Bob Novak confirms McCain’s anti-Alito comment

posted at 9:10 am on January 31, 2008 by Bryan

On Monday, the day before the Florida primary, John Fund reported that John McCain had told a group of lawyers that while he would appoint a John Roberts to the SCOTUS, he might draw the line at appointing a Sam Alito because he “wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” McCain’s campaign initially responded with a sort of offended non-response, but by the day’s end McCain had offered up an unequivocal denial to NRO’s Byron York.

“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.”

Fund appeared on Mark Levin’s radio show Monday night and stood by his report. At that time, I considered the matter in Fund’s court, since we didn’t have enough detail about the comments to know how to evaluate their veracity.

Well, Bob Novak has confirmed that Fund’s report is accurate.

Fund wrote that McCain “has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice 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.’ ” In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, “I don’t recall a conversation where I would have said that.” He was “astonished” by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, “We’re going to have justices like Roberts and Alito.”

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

“Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?” one lawyer commented. McCain replied, “Well, certainly Roberts.” Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

By my count that makes at least four sources who contradict McCain, though annoyingly, none of them are on the record by name and other than the April 2007 date we don’t have specifics about the meeting. It’s almost as though both Novak and Fund are dribbling out just enough detail to keep McCain off balance without the chance to know exactly where the allegations are coming from.

On the other hand, after McCain’s dishonest performance in the debate last night, no one has much reason to take him at his word when he denies having made the anti-Alito statement. So I would say that with two reporters independently verifying the remarks via multiple sources, the ball is now in McCain’s court.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Unless America wakes up to what McCain really is, he is going to be our nominee. And that scares me more than I can tell you!

IrishGirl17 on January 31, 2008 at 9:15 AM

the ball is now in McCain’s court

There is no one out there willing to return the serve so he can hide the ball all the way to the nomination.

Valiant on January 31, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Why doesn’t he just run as a Dem and defeat Shrillary and B hussein there? Sheesh. The more I hear him the less I, at this point, respect him.

CrimsonFisted on January 31, 2008 at 9:16 AM

On the other hand, after McCain’s dishonest performance in the debate last night, no one has much reason to take him at his word when he denies having made the anti-Alito statement.

“Dishonest?” You’re more generous than I feel like being.

McCain’s performance last night left a very bitter taste in my mouth. If anyone sees him at CPAC, ask him why he hates money, okay?

Slublog on January 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM

I have a friend who is more or less supporting McCain. Her reasoning is that he is more electable and he will nominate conservative judges. She figures that without him, the Dems will win the White House and we will have decades of dealing with their judicial appointees. I’m sympathetic to her reasoning, and if we want to beat McCain we have to show people like her that he’s a)not the only one who can win and b) won’t necessarily nominate conservative judges. Unfortunately, I think her take on all of this would be that judges in the Roberts mold are better than more of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. And I have to agree that is a valid point.

So the question is, can anyone else win?

TX Mom on January 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM

So now you are an expert on McCain’s position? Did he vote to confirm? That is all that matters.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 9:19 AM

The guy may not be a traitor to our Country, but he is a traitor to the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Tim Burton on January 31, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Electing McCain is not much different than electing Hillary or Obama. I say elect one of the Dems and then we are in much better shape in 2010 to make gains in the house and senate. I do reserve the right to change my mind, however.

bopbottle on January 31, 2008 at 9:21 AM

So the question is, can anyone else win?

TX Mom on January 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Not Mitt

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Well….it is certainly true that Obama or Clinton would nominate and get confirmed more “Ginsberg” style left-wing judges — and of course Hillary might nominate Bill just to get him out of the white house and the Dem controlled congress would rubber stamp him. McCain would not do that.

SunSword on January 31, 2008 at 9:26 AM

I brought up the judge issue at IllinoisReview.com and the McCain supporters said that my choices were “50-50 with McCain, and 0 with Obamary”, and this was supposed to be an endorsement of his position on judges.

Good grief.

Jaibones on January 31, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Why do politicians who lie without blinking an eye seem to attract the largest groups of voters?

volsense on January 31, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Both Mitt and McCain can beat Hillary because she will energize the Republican voters. Mitt has a better chance of beating Obama than McCain because disenchanted voters will stay home in droves to protest McCain. We dislike Hillary more than McCain, but not by much. I’m not sure either of them can beat Obama.

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Listen to the Left, read the leftist newspapers-are they worried about McCain? No.
Are they worried about Romney? You bet. Local paper here says that it is certain that McCain can ‘beat either Dem’. I don’t believe the local paper.
I had reservations about Fred(!) because of his age, and McCain is older and even more cranky. Do you want Grampa Simpson in the Oval Office? I don’t.
Romney can beat any Dem out there, but that’s not the most important feature for choosing him. He can also lead the country well after winning.
The most favorable thing I can mention is that to boost Romney instead of McCain, I don’t have to move to the left politically. I don’t have to surrender my conservatism.
Super Tuesday looms. Vote with both your hearts and your heads, friends.

Doug on January 31, 2008 at 9:31 AM

The problem with the GOP is that the GOP is not conservative. Go ahead and continue to bash McCain for not being ‘conservative’. . . but the reason he’s winning is because there isn’t a conservative to choose from.

Really with all of the issues with the Mayor of New York, why is it only now that people are upset with someone’s lack of conservative credentials? McCain is more conservative and better on defense than the Mayor – yet not much on him when he was ‘inevitable’.

And also with the ‘Romney is the great conservative hope’ nonsense. Romney is no conservative either. His greatest asset is that he has changed his mind when he was wrong. Mitt is a fine man, I respect him and his great family, but he’s no conservative either.

The sooner people here wake up and realize that McCain is going to be the nominee because there weren’t any conservatives running, the better off you will all be.

Huckabee could actually win several states next week and he’s got more of a chance to be the nominee than Mitt does. So if it’s anti-McCain, why isn’t there more pro-Huckabee? I don’t understand why Mitt gets a pass on his liberal stances on issues from a (THE) liberal state known as ‘taxachusetts’.

That’s the thing that gets me about all this WHINING and VICTIMHOOD on display here over McCain. McCain is no worse than any of the top 4 in the ‘conservative’ spectrum.

Of course I grew up with Jesse Helms conservatism . . . and I don’t hear many people clamoring for his brand of conservatism any time soon. . . though he was HATED and DEMONIZED by the press and the left. I guarantee you that the Reagan Revolution was led by Jesse Helms’ conservative movement.

Nobody (even Fred) comes close to touching the conservative credentials of Jesse Helms. So until I hear people on here clamoring for another Jesse Helms, your complaints about ‘not being conservative’, and another guy as the ‘great conservative hope’ fall on my deaf ears.

ThackerAgency on January 31, 2008 at 9:33 AM

McCain is only qualified for Secretary of Defense not President.

ctmom on January 31, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Hillary might nominate Bill

Shudder.

TX Mom on January 31, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Forget believability. Both McCain and Hillary are as believable as Joe Isuzu. But McCain may be the only candidate out there that is close to being as UNLIKABLE as Hillary. These two will make for one great campaign, no? Both will be hated by large segments of their own party.
Can you even imagine the two of them standing on a stage together for a debate? Maybe that’s when most Americans will look at the TV screen and realize how totally screwed up politics has become. THESE TWO are what we have to choose from? Eck.

Sugar Land on January 31, 2008 at 9:37 AM

the ball is now in McCain’s court.

Don’t hold your breath. McCain’s too busy trying to figure out who ate the strawberries.

highhopes on January 31, 2008 at 9:41 AM

The MSM is salivating at the thought of McCain being the nominee. Either Clinton or McCain will open the borders and millions of new democratic voters will be registered. The GOP is on the edge of the abyss of their existence. With the one party system in place, socialism will destroy the foundations our nation were built on.

volsense on January 31, 2008 at 9:43 AM

That’s the thing that gets me about all this WHINING and VICTIMHOOD on display here over McCain. McCain is no worse than any of the top 4 in the ‘conservative’ spectrum.

Just happened to read your comment. FWIW, I think the feeling is that Rudy or Romney will, as someone said yesterday, dance with the one who brought him to the ball. Not so with McCain. May explain much of the diff. in attitudes towards him, and the pass you see the others got/getting.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 9:43 AM

The sooner people here wake up and realize that McCain is going to be the nominee because there weren’t any conservatives running, the better off you will all be.

I’m not going to “just shut up” and get behind McCain because he’s the nominee. Even if that muddle-headed thinking is true, I’m never EVER going to vote for Juan McCain. He called me unpatriotic because I didn’t support his amnesty plan. Well, this “unpatriotic” conservative isn’t going to give aid and comfort to the enemy by supporting McCain in any way, shape, or form.

highhopes on January 31, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Conservatives just got two of their own judges appointed and McCain supported both. Why is everyone foaming at the mouth? You got what you wanted.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Bryan,

We get your point, you don’t like McCain.

Your continous smears, just like those that Romney have been pouring down the TV hole will only solidify me behind McCain further.

George W. was wrong to smear John MCain in 2000. Mac should have fough back harder then. He learned his lesson and Romney ain’t getting a free ride.

You can make all of the whining blogposts you want. Romney will not be the nominee.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 9:48 AM

McCain has been quoted as saying that Alito is too conservative. McCain then states that he is the only candidate that can unite the conservatives? This makes about as much sense as McCain stating that Romney was for “Time Tables”. I question McCains ability to analyze and make rational judgements.

PappaMac on January 31, 2008 at 9:48 AM

I’m still scratching my head wondering if people are drinking funny water or something that they would even consider someone like McCain The Pain as being a viable candidate. The guy is the literal walking definition of what a RINO really is, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, he changes his mind depending on which direction the wind is blowing, and what is worse, privately he has shown himself to be a vile, detestable human being with an equally vile temper. Not to mention his known ability of using the F word with extreme prejudice. Next to Hill The Shill, I cannot think of anyone who would do more damage to this country within the completion of their first (and hopefully ONLY) term in office than McCain.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! RUSH AND MARK LEVIN ARE RIGHT! THIS GUY CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!!!!

pilamaye on January 31, 2008 at 9:49 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 9:48 AM

This is nothing compared to Sunday and Monday before Florida.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Your continous smears, just like those that Romney have been pouring down the TV hole will only solidify me behind McCain further.

How is pointing out McCain’s record a “smear?”

Slublog on January 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM

I’m not saying you should ‘just shut up’ and ‘get behind McCain’. I’m not behind McCain. . . but I haven’t been behind any of the candidates because they are all D’s.

I will need the link where McCain called you unpatriotic for not supporting his amnesty plan. Lindsey Graham said things like that, but I don’t recall McCain blasting critics of this plan as ‘bigots’, or ‘unpatriotic’.

McCain was WRONG for putting up that immigration bill. But ALL of the candidates are WRONG on immigration. Mitt HIRED illegal aliens to work on his yard. You can spin it all you want, but I don’t know of any other candidates with illegal aliens working for them.

My point is that I am AMAZED at the hatred being spewed here for someone who is no less conservative than any of the ‘favorites’ of commentors on here. McCain ran a great campaign. It was textbook classic perfect primary campaign. You could learn a lot from it. That’s a LOT more than I can say for any of the other ‘conservative’ choices.

ThackerAgency on January 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Levin needs to find a new line of work. He embarasses the republican party with his tissy fits.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM

If John McCain is a conservative, why is it he has spent the past dozen years attacking and criticizing conservatives while PRAISING liberals?

EJDolbow on January 31, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Assuming McCain is the nominee, he’s in for a rude awakening. He thinks the MSM will continue to love him. They won’t. He has an (R) after his name. The moment he secures the nomination he’ll become Public Enemy No. 1. Does he seriously believe the New York Times will endorse him in November?
The MSM hasn’t made a big deal about his age… yet. Once he wins the nomination all we’ll hear from the MSM is: ‘McCain is 72′ and ‘McCain has lost the GOP base.’
Naturally, they’ll circle the wagons around Clinton/Obama. It’s all depressingly predictable.

infidel65 on January 31, 2008 at 9:52 AM

highhopes on January 31, 2008 at 9:45 AM

If you allow a Democrat to win because John McCain hurt your feelings, what does that say about your patriotism?

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 9:53 AM

If Conservatives will get behind the most conservative person running, Mitt, I believe he can beat McCain and Hillary or Obama! He CAN beat McCain because any way you cut it, McCain is much more contreversal than Romney! In other words, these folks that are going to sit it out, or worse yet, vote for a dim if McCain gets the nomination, would come much closer to voting for Romney in the general against Hillary or Obama.

kcd on January 31, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Man did Romney look uncomfortable last night. We need some prominent conservatives to call him up like Billary and tell him to “Chill Out”.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Conservatives seem to be backing McShamesty because of his war record and some evangelicals say it’s because Romney is a Mormon. I’m a conservative independent Baptist and I’ll vote for Romney before I vote for the Shamster, simply because I don’t think Mitt will be influenced by the Morman church and if he is what will they influence him about, polygamy? He at least is moral and has changed his mind for the better and besides, he actually has had a real job and made money! What’s wrong with that? It’s that what this country was founded on, the right to pursue happiness?

flytier on January 31, 2008 at 9:56 AM

What a sorry cadre of shmucks. Do we have to draft Newt?

saiga on January 31, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Romney the suppossed genius planner, has suspended TV ads except for California? Would someone send the Wall Street Mogul a line and let him know Cali is NOT winner take all. At best he could split the 170 something delegates.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Bryan,

We get your point, you don’t like McCain.

Your continous smears, just like those that Romney have been pouring down the TV hole will only solidify me behind McCain further.

George W. was wrong to smear John MCain in 2000. Mac should have fough back harder then. He learned his lesson and Romney ain’t getting a free ride.

You can make all of the whining blogposts you want. Romney will not be the nominee.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 9:48 AM

JayHaw, it appears your guy will get the nomination and congratulations. That nomination will push me and other conservatives out of showing up to vote ensures McShamnesty will NEVER be the POTUS! Did I mention congratulations on the nomination.

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Doug-

Do you want Grandpa Simpson in the Oval Office?

Over John McVain, sure.

At least the cartoon character is honest.

profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM

NEWT, can’t save you. He’s carried the conservative flag for a long time whle hyping family values. The whole time Newt was bangin’ anything that moved.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 10:00 AM

highhopes on January 31, 2008 at 9:45 AM

In all fairness, most of the smears have come from the commenters, although Bryan does little to shield his obvious contempt for this great American that has served his country with honor and distinction far more than any of us on this board can claim.

Comments like”

Juan McShamnesty (admittedly funny)
Traitor
Rino

etc,

These are smears and unpersuasive arguments.

Veterens, like me, do not think highly of unaccomplished internet posters referring to a great man that has suffered on behalf of his country as a traitor. McCain’s critics have lost all credibility and I ignore all of their smears now.

Romney has flip flopped on life. McCain never has.

Romney has flip flopped on Gay Marraige, Mac never has.

Romney hedged on Iraq, Mac backed the toops all the way.

You may not like some of Mac’s positions, but they will not change with the first win.

Yiu nay not like all the things Mac has to say, because unlike Romney, Mac won’t pander to you.

Mitt is Bill Clinton wrapped up in a nice conservative looking package. He will say or do anything to win and he has no convictions or integrity. His type of poltics are the past.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM

JayHaw, it appears your guy will get the nomination and congratulations. That nomination will push me and other conservatives out of showing up to vote ensures McShamnesty will NEVER be the POTUS! Did I mention congratulations on the nomination.

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM

It looks like McCain is in a good position, But after his sickening performance on shamnesty, I just can’t vote for him. That’s just how it is right now.

saiga on January 31, 2008 at 10:03 AM

McCain was WRONG for putting up that immigration bill. But ALL of the candidates are WRONG on immigration. Mitt HIRED illegal aliens to work on his yard. You can spin it all you want, but I don’t know of any other candidates with illegal aliens working for them.

No, he hired a landscaping company to work on his lawn. that company used illegal aliens. Do you expect him to demand to see the papers of every employee of any third party doing work for him?

It’s sloppy on his part, and he could probably sue the company for breach of contract.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 31, 2008 at 10:03 AM

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Here is the link for you to donate to the DNC. Since you support them so much, don’t hold back!!! give till it hurts.

https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute?source=NETA454

Hobama elcomes you to the party of Change.

Meanwhile, I am backing the Republican candidate.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:04 AM

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Say, if McCain has operated his whole life out of patriotism instead of profit, why did he divorce his first wife after she was injured, and marry the present one? Balance sheet? Lot of that going around.

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 10:06 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM

You’re pushing it. I’m a veteran too, so don’t play that card on me. And I’ve never ever called McCain a “traitor” and I don’t use the “McVain” name. Never have.

I do question his conservative bona fides, but I do that based entirely on his record, and especially his recent record. Argue with me all you want based on that, but don’t put words in my mouth that I haven’t used.

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:06 AM

Maybe there will be some surprize in the next few months, and a new face will magically appear to save the day.

saiga on January 31, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Veterens, like me, do not think highly of unaccomplished internet posters referring to a great man that has suffered on behalf of his country as a traitor. McCain’s critics have lost all credibility and I ignore all of their smears now.

You’re not the only veteran here. I’ve served in 5 of our military adventures since 1986 and still serve. I never diss McCain’s military service and never will, but I also refuse to let the “I was a POW” line serve as a shield to legitimate differences of policy. He attempts to deflect all criticism with the “I was a POW” line. Being a POW 40 plus years ago does not provide absolute moral authority.

I’ve spent more time in combat zones and places where we were fighting the war on drugs than most people end up serving in the military and I WILL NEVER vote for John McCain. Find another substantive argument…”I am hero” is not substantive, it is an attempt to deflect honest criticism of McShamnesty’s actions and that is wrong!

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:06 AM

As a veteren, what is your opinion on Romney’s comments that his son’s are serving America by trying to get him elected?

Did you know that two of Mac’s sons are serving in Iraq? That is real service, not working for daddy in the family business.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Yiu nay not like all the things Mac has to say, because unlike Romney, Mac won’t pander to you.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I assume you mean John’s open borders policy, attacks on the 1st Amendment, vote against tax cuts, working hand in glove with Uncle Teddy,..stuff like that? Can you tell us why the New York Times likes him?

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 10:11 AM

I do question his conservative bona fides, but I do that based entirely on his record, and especially his recent record.

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:06 AM

Have you forgotten Mitt’s record? How do his bona fides look, looking past his recent rhetoric and actually looking at his record and his campaign promises to Mass?

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 10:13 AM

All I know is that rewarding 20 million law breakers is very very very stupid. Amy damn fool knows it will just encourage more of it. Latin America is deeply corrupt, and that charectaristic comes across the border with the illegals and all these people can easily rationalize that steeling identity is “OK”. We need our people to be on board with the rule of law, and these people have shown their ass.

saiga on January 31, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Let’s not forget our current president also strongly backed shamnesty. He also signed McCain-Feingold. He didn’t have to; he could have vetoed it, but chose not to.

infidel65 on January 31, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Romney hedged on Iraq, Mac backed the toops all the way.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM

How can you make any link hedging on Iraq and backing the troops? I think this is a false dichotomy. What Romney said on that day made a whole lot of sense, and for his view to be distorted like this (i.e. imply he didn’t back the troops) is unfair and unwarranted.

mycowardice on January 31, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Veterens, like me, do not think highly of unaccomplished internet posters referring to a great man that has suffered on behalf of his country as a traitor. McCain’s critics have lost all credibility and I ignore all of their smears now.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I see. So, nonvets have no right to criticize vets running for public office. I wasn’t aware of that.

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 10:15 AM

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 10:10 AM

You call yourself a veteren, but you try to diminish McCain’s heroism, to just being a PO.

John McCain spent years in a Vietnam prisoner camp, when he could have gone home, because he had too much integrity to allow the North Vietnamese to use him for propaganda.

You can try to dismiss that as,

“I was a POW” line

But tell me this, aside from changing his positions everytime the wind blows, name one thing Romney has done in his entire lfe that displays even 1/10th the integrety and sacrafice of Mac.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:15 AM

mycowardice on January 31, 2008 at 10:14 AM

I have never wavered in my belief that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Not for one minute, not for one second.

Romney’s hedges do not impress me.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:17 AM

But tell me this, aside from changing his positions everytime the wind blows, name one thing Romney has done in his entire lfe that displays even 1/10th the integrety and sacrafice of Mac.

Politically or personally? Because I don’t believe McCain is currently showing much political integrity when he distorts his record.

Slublog on January 31, 2008 at 10:18 AM

But tell me this, aside from changing his positions everytime the wind blows, name one thing Romney has done in his entire lfe that displays even 1/10th the integrety and sacrafice of Mac.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:15 AM

He didn’t dump his wife for a younger, richer, healthier one. How’s that?

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 10:18 AM

no one has much reason to take him at his word

I have never had much reason to take McCain at his word.

fourstringfuror on January 31, 2008 at 10:19 AM

How is pointing out McCain’s record a “smear?”

Slublog on January 31, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Simple; McCain is the LeftStreamMedia’s pick for the R nomination. Therefore, pointing out any of his flaws is by definition a “smear”.

Of course, should he be the nominee, his record will suddenly and magically be a “legitimate target”, along with the Keating Five, the Forrestal, the Hanoi Hilton, his first wife, and his checkered Naval Academy record, all because at that point, he will be going up against a liberal honest enough to have a “D” behind his or her name.

steveegg on January 31, 2008 at 10:19 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:11 AM

I thought Romney’s comments at that time were inane. Romney has been his own worst enemy sometimes, and that was undoubtedly one of those times.

I for one don’t question McCain’s patriotism, never have. I wrote a few days back that I would looooove to support McCain if for no other reason than to stick a finger in the eye of people like Clinton who were preserving their “policital viability” while McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton. And I would if McCain was better on the issues. But he’s unreliable on everything but the war imho. That doesn’t mean I think he’s evil or bad (though I do question his honesty after last night). I just don’t trust his judgment.

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:21 AM

You call yourself a veteren, but you try to diminish McCain’s heroism, to just being a PO.

JayHaw, I don’t just call myself a veteran…I am a vet and have spent much of my adult life in far away places doing my duty for my country. I have never diminished McCain’s service. You on the other hand attack me and my service because I happen to dislike your candidate’s politics. Once again you attack me and accuse me of diminishing Mac’s service. I have never done that. You are just as dishonest as Sen McCain. You are a f’n idiot!

jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Veterens, like me, do not think highly of unaccomplished internet posters

Unaccomplished internet posters do not think highly people who can’t spell veteran.

fourstringfuror on January 31, 2008 at 10:22 AM

a capella on January 31, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Yu have the right to your opinion. Heck, I spent part of my life working to help us all keep that right.

But, quite frankly, I have the right to completely disregard your opinion, when you refer to a great American as a traitor.

Petreus is not a traitor. Everyone on this board understood that the left went way to far in calling him a traitor to try to score cheap political points.

Yet, I hear so many on this board throwing that smear at Mac, and for what, cheap political points?

When a Conservative uses the tactics of Moveon.org, that conservative has lost his way.

Hypocrisy is more of a Democrat thing.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Now that is a reasonable criticism.

I have wavered on Mac, though I have never questioned his patriotism, but when Rudy’s strategy failed, I came on board the Mac bandwagon and I am not coming off.

I trust Mac. I don’t trust Romney.

I work as a retail buyer. All day long people sit down and tell me what they think I want to hear in the hopes of making the sale.

Perhaps because I see so many BS sales pitches as part of my job, it is a bit easier for me to realize that Mitt’s entire campaign is built on BS.

If Romney will pander to you now, he will pander to someone else as soon as the road gets rough and have all new positions. Mac will not.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM

fourstringfuror on January 31, 2008 at 10:22 AM

If you do not have a winning argument, go for typos!

You are correct, my bad typing proves you are a genius.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM

have never wavered in my belief that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Not for one minute, not for one second.

Romney’s hedges do not impress me.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:17 AM

You didn’t even waver when they announced there were no WMDs?

mycowardice on January 31, 2008 at 10:33 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I just don’t think it’s pandering, which is the difference I guess. But even if it was, I guess I would rather take a chance on the panderer I don’t know than the maverick that I do know. We already know that McCain will curb free speech and won’t secure the border. I know what he’s saying now, but he also said after South Carolina that he he hasn’t changed his position on border security. So which is it?

I had hoped that he would at least be solid on judicial appointments, but Fund and Novak have uncovered evidence that he won’t be. Would he be better than a Hillary or Obama? Probably. But he’s not being reassuring, and I have to tell you that last night’s debate performance left me incensed at him. Not just about the Romney/Iraq thing, but even more fundamentally, his belittling of free enterprise. That’s the left’s language of class warfare. I don’t want to hear it from a Republican, ever.

Bryan on January 31, 2008 at 10:35 AM

and I have to tell you that last night’s debate performance left me incensed at him.

I got that impression. :)

But, you have got to lookat it in context. In 2000, Mac played the game with his fellow candidates, the “nicey nicey” way. W smeared him, won the nomination and never looked back.

I buried my anger and came on board with W and for most of his term have not regretted it.

But, Mac learned, and he is playing hardball now. Perhaps too aggressively, but he will bring that same game to Hobama. Mac is not going to roll over for anyone any more.

Mac is playing to win and he will keep Hobama out of the White Gouse.

Team Clinton and Team Obama are drooling at the prospect of playing identity politics with a Mormon.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM

If you do not have a winning argument, go for typos!

You are correct, my bad typing proves you are a genius.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:30 AM

I have no quarrel with you. I was reminding you how to spell veteran. I’m trying to win anything.

fourstringfuror on January 31, 2008 at 10:49 AM

If Romney will pander to you now, he will pander to someone else as soon as the road gets rough and have all new positions. Mac will not.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM

That is EXACTLY what McCain HAS DONE on illegal alien deportation, enforcing the border, building a border fence

PappaMac on January 31, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Just the fact that McCain’s judgement can justify granting amnesty to 20 million cheating, lawless, illegal immigrants tells me his judgement is very poor.

Not understanding the citizens of the United States and what they think is worth protecting here rules him out for me.

saiga on January 31, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Check out Drudge; he may not like Alito, but he apparently hates (ahem) “gooks”.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

Are you listening, Mitt? McLame may have his own historical “macacque” moment to explain…

Spanglemaker on January 31, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Bryan:

“McCain’s dishonest performance in the debate last night”

From last night’s posted clips, McCain was beligerant, but not dishonest.

From accounts, it is pushing the envelope beyond legitimacy to call McCain dishonest.

Listening to Laura Ingraham just now, interviewed NYT editor on McCain’s campaign and then her previous boss on the GOP platform.

Coalition is still in the works, whether it’s Romney or McCain that gets the nomination.

maverick muse on January 31, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Spanglemaker on January 31, 2008 at 11:40 AM

The only Asian-Americans taking offense to McCain’s memory of the Viet Cong “gooks” who tortured every American POW would be Asian-Americans sympathetic to the Viet Cong gooks.

McCain’s reference to gooks is limited to his captors, not to the Vietnamese people or any other Asian or American.

If Romney bloodies his hands to promote divisive sentiment, he seals his own failure.

maverick muse on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM