking for someone to tuck them in with some milk and cookies and an assurance if they’re elcted that Roe will go away, and stand in a corner and stamp their collective feet when no one steps up and panders to what they want.
Well, they’re not getting that.
Their very best shot is a President who will appoint a strict constructionist and fight tooth and nail to get that person on the bench.
And the Dems will play the lowest, meanest, vilest hardball you can possibly imagine because they know this is endgame on their beloved Roe.
Who will pick that judge and fight that fight?
That’s been my question all along and I don’t think there’s any question the answer is Rudy.
And that’s one of the main reason’s he’s had my support since day one.
Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM
LOL! I know enough to at least spell it correctly.
Again with the lunacy. A non-Christian telling a Christian he doesn’t know anything about the Christian religion.
Tell me again spanky. Which Christian faith accepts LYING as part of their accepted values?
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Sorry about being off subject earlier. I doubt Juan McTwoface has it in him to appoint a true conservative to the bench regardless of what he says in his campaign speeches.
He is too concerned about being the most loved POTUS to worry about doing whats right.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I never use spell check, so occasionally my mistakes slip by me.
Which religion teaches you to be so snotty? Just accept people for what they are, none of us is perfect.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 4:05 PM
At best Guiliani was ambivalent on whether Roe v Wade should be overturned in the 5/3/2007 MSNBC debate (the first portion of the linked YouTube video). I’ll continue the search through the video archives.
steveegg on January 28, 2008 at 4:07 PM
It is more than clear that you are hostile when it comes evangelical Christians. Tolerance is a Christian value, sport. You are clearly not practicing what you proclaim is part of your faith. Does that make YOU a compuslive liar? I think it does by your own definition of the term.
highhopes on January 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM
That was tacky, snotty and un-called for.
kcd on January 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Shaman as in Witchdoctor? Sounds better than McLame
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM
“Let me just look you in the eye”…with the one that isn’t winking incessantly.
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Shaman as in Witchdoctor? Sounds better than McLame
Buttercup on January 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Opps! Make that Shemane
flytier on January 28, 2008 at 4:23 PM
That’s the quote to which I was referring.
Search if you want, but you’re wasting your time. He never said it was settled law.
Here’s the thing, to me at any rate: What it sounds like you’re saying–and many others–is that you want a nominee who will say that he will only appoint judges who will say flat-out and upfront that they’ll vote on this issue.
Fine if you want to take that view–the Dems certainly do–but I consider that to be judicial activism, and not conservatism, regardless of who’s taking what side at any given time. Therefore whatever a condidates personal views are on any subject before the court, or even his view of how a matter might be decided are and should be to a conservative, pretty much beside the point.
What’s of absolutely critical importance is that the candidate will apoint judges who won’t make it up as they go along, then–every bit as important–fight the bitter battles that will surely come to get them on the bench.
The rest is irrelevent.
Typhoon on January 28, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I get it. Just accept the candidates for who they are and vote for them anyway. Got it.
Thanks for the advice.
P.S. So how well did you follow that concept when John Kerry was running for President?
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Really? I thought for sure that it was clear that I simply called out “Christians” who insist on voting for a snake of a human being for President. I don’t recall mentioning anything about Evangelicals. Can you point that comment out to me to refresh my memory?
I guess this would be another example of Huckabee supporters lying, misrepresenting facts, or saying anything if it helps their cause.
Very Christian of you.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Okay mom.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Just accept that huckabee is number six on this list and vote for him anyway. Nobody’s perfect.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You tell me. What’s moronic about voters who support a candidate who holds the values that they do?
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 4:55 PM
That is not at all what I am saying. You need to stop being so angry and think things through.
What I was trying to say is, that in an imperfect world, we must make allowances and coordinate our efforts in order to achieve the goals which we choose to pursue.
Those who cannot bend will surely break. But if you continue to refuse to support anyone that isn’t perfect, you will accomplish nothing.
You obviously are desperately looking for something to believe in, I hope you find it.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Yes, it is.
And you’ve chosen, as your goal, to nominate a man who lies every time he opens his mouth and currently sits at number six on the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list.
Or, is your guy the other one who lies every time he opens his mouth? You know? The one who’s never ever supported amnesty and always supported Bush’s tax cuts.
Way to set your goals high.
You need to stop being so
angryblindly biased and think things through.Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:42 PM
That’s what I mean about your anger, it forced you jumped to the wrong conclusion again. I have been a Fred/Mitt supporter from day one. Though I would have preferred Fred, I will now give my full support to the Mitt.
And you sir have gone from just being obnoxious to being an obnoxious jackass.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 5:53 PM
ROFL! Hey, remember this?
How ironic, huh?
Just keep throwing your nonsense out there. It’s entertaining.
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I cannot think of any reason why anyone in their right mind would care about whether or not you respect them.
Like a parent that has a child that has pushed them to the limit, your obnoxious childish behavior would bring out the worst in anyone. I apologize for my remarks that offend you.
Now lets get back on subject, I am sick of discussing your childish behavior.
leanright on January 28, 2008 at 6:15 PM
You’re a very unique character, aren’t you. You can’t quite remember what you say seconds after you say it. You seem extremely confused, even in your own beliefs.
You might recall that YOU were the one who wrote the comment about winning the respect of others, and then you went right ahead and hypocritically violated your own suggestion. I couldn’t possibly care any less if you respect me. Actually, I’d prefer that most of those arguing with me over the McCain situation (all three of them) NOT respect me. I might start to worry if I found myself agreeing with such people.
Yeah, we all know. It’s not your fault. It’s someone else’s fault that you lost it and resorted to name calling, right?
Of course, when the moron HeeHaw decided, without knowing me, to suggest that I hadn’t done anything for my country, and then further decided to suggest that I was lying regarding my military service, suddenly name calling is way way off base. Is that how it works?
And now we’re right back to name calling. See? It took you no more than 1.5 seconds to completely forget your own philosophy. That’s gotta be a record, don’t you think? Do you have trouble remember which toothbrush is yours?
Gregor on January 28, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »