Video: John McCain on “elitist lawyers and law professors”
posted at 8:35 am on May 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
For those who missed John McCain’s speech on the judiciary yesterday, this video gives the best look at the attack segment of the address at Wake Forest University. McCain emphasized that his opponents would take radically different approaches to judicial appointments and how destructive that would be to the balance of power as structured in the Constitution. McCain also went after both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their “elitism”:
Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other.
Yesterday, Barack Obama tried to push back against the charge of elitism, claiming that he and Michelle’s upbringing came a lot closer to the normal American experience than either McCain or Hillary Clinton. However, both Obamas wound up attending Ivy League universities, and both of them moved very quickly into the power elite of the Left. McCain grew up in the Navy, not in wealth and largesse, and served for decades in the armed forces before entering political life. And McCain didn’t fawningly endorse the snobbish view of middle America held by denizens of Billionaires Row in San Francisco in a private fundraiser.
Oddly, Obama wants to base elitism in money, while the rest of us see it in attitude. In America, one does not have to be born into an elite; one can join its membership by hard work and ambition. Barack Obama of all people should understand that.
McCain needs to press this point hard in the upcoming campaign. What kind of justices would Obama appoint? Would they be the kind that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn would approve, or perhaps Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, who were two of only 20 Democrats to join Obama in opposing John Roberts?
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 »
Ugh, Obama in the WH. Is this REALLY a possibility?
Bishop on May 7, 2008 at 8:41 AM
How about elitist politicians who although the people have told him repeatedly they want a fence and no comprehensive immigration plan, aka, amnesty, he thinks he knows better than us?
Blake on May 7, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Did he give this same speech the the La Raza vatos ??
Prick.
redrock on May 7, 2008 at 8:43 AM
I’m still leaving my vote for president blank–which in Florida is a vote for algore.
TwinkietheKid on May 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Wake Up - The only choice in this election is John McCain. Any other vote (or staying home) is a vote for disaster in this country.
Act like adults for God’s sake.
Colonel_prop on May 7, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Well hey, take out your anger on McCain and stay home; when Barack and Michelle are busy redecorating the White House with photos of Wright and the flag of Kenya, you can be secure in the knowledge that you made a stand.
With JM at least you have a shot and getting things done such as the wall, with BO and his wife Harpy you can rest assured that tough immigration laws will never see the light of day.
Bishop on May 7, 2008 at 8:51 AM
“Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
At least, according to his campaign
Quisp on May 7, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Mr. Poopy-head feels sorry for Mexicans…Ain’t it a cryin’ shame.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I will not be bullied or guilted into voting for anyone I feel is not right for the job.
Not Obama, nor Hillary and not McCain.
This is a country with freedom of choice; I choose none of them. I believe I am aware of the consequences of not filing my vote for one of them and am willing to accept it. I WILL vote the underticket for local and state races. But for President, we will get what we deserve. I accept that. I just can’t ethically sell myself to a candidate based on him being the lesser of three evils.
My vote would have been meaningless if I just blindly voted the party line.
Texan on May 7, 2008 at 9:09 AM
I know what I’ll do…I’ll disenfranchise myself.
That’ll show ‘em.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I think the elitist label is a good frame of reference for conservatives, but I don’t know that it works with the general public, and it does risk confusing wealth (which is good) with the elitist attitudes (which is bad) and ends up being misunderstood and fueling class warfare, which is really bad.
There are better ways to frame this argument.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Someone needs to sit down with Senator McCain and explain to him that telling us who Senator Obama is, and what policies he wants to enact is NOT a winning strategy for the very simple reason that roughly half of the voters in this country want what Obama is selling.
Instead, Senator McCain needs to explain why Senator Obama’s policy ideas will be a disaster for the United States.
Senator Obama’s loyal supporters own , and have owned for 40 years, public education. As a result, half of the people voting for Obama and his policies have no idea what those policies mean for the future of the United States.
Someone buy a clue for Senator McCain. Please.
rockhauler on May 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM
OK, kids, you don’t like McCain. You’ve stomped your feet loud enough to make that clear. Well guess what? Your only choice in this election is between McCain and Obama/Clinton. No conservative is going to magically appear to save the day. If you choose to stay home, then you by default will vote for Obama/Clinton.
Instead of complaining here about McCain, why don’t you channel that negative energy toward McCain’s staff. Write letters/emails or call them. If enough conservatives call him rather than distance themselves from him, he is more likely to realize where his bread is buttered. He will be more likely to support policies with which you agree.
If you continue to disassociate yourselves with him, you might have a very different response. What if he thinks that he lost the hard-core conservatives, so instead he places more emphasis on the moderates and the Reagan Democrats? If he wins the election, you will lose, and if he loses the election, you will lose even worse. Either way a lose-lose situation for you.
DCGamer on May 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Rudy nailin’ it for Team McCain, with a giggle:
KELLY: It’s funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain’s point today said and I quote, “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Why the laughter?
GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It’s written by members of the Congress. It’s written by framers of the Constitution. It’s written by the people when they amend the Constitution.
And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.
I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?
Link
Shivas Irons on May 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Welcome to American politics, hell, world politics. You show me the perfect candidate and right off the bat I will find a handful of things that will make them not so perfect anymore.
Its all about being the lesser evil these days because that is mostly what the system creates and it is what it is. That underticket is a path for the new breed of professional pols who will eventually take their place at the top of the ticket, and they will find a way to make you revile them too. It never fails, it never has failed.
But hey, assist in throwing our nation into the ditch by giving all the branches of federal power to the democrats and reap the rewards which will follow. Is McCain perfect? No, but you can bet your ass he won’t be looking to have a sit-down with Iran any time soon.
Bishop on May 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Rush should initiate “OPERATION CHAOS- PART 2″ and instruct all the Hillary supporters (you know they listen to his show) to vote for McCain in November. Why I bet even Hillary would do that.
bloggless on May 7, 2008 at 9:18 AM
One other point - I think the term “activist judges” is also too inside. This term needs to be explained with specificity.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Argh, I swear I had written the word “Exactly!” below rockhauler’s comment.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM
To all the cry babies who don’t have a perfect candidate in this election. When a Marxist is setting policy for this country, you’ve gotten the government you deserve..Don’t vote for McCain at your own peril and expense. I can’t remember an election with a perfect candidate, an election where it wasn’t the lesser of two evils…President McCain sounds a hell of a lot better than President Barack Marxist Obama. The far right on this website is almost as bad as anything DailyKos or ZsaZsa Huffington have to offer…Get your head out of the sand……….
adamsmith on May 7, 2008 at 9:25 AM
One can rationalize not supporting McCain anyway that suits them.
If they’re just trying to leverage McCain into picking a Conservative V.P., that’s reasonable.
But if they claim to be Conservative and truly intend to sit out the election, then they’re implicitly supporting Obama.
there it is on May 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Bing.
It’s hard for me to think of a clearer example of our choice in this election than in the example of McCain and 97 other senators confirming as fully qualified Ruth Buzzy Krushchev Ginsburg, despite her flaming liberalism and the widely accepted knowledge that she would judge from a perspective far to the left of the American mainstream, vs the confirmation vote for Roberts, in which Obambi and Clinton both voted against confirmation of a justice seen widely as exceptionally qualified and a brilliant legal scholar. Roberts’s vivisection of the Senate confirmation panel Democrats will go down in history as Senate Comedy Gold.
The record will show that the GOP is the party of adults who understand the importance of the constitutional structure of our government, and the Democrats are partisan hacks.
All you McCain skeptics-foes-haters need to consider the realities of Presidential politics and the importance of this election. It’s not about you.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM
At the risk of rousing the ire of the purist bullies, I’m with you on this. McCain isn’t perfect but I see no reason to participate in the lasting punishment of America that will result from the election of a naive radical like Obama.
McCain is right on more things than he’s wrong on. Defeat Islamist terrorists, do not surrender to judicial activism, keep taxes low, do not nationalize and bureaucratize health care.
I’m voting McCain. With conviction.
Gilda on May 7, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Timing is everything, BD. I think he’s using the term now, when his audience is the base. The base understands this term like it understands red meat. A little salt and black pepper, a hot flame, and eat it with gusto.
In the general election campaign there will be plenty of time and a wider audience to expand on what “activist judges” really means for the average American.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Particularly since he conflates “the will of the people” with “elected representatives,” after having flaunted the most egregious display of elitism in trying to ram “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” through the Senate in spite of overwhelming opposition by “the people.”
In John McCain’s mind, his superior judgment substitutes for the will of the people.
Nichevo on May 7, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Great post. And yet the “True Conservatives” will turn around after calling him McTraitor or McVain or whatever, and then say “He’d better pick somebody I like for Veep, OR ELSE.”
Why the hell should he listen to somebody who has already declared hatred and inability to distinguish McCain from Obama?
funky chicken on May 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM
It seems to me, that the majority of Republicans put McCain over the top very early in the campaign.
McCain wasn’t my choice, but I’m a realist…I refuse to get all “bitter” about it…So, there’s no reason not to throw in with the majority.
I mean, after all, p’haps, it was me who was wrong.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM
It’s quite possible, the majority of Republicans put “immigration” a long way down the list of priorities.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 9:46 AM
On the Obama short list for SCOTUS, I present Patricia Williams, distinguished professor at Columbia Law:
Abstract Critical Race Theory (C.R.T.) has developed out of a deep dissatisfaction that many black legal scholars in the U.S. felt with liberal civil rights discourse, a discourse premised upon the ideals of assimilation, ‘colour-blindness’ and integration. In addition, the emergence of the Critical Legal Studies movement provided Critical Race theorists with an innovative lexicon and practice which allowed them to develop a critique of traditional race analysis and U.S. law. Patricia Williams has played a key role in the formation of the C.R.T. movement and is concerned with many of the C.R.T. themes: the understanding that traditional civil rights law has benefited whites more than blacks, the ‘call to context’, and the critique of liberalism by the assertion that racism is routine and not aberrational. Following the C.R.T. belief that form and substance are connected, Williams has also extended the boundaries of another C.R.T. theme by (largely) eschewing the conventional genre of legal writing in much of her work, including her two books, The Alchemy of Race and Rights and The Rooster’s Egg. This was one of the issues Williams discussed in an interview that commenced when she visited Britain in 1997 to deliver the Reith Lectures.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/las/las400/conferencealt.htm
Other law prof names to google:
Douglass Cassel, Harold Koh
If you can’t see the difference in Obama’s mileu and McCain’s you actually are certifiable.
funky chicken on May 7, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Let’s try this a different way.
Quick, Nichevo: tell us Obama’s position on illegal immigrants and border enforcement.>
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:50 AM
In fact, McCain is purposely driving conservatives out of the party. When he said, in 2004, in 2004: “I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and in their philosophy.” he meant it.
As to how McCain is materially different from the Dems -
* McCain-Snowe-Dorgan S. 2328, Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004 - drug reimportation, the camels nose of socialized medicine; foreign countries setting price controls on American companies.
* McCain-Feingold - he can talk about “activist judges” all day - how about activist Senators? He says he prefers clean government to the 1st Amendment; he’ll get neither.
* The Patient’s Bill of Rights - John Edwards is drooling for this; more transfer of wealth from doctors and hospitals to ambulance chasers.
* Attacks Republicans first, asks questions later: the Swift Boat Vets and the NC GOP are just two examples.
* Opposed the Bush tax cuts, plays the class warfare card on a regular basis
* Gang of 14 - Frist was ready to go to the mat; McCain and his RINOs preserved Senate privilege and unaccountability; continued filibusters on qualified judges.
* Supports Constitutional rights for terrorists
* Supports La Raza; and nobody really believes he’ll build the g-d fence. He’s already walking that back and going back to “comprehensive reform” i.e. amnesty.
How again is that different from the Dems? So he’s got the war going for him. That’s about it. And if things keep improving with Iraqi security and political reconciliation, by November that just might be a moot point.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Heh. Or as my cousin Eddie says “I’ll trick ‘em! I won’t vote for anybody!”
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM
My, how very adult of you!
McCain wasn’t my first choice in the primaries either but he sure is now.
Gilda on May 7, 2008 at 9:53 AM
You’re an honest sort, Laura. Quick: show us Obama’s position on all of those issues.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I agree. In fact, I just called Senator McCain’s office to thank him for joining Kay Bailey Hutchinson in putting a hold on ethanol mandates.
I then asked that take this further and revisit his position on drilling in ANWR and offshore as there is no issue more important to our economic health and national security.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I would suggest that if the Democrats gain more seats in Congress this fall, it won’t really matter much who is president. McCain likes the other party better than his own.
McCain has to want to win, and differentiate himself, if he expects to win. And if he loses, it will be his fault, not his party’s or the party’s conservative base.
BigD on May 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM
That’s my point, Jaibones. There’s not a lot of space between them.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Laura, my dear,
Everything you listed can be negated with two words.
Barack Obama
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM
franksalterego - how? Obama’s a little more to the left than McCain on those issues but not much. It’s only a matter of the speed at which we arrive at the destination; they’re both taking us to the same place. And which one of those will a GOP congressional minority work harder to hinder?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
The only “bullying” I’m seeing on this thread is coming from the McCain enthusiasts.
I fail to see how a person publically declaring their solely-personal intentions constitutes bullying, but a group of people using rationalizations and ad hominem statements to brow-beat individuals into voting against their conscience and/or principles does not constitute bullying.
Isn’t the whole point of the system of free & democratic elections that each person is allowed to cast his/her vote in accordance with his/her own conscience?
To try and take that away from a person through either policy or peer pressure is a move away from liberty and toward tyranny. It is antithetical to everything the idea of America was founded on.
Harpazo on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Everything you just said can be summed up in one word: FEAR
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Laura - you are exactly right. I would also point out that a slower descent to the destination, which the Republicans have been complicit in ensuring, is far more damaging because Americans do not wake up to their danger until it is too late.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Be honest, Laura. You may not perceive “space between them”, but the space in every instance is Obama to the left of McCain, and in most cases and in every important issue you haven’t discussed, Obama is so far to the left that you and I can’t even see him.
This isn’t a vacuum, and it is no longer a primary. It is national defense, the Supreme Court, and Federal spending. I can’t imagine how you get past those three issues to start talking about LaRaza and the “Patient’s Bill of Rights”.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Now you sound like Michelle Obama! Putz. I’m not afraid of anything; I just hate leftists and disagree with their vision of democracy and governance of this country.
You seem to think that it makes more sense to do a lot of damage and have a lot of people die, so that somehow the voters will magically reverse course and remove Obama from office. When? Four years. Great plan.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I can’t even get past Freedom to see any of the other issues. We’re screwed no matter who we elect. The trend is obvious and McCain is part of the problem, not the solution. It’s only a matter of time.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I’m being honest, Jaibones. McCain made his SCOTUS case very ineffectively, given his ringleadership of the Gang of 14 which established clearly that it’s the Senate, not the President, which decides who sits on the bench. Federal spending; McCain is good on pork, but he doesn’t have a line item veto and he’s not going to tick of “his friends” on either side of the aisle. And national defense; McCain says he wants to win the war but he’s only willing to throw soldiers at it, not to do the things on the home front wrt intelligence that need to be done. He’s better than Obama there by far, but not great. And it may be a moot point by election time, given the recent progress in Iraq. We’ll see.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Excuse me, was I talking to you? Unless franksalterego is your other account, the answer is no. And you don’t have any idea what I think. But I will say this - neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are EVER going to bring this country around to where freedom is anything more than an anachronism.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Don’t lie. I haven’t read a word from a McCain enthusiast in this entire thread. Your rhetoric about the American ideal fails in the face of logic. This isn’t some junior high “peer pressure”, you sissy. It’s a debate on the realities and logic of a winner-take-all election.
And the argument from the whiners isn’t about casting “his/her vote in accordance with his/her own conscience”; it’s about commenters who disapprove of both candidates claiming that they will choose not to vote. That’s not a virtue or an act of conscience; it’s a copout.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I’ll add that Obama’s people don’t want healing and reconciliation, they want revenge. Revenge against the USA and revenge against the majority of her citizens.
But hey, if you feel so guilty about race relations that you want punishment, go ahead and support Obama.
funky chicken on May 7, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Jaibones, we’ve seen how much a determined minority can do to hinder the President from doing what he wants. The biggest things Bush got done were those he did for the Dems. His social security reform was completely shot down, but he passed a massive medicare expansion. For the war, most of the serious fighting in Congress has been while the GOP is the minority, and we’ve still held our ground.
So who will the GOP fight harder against when he tries to implement leftist policies; McCain-R with his soft leftism or Obama-D with his hard leftism?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I didn’t claim to, and do not care to know what you think. I was commenting on what you wrote. Stick to the facts; this is an open forum, not a phone call with your girlfriend.
And your silly rhetoric about “freedom” has little to do with a Presidential vote.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM
You’re full of insults, aren’t you? Try reading a little more Dale Carnegie - at this point your attempts to “reason” with disenchanted conservatives are nothing but FAIL.
Last time I checked, voting was not a civil duty, it was a right. So get off your high horse - your opinion is worthless to anyone else.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Peer pressure = tyranny?
You have got to be kidding me!
Trying to talk someone into agreeing with you is called having a political discussion.
I will continue to try to pursuade as many as I can to vote for McCain. The alternative is Obama and he and his wife make me sick.
Please don’t look at my link. I wouldn’t want you to think I was a tyrant or anything…..sheesh!
http://armyaunt.johnmccain.com/
ArmyAunt on May 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Poster is pwned by his own words. Please, quibble away.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Laura, Bush has had his way with the war on terror, has appointed and had confirmed hundreds of conservative Federal judges, including the two finest new SCOTUS judges since Scalia, and with Federal spending - unfortunately.
These are the three specific issues that I challenge you on. McCain will be so much better on all three than Obama that - again - I can’t believe that you would seriously even consider failing to support him.
Of course I would rather have had a conservative. Of course. But I don’t; I have McCain and Obama. One is a mixed bag who agrees with me on the majority of important issues, including the three issues on which I believe our future teeters. The other is the single most liberal candidate every nominated to run for President.
Where is the choice?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I concede the (silly) point. Defend your position.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I think what’s happening here is a conflict between conservatives based on the differences in importance of issues.
Example:
Those who are concerned more about amnesty and Aztlan and being overrun by illegals think McCain is a disaster. These people don’t necessarily see the war as their first and foremost issue.
On the other hand, those who do think the war is the main issue fear Obama putting us in a vulnerable position.
The differences are important - damage from within vs. damage from without.
Neither side is technically wrong, it’s just a matter of preference. But the true problem lies with McCain - he’s just not consistently conservative.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Laura,
Those are minutiae issues.
You have a tax n’ spender vs. a tax n’ spend cutter.
You have a withdraw and surrender vs. see the job through.
Most importantly, at least as I see it, the question of Leadership.
I wouldn’t trust Obama to lead a dog to water…He hasn’t shown one iota of leadership…Ever…Zero…Nada…Zilch.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 10:24 AM
1. Because of the GOP in Congress digging in tooth and nail, often while they were a minority. He hasn’t even really used the bully pulpit, instead allowing the media to perpetuate lies and misinformation, which is disgraceful
2. In spite of McCain and the Gang, not because of it
3. Because he supports Dem ideas, which McCain also clearly does if you look at my 9:52 comment.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Laura, one other point: Obambi will likely come in with veto-proof majorities of like-minded leftist imbeciles in congress. See funky chicken’s introduction of the wondrous Patricia Williams, soon-to-be appointee to replace JP Stevens by President Osama.
So my confidence in a determined GOP minority to play the loyal opposition is nil.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM
See my post above yours. Don’t belittle someone’s position on issues. Everybody places different levels of importance on different issues. You cannot prove that your opinion is more important than anyone else’s. It’s better to try and understand why people think the way they do.
Example:
Someone who lives in a border state will feel the illegal alien issue more than someone in, say, Montana. To them it’s the foremost issue. But to someone not concerned as much about illegal immigration, that person is irrational. That is wrong thinking.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM
So when he starts talking about “universal health care” and Boehner and others start loudly pointing out the reality of Canada, the UK and Cuba, do you think Obama can really get it pushed through? I really don’t; any more than they could when Hillarycare was tried.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Wait…who? Bush? Yeah, Bush was a total non-factor in influencing congress on Federal spending; there is no doubt that this was among his worst failures, imo. But it is McCain’s defining characteristic that he is a spending hawk; surely you will concede that?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM
How many times has Obama been to Iraq or Afghanistan to thank our troops for their Courage, their Bravery, and their Sacrifice?
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Maybe… but I’m going to be looking at two things in November before I push the button; the probably of veto-proof majorities and the current condition of Iraq requiring us to stay longer than a few more years (because it’s impossibly, no matter how much he may want to, for Obama to physically remove the troops immediately). I haven’t completely ruled out McCain, but unless I’m 100% convinced that those two conditions are present I can’t vote for him.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Bingo!
Reading through the comments I can’t decide who are the boni and who are the new men.
Unless McCain does something to bring both sides together he is going to lose this election. This is in Johnny Mac’s court. Only he can get party stitched up. In the meantime we all are bleeding out on the floor.
Limerick on May 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Brilliant posts here but you are hitting your head against the wall with the McCainites. What is worse, a Republican president who passes the Democrat agenda with bipartisan support or a Republican opposition against a Democrat president where there is a clear demarcation of ideas?
The socialists will win either way, but there will be no way to fix anything after the Bush/McCain philosophy of big-government Republicanism. We should at least go down swinging.
Valiant on May 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM
fossten, I am compelled to respond to this. Again, if illegal immigration is an important issue to someone living in El Paso, please tell me why Obama is a better choice?
He is an illegal immigrant/border security extremist on the left. Are you not aware of this?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Do you think you could stop wallowing in hopelessness long enough to take action and do something positive to coax McCain to change some of his positions, as well as help insure that the Dems don’t takeover Congress?
Indeed, since you’ve already surrendered to despair, why the hell are you wasting your time by participating in this blog in the first place?
As T.R. once said:
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
One tiny virtue does not absolve him from all his liberalism. Besides, I would argue that there are no true spending hawks in Congress/Senate except for Ron Paul. A real spending hawk would slash the federal budget like there’s no tomorrow. McCain is, albeit better than some, still a spender.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Sure, I gladly concede it, he’s The Man wrt pork. But he’s also The Maverick who loves to suck up to “his friends” the Democrats, and he’s also a soft leftist who is going to permit socialist intrusion on healthcare, education, and other areas because he thinks government knows best. And the fiscal damage from opening the border even wider is difficult to overestimate; he doesn’t give a crap about that.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
That was really an irresponsible post. You have absolutely no idea what I do with my time, so your entire premise is FAIL from the start.
And your idea of coaxing McCain to do anything is laughable. Even his staggering loss of the amnesty bill hasn’t deterred him - he’s spooling it right back up again.
Could you be any more wrong in every possible way? I submit that you could not.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Bingo.
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 10:35 AM
You keep assuming that I’m going to vote for Obama to spite McCain. The fact is that I’m going to either stay home or write in for someone else - either Fred or Ron Paul. I do not care about either one of the candidates because I was not able to vote for any of them. I live in a state where we haven’t had our primary yet, and the outcome has already been decided. Since my vote doesn’t count, why should McCain care about getting it? He clearly isn’t interested in courting conservatives, although he certainly does like getting votes from La Raza.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Ron Paul. Shoulda known LOL
funky chicken on May 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Lemme’ rephrase that…
How many times, has the pretender to the position of Commander-in-Chief been to Iraq or Afghanistan, to thank our troops for their Courage, Bravery, and Sacrifice?
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Just an addendum - this is a straw man. I never said Obama was a better choice. I simply held the position that McCain was unacceptable. Please stop thinking that there are two options. I believe I have zero.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I suspect that you spend your time advocating for Ron Paul, but regardless, all you have done here today is surrender, and you have provided zero evidence to the contrary.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Tell us exactly what action you plan to take to promote the conservative agenda.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
And I disagree. You do not have zero, only one or the other.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
It’s cool to see Wake’s campus on National TV again, but I wish Cameron had done his closing thoughts from the quad where Wait Chapel is in the background. I like Carl a lot and think he has done very good work throughout this campaign. He was standing right outside of Wait Chapel, but you wouldn’t know it. Wake Forest has one of the most beautiful campuses in the country and Wait Chapel is the center piece. I’d just recommend putting the chapel in the background from the quad for a piece like this. They’ll probably be back there for a debate or something soon because the campus is like a fortress which makes it easy on the secret service.
ThackerAgency on May 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Crossed post. Wow! What a courageous participator in our great Republic fossten is! He will write in Fred or Ron Paul’s name in a totally meaningless gesture. Talk about “laughable”!
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
And you’re wrong. I can choose not to vote. And your lack of logical persuasion isn’t winning your case.
I don’t have to do anything of the sort. I’m not beholden to you, a forum warrior, nor have you made your case in convincing me or anyone else disenchanted over McCain to vote for him. The burden of proof is not on me, but on you. Your logic fails.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM
McCain delivered a good speech well.
Strict Constructionist Constitutional Judges Nominated–and Appointed! Yes, he should press this, his strong point, offensively (best defense and all).
Even if McCain wins election, his nominations won’t be seated unless he has his political alliances secured now. Moderates align with progressives and will vote the DNC ticket. Who would secure McCain’s election; progressives or conservatives? Given that the progressives will vote Democrat, McCain’s hope of success is in the hands of conservatives, the very people McCain enjoys to spite. That aside, until McCain swears an oath on his sacred honor that he as President will utilize his executive powers to the fullest, enforcing the rule of law, establishing border security FIRST, he is passing the buck to the very Judicial system that he claims to be against. Just as former Presidents enforced de-segregation in order for all citizens to function under the rule of law, despite this nice speech, without McCain’s sworn affidavit to prevent liberals from preventing law enforcement regarding illegal alien apprehension across the board, McCain is a progressive and will not himself conserve the rule of law in his own presidency.
Yet the American Dream depends upon each President’s compliance with his oath to defend the Constitution and to uphold the laws of the land. So let’s hear it, McCain. “I believe in the American Dream that all American citizens and residents comply with the rule of law for peace and prosperity.”
Otherwise, McCain HIMSELF will only corrupt further any efforts to preserve the defining antidote to progressive liberalism. Don’t pass off your own responsibilities as Chief Executive to the Judicial Branch for a permission slip on hold until approved by Congress. In the Oval Office, “the buck stops here”.
maverick muse on May 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM
But it’s a virtue to put your face to a candidates backside, follow him like a lemming over a cliff? Which of the founding fathers said following a party blindly is a virtue? None. They saw parties as an evil. And look at you lot. Your candidate holds you in contempt. He panders to the opposite side. He has very few ideals in common with the party platform; but you follow him anyway and harass the non compliant in his name and the name of the party. You can barely go a day where he doesn’t jab a finger in your eye over one issue or another. You can’t sell the candidate; all you can sell is ‘Obama’s worse.’ So now you sit here and harangue those who won’t fall in. You try to sell blind obedience as principle. Your response to reasoned arguements is ‘Obama’s worse’. No wonder McCain takes you for granted. I wouldn’t waste time on blind zealots either.
We have 2 ways of supporting a candidate: our money and our vote. Laura made an excellent summary above why McCain is entitled to neither. Your only response is ‘Obama’s worse’. Pathetic. You don’t even know what McCain is going to do once he’s safe in office. The North Carolina GOP dustup and his a**licking at La Raza are bad signs. The damage he could do with just an immigration bill and Global Warming legislation is enough to take chance with Obama; as someone said, the GOP minority will be more likely to rally against bad legislation from a Democrat than a GOP president. You McCain supporters are busting your arms patting yourselves on the back for ’supporting the party’. The party isn’t entitled to support if the candidate isn’t a good representative. This isn’t the Soviet Union. The party isn’t always right. I have my reasons for choosing not support McCain; they are logical and I believe they are right. I’m not trying to convince anyone to join me. But what I don’t need, is a lecture from a bunch of lemmings who think that the ‘R’ next to the name of the candidate means ‘our guys are the good guys all the time’ and are treating this like some kind of football game. All I’m seeing is abandonment of reason, lack of principle, and cheerleading of a pathetic candidate that has no business leading a party he obviously holds in contempt. Go elect your bum candidate. Put your elephant ears on; party down. When he drops his pants and moons the whole gibbering starry eyed lot of you, I’ll be here to mock and harass you every time he does something horrible to this country. Just remember, rah rahs, it’s going to be all your fault.
austinnelly on May 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM
And just like a typical forum warrior, you resort to ad hominem when your pitiful logical persuasion fails. Tell me, do you have any real arguments to put forth today, or are you going to continue to make yourself look flawed by flinging feces?
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Except for the wall o’ text factor, a good post.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I am not asking you to vote for McCain, I am asking you to pick up the freaking phone and dial it.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
That works with legislation, but not with judges. The Republicans in the Senate will not filibuster a judicial nomination and they will not have the votes to defeat any judge nominated by a President Obama. And those judges will serve life terms. It could take a generation to reverse the damage they could do, especially if we get three new ones on the Supreme Court. We can all enjoy reading John Roberts’ eloquent dissents for the next 25 years while the Court sends America over the cliff.
I live in Pennsylvania and I believe McCain has a real chance to win this state, so I will hold my nose and vote for him.
rockmom on May 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Again…a difference of perspective and logic. You clearly have only one outcome available in this election: McCain or Obama in the White House. You do not have options for self-important conscience, self-actualization, moral victory, a pyhrric Obama victory where he is hobbled by a conservative congress, a third candidate — you have none of that, and thinking that you do is a little bit Dem touchy-feely, bordering on mental illness.
You have one outcome, and casting an affirmative vote is one way of participating, but staying home is another way. But either action will lead only to that one outcome - Obama or McCain.
On your La Raza comment, sorry; I’m not a racist. I’m no fan of La Raza, but McCain’s efforts to attract votes from American citizens who are hispanic is pretty understandable. But your support of Ron Paul pretty much explains this, doesn’t it?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Yeah, and I can hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter (the latter two Bush 41 appointees, of all horrors) murmuring to themselves that they’re just going to keep taking up their space for another four years.
Do you actually think McCain, as president, would nominate someone in the mold of John Roberts or Sam Alito with a larger Democrat Congress than we have now??
BigD on May 7, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Bingo.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Of course I do; don’t you? McCain’s position on national defense, spending and his support for Alito and Roberts indicate as such.
What tells you he likes Ginsburg better?
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Please be so kind as to point out the “ad hominem” I used.
I know one thing for sure - I nailed you as a Paulie.
Buy Danish on May 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Nonsense comment, beginning to end. I’m not putting my nose to McCain’s backside. If he gets in and doesn’t govern right, I’ll vote for a conservative to run against him in the primary in four years. That’s why we have primaries. I didn’t vote for McCain in the Illinois primary.
Stick to the facts; you’re just making up weird stuff.
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:00 AM
There you go again, setting up a straw man. You think you’re clever, racing to opposite extremes to prove your point. But you’re not clever.
You: Oh, you don’t like McCain? Why do you think Obama is better?
You: Oh, you think he won’t nominate Alito? What tells you he likes Ginsburg better?
[snort]
McCain would likely nominate a justice like O’Connor, Stevens, Kennedy, all of which have done considerable damage to the Constitution.
And as far as your opinion about McCain supporting Alito or Roberts types - you couldn’t be more wrong.
Linkage
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:03 AM
You people seem to have forgotten the first rule of judicial appointments.
It’s the president’s perogative…Not Congress’s.
franksalterego on May 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM
What more needs to be said? No need to look back. But I’ll humor you.
That’s ad hominem. Look it up.
Still waiting for you to make an actual argument.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM
McCain seems to have forgotten that too, based on the Gang of 14.
fossten on May 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Actually, he liked Roberts but said Alito was too conservative, and then tried to walk it back. What’s the expression? A gaffe is when the politician mistakenly tells the truth?
Laura on May 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Question for the YesMac crowd;
If McCain came out with a solid fence building platform would you no longer support him? Sure you would, right?
It is all about keeping Obama out as I understand your arguments here.
That one issue alone (throw out all the other history the NoMac crowd has against him) would shore up the party and give us a fighting chance to win in November.
Instead McCain takes the tougher road. The road with the landmines on it.
Now who, exactly, is going to hand the WH to Obama? McCain or the NoMacs?
Limerick on May 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM
The more I read of this post, the stupider you get. So, a campaign appearance at La Raza is “a**licking”? Great.
And if you’re so convinced that the GOP won’t oppose a new CIR bill proposed by a GOP President, then I can only assume that you were born after July 2007. Memo to Nelly: the GOP minority did a pretty good job of opposing both McCain and Bush on that just last summer.
Oh, but I’m sure the Democrats will join a 40 Senator GOP minority in opposing Obama for an even worse amnesty bill next summer, dickhead…
Jaibones on May 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »