McCain to Hillary supporters: I voted to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer, you know
posted at 2:36 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Kaus expects nothing less than a full-blown conservosphere freak-out over this. I’m underwhelmed.
After his public conference call with Clinton supporters (covered extensively by Jonathan Martin) Saturday, John McCain met privately with some 75 of those supporters at his Virginia headquarters, two people who were there said…
“He stayed for a good almost half hour afterwards shaking hands, listening to our concerns, talking to us,” said [Party Unity My Ass] founder Will Bower, who said he thought many of the people there would vote for McCain…
Bower said he’d liked McCain’s answer on judges, in which he “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg [sic] and Breyer.”
What’s he supposed to say? He was there to woo liberals. The best he could do realistically when they asked him about judges was to point to the Gang of 14 and emphasize that he wasn’t an obstructionist when the left’s turn came to pack the Court. Which, incidentally, would be an odd thing for the right to fault him for at this point: After years of Democratic shrieking about Bush’s appointments, my sense is most conservatives believe the senate’s advice and consent should be limited to determining whether the nominee has the legal chops to do the job plus some cursory ideological vetting to make sure there’s no truly fringe kookiness anywhere in his/her closet. If the left had followed McCain’s example, Miguel Estrada would be five years into his tenure on the D.C. Circuit.
Besides, unlike immigration, this clearly isn’t a subject on which Maverick is as far left as Obama — although given the composition of the senate next year, the difference between a McCain appointee and an Obama appointee is likely to be the difference between, say, an O’Connor and a Ginsburg. The former’s better than the latter, but if you think you’re getting another Roberts or Alito under any circumstances, think again.
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 »
McCain’s intended point, delivered badly, was probably that in the end, we can’t tell what the f*&% they’re going to do when they get to the court.
RBMN on June 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Well, except that McCain has pinky-promised another Roberts or Alito and that promise is only one of two reasons most conservatives I’ve seen are holding their noses and voting for him.
Without that, they’re down to only one reason, and that one’s not a certainty either.
Jimmie on June 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM
[Sound of America swirling down the commode]
OhEssYouCowboys on June 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Like I’ve been saying, this point, which rabid McCain supporters like pointing to as one of his strongest points, is one of his weakest.
catmman on June 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Wow… He just won my vote!!!!
NOT!!!
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM
As far as I can tell McCain has voted for every Supreme Court nominee before him..
advise and Consent.
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM
McCain voted for Bork.
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Nothing shocks me about McCain anymore. This is underwhelming when stacked up against his many other pronouncements.
All you McCain supporters in unison now:
Yesh We Can!
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Loose translation: “I don’t want any conservative votes.”
snaggletoothie on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Advice* and consent.. even
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Meh. He said in his prime-time townhall that he will vote for people who are qualified, regarless of their ideological bent. And that is how it should be. The President nominates someone. If that person is qualified, the Senate should confirm. That is why the Borking of Bork was so disgusting. He was emminently qualified, but got c(ourt)-blocked by the liberal ninnies on the Hill.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I have long thought the presidential wannabes in the Senate that voted against Supreme Court nominations were asking for trouble when they were elected.
I applaud McCain for not doing that, and instead for appreciating the will of the people in electing a POTUS that can appoint SCOTUS justices.
He should be allowed to take advantage of that principled stance.
Now…if Obama is elected, how can he ask Republicans to be kind to his nominees?
MayBee on June 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Thank you, open primaries.
malan89 on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Repeat after me….
President Obama
Pulchritudinous Patriot on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I’m not a big fan of the Maverick™, but this is a whole lotta “meh.” McCain simply did what we’ve been asking the Democrats in the Senate to do on judges – base their decisions on the nominee’s legal chops, not their ideological beliefs.
Slublog on June 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Absent some compelling reason, senators should vote for the President’s nominees. That’s what you get when you win the White House. Compare McCain’s honorable actions with the baseless smears the Dems did on Clarence Thomas.
rbj on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Why because he isn’t a partisan hack?
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Yeah, that’s fine AP. Too bad McCain didn’t say that. And quite frankly, shame on the conservative media and blogosphere for not taking him to task on his Ginsburg vote while he was telling everyone he was going to nominate in the mold of Roberts.
BigD on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Speaking of immigration. 5-4 again.
Vote Obama, and we’ll have decisions like these, exclusively, but with a greater majoirity.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
A judge can be qualified and still destroy the country. It is up to the president to ensure our constitutional liberties and keep these traitors off the court. McCain is not the man for the job.
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Something about the victor and spoils comes to mind. Elections have consequences.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
5-4 is just as valid as a unanimous decision. Who cares 2008?
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Breyer and Ginsburg were the best qualified people that Clinton would have appointed. Obama should have voted for Roberts and Alito.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Let’s see. What reasons are there to vote for McCain (besides Obama)? Do we all get a deal on beer?
Skipper50 on June 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Actually, Ent, its the Liberal judges on the chopping block (so to speak). Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Altion are all relatively young.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM
McCain has always stated that the President gets to select the Supreme Court Justices and if the judges make it through committee then they deserve an up or down vote.
danking70 on June 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Obama’s a Hack!
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Yep, it sure is. Thanks to the current one, this, on today’s ruling on illegals
Valiant, to your 2:57, Kennedy sometimes switches. When you have a bigger majority there will be no 5th swinger. It will be one way, all the time. Good luck to our country and to all of us.
No Reagan behind a courtian, and the Gov. of Louisiana won’t be it either.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM
The problem is that Kennedy has again today grabbed more power for the Court and has re-written immigration law.
jaime on June 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Question: On the Nomination (ruth bader ginsburg to be an associate justice )
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
YEAs 96
NAYs 3
Not Voting 1
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I know that – do you think Obama will replace them with more conservative ones? You’re right on the math, but is there no difference of who gets to replace 3-4. Any of them, from the right too could be on the block. See Tim Russert.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
McCain – the second moron the GOP has nominated in my life time,,, I am 49 years old – care the guess the second?
jake-the-goose on June 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
The real comparison is with Barack Obama’s hyper-partisan votes against Justices Alito and especially Roberts. It’s perhaps the biggest example of the phoniness of Obama’s claim to be a bipartisan uniter. This is an issue that McCain can score huge points with.
rockmom on June 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Thanks for clarifying. It is more sickening that Kennedy, like O’Connor, were Reagan nominees.
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
And again:
McCain simply did what we’ve been asking the Democrats in the Senate to do on judges – base their decisions on the nominee’s legal chops, not their ideological beliefs.
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States )
John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States
YEAs 78 (Confirmed)
NAYs 22
——————–
NAYs —22
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Bayh (D-IN) Nay on John Roberts..
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
The Senate should not have a complaint about a justice’s political leanings unless they are extremist.
The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint, and has the Senate advise and consent.
The Bush Administration says it has appointed highly-qualified people to the federal bench who should be confirmed. The Dems are not confirming them because of political difference.
Of course, the Republicans did the same thing during Clinton’s term. Therefore, this whole back and forth has grown tiresome between the asses and the pachyderms.
indythinker on June 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States )
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I count 3 other moron nominees who have used the Constitution as toilet paper (no, not Nixon). Otherwise, I am stumped as to who your other choice is.
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
McCain’s point is shrewd. He voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg. Both had outstanding resumes. Both held non-extremist views. Although McCain does not agree with the views of Breyer and Ginsburg, he voted for them because they were qualified, and the President, not Congress, makes the appointments.
indythinker on June 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Sure, he’s everywhere to woo liberals. That’s what he’s about.
I wonder when he’ll get around to “wooing” conservatives.
Redhead Infidel on June 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Yes, you add the one whom Bush the father appointed, and turned, and one can see what a tricky and difficult job this is. I’m beginning to give up, not to care any more. Indolence is setting in.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
All well and good, but the Democrats do not play this game. Either we play the same game or get routed.
Republicans need to obstruct, vote for judges based on political considerations and start filing massive numbers lawsuits to gum up the works or they will be destroyed.
The Dem have set the ground rules, and the Repulicans have a choice to play by the rules or say adios.
mylegsareswollen on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the ACLU’s Board and one of its General Counsel and VERY liberal..
she was confirmed 96-3-1, during Clinton’s first term.
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Ginsburg was former lead lawyer for the ACLU, head council, and board member.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Gingsburg was an identity appointment. Both sides are guilty of such. It’s just begun.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Which is why the President is the important part of the equation. Ginsberg’s left-of-rational rulings were out there in the public. She should have never been nominated in the first place. John McCain is a political Judas who has made it clear that he will not support jurists in the mold of Scalia or Roberts. He may or may not be better than Obama (I think the jury is still out on this one) but let’s not pretend that McCain will be supportive of judges that the right could support. He needs a left leaning court to support his programs of amnesty, less First Amendment rights, higher taxes for corportations etc. John McCain is an enemy to the Constitution!
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
“the GOP” nominates no one. Republican primary voters helped to nominate McCain.
wise_man on June 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
As much as I’d love to have another reason not to vote for McCain, I can’t fault him for anything he is saying here. Sure Ginsburg and Breyer are horrible Supreme Court Justices but I would have voted for them along with McCain. The Senators voting for Supreme Court Justices need only ask one question; “Is he/she qualified?” Beyond that all politics are irrelevant. That is why someone like Teddy Kennedy refusing to vote for someone like Roberts, who is, without question, qualified for the position is so hypocritical.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Well, honestly, if you really want to get down to the meat of it, McCain was nominated by Dem crossovers in FLA and independents.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 3:18 PM
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/merevaudevillian/2008/feb/08/john_mccain_more_conservative_than_you_think
read that… hmmm
And now, a brief pop quiz.
1. Pop quiz: Which Republican Senator opposed the Flag Burning Amendment, Mitch McConnell or John McCain?
Roll Call Vote on the Flag Burning Amendment
2. Pop quiz: Which Republican Senator voted “not guilty” on President Clinton’s impeachment charge, Fred Thompson or John McCain?
Roll Call Vote on Article of Impeachment
3. Pop quiz: Which Republican Senator voted in favor of expanding SCHIP, John Warner or John McCain?
Roll Call Vote for SCHIP Amendment
Yes, McCain hasn’t always toed the party line. But these are just a few ways in which McCain has taken sound conservative positions, often unpopular or controversial, which, at the very least, should be of some encouragement to voters. And it should also give you pause before throwing the term “moderate” or “RINO” out there too lightly.
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:18 PM
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/merevaudevillian/2008/feb/08/john_mccain_more_conservative_than_you_think
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
“the GOP” nominates no one.
RepublicanOpen primary voters helped to nominate McCain.Fixed it for you. McCain’s early momentum was from independents and Democrats voting in open primaries. Even after securing the nomination, he was only pulling 70-75% in the closed primaries.
Valiant on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The ACLU does not knowingly undermine America. They only do so out of their ignorance.
indythinker on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
McCain on Judge David H. Souter, Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1990.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/merevaudevillian/2008/feb/08/john_mccain_more_conservative_than_you_think
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Or he has made the exact opposite clear…
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Hey, you know what, that article just swayed me away from the studied negative impression I formed through a lifetime of observing McCain’s backstabbing behavior… Not.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
The ACLU does not knowingly undermine America. They only do so out of their ignorance.
–
BS
normsrevenge on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Except FL, which was closed no matter how you try to make up little anecdotes about Charlie Crist “stealing” it.
Florida killed Romney, not the open primaries.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Now look at the judgment of Nickles.. He voted against Ruth Bader Ginsburg.. but gave an endorsement of Souter…
Are they using their politics or they doing what they are supposed to do by Advice and consent?
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Only in your kooky fantasies of Romneys adequacy.
The Dems had a record turnout on their own side. There was very little if any crossover voting.
By your reasoning he should have won Michigan too, where Kos was telling them to cross over. As I recall he lost by a pretty good margin in that open primary
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
How can you vote against Ginsburg but be favor of a Souter?
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
This is so ridiculous. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of conservatives, nominated Sandra Day O’Connor. It should be remembered that Mickey Kaus voted for John Kerry in 2004, so I would take anything he said on this issue with a big huge grain of salt.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Why should we freak out? All but a small minority of us were fully aware of the reality of McCain and his ideas of selecting people to be on the Supreme Court.
It is not even surprising that he takes the opportunity to show his solidarity with the far left and poke conservatives in the eye once again.
LegendHasIt on June 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Well of course McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer, as well he should have. Assuming a nominee is qualified and free of scandal, the president is entitled to place whomever he wants on the court. Elections have consequences.
(And I’m not a McCain fanboy. I’m not voting for McCain. I can’t stand him. But on this point, he’s in the clear.)
paul006 on June 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Romney got beat because he did not get enough Republicans to vote for him. McCain did not win because of some open primary. The fact that certain conservatives can not come to grips with that means that they will just keep doing the same crap over and over and when it did does not get them what they want, they will find someone or something else to blame.
Besides, I doubt that Romney is any more conservative than McCain is.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
May want to read up on the FOUNDERS of the ACLU sometime.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Pressuring Senators to vote against Presidential appointments solely because they have political views you don’t like but are still within the mainstream is what really undermines America.
indythinker on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I cannot stand McCain. He appears to be a terrible leader and decision maker.
He is a liberal horse’s arse. I will hold my nose “tightly” and vote for him, however, because Obama is far more dangerous.
This is going to be a very painful election for my family and my country.
sinsing on June 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
We are not talking about people who listen to Kos here. We are talking about moderate Dems who didn’t vote in that primary because the delegates were not being counted. It was not an organized effort. It was a result of the FLA delegates not being counted in the Dem primary. There are a few facts here that cannot be disputed, 1). Registered Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Mitt. 2). Indepedents voted overwhelmingly for McCain. 3). Dems did cross over in the FLA primary and voted almost unanimously for McCain.
If you would like I’ll dig up a few of the polls to prove this. If may take some time but please stick around and I’ll lay it out there for you.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Since McCain won my 6% and the Dems has more voters in their record turnout, I would submit that you could show me all of the exit polls you want, the numbers arent there.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
McCain is better than BHO.
what an endorsement.
I think it will be bad no matter who we get. Only hope is McCain gets elected picks a great VP and dies in office. but looking at his Mother he seems to come from long lived genes so even that hope is slim. what we need is for all 535 “leaders” to take a trip to Mars/moon and start a new colony up there.
unseen on June 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Sorry, the last one was for you Zetterson
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I think Fred Thompson voted for Ginsburg as well. If I remember correctly the vote was something like 96-3.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
McCain is the most pathetic panderer I have ever seen.
Haven’t you noticed that he’s a veritable Zelig whenever he is around a bunch of liberals. Sort of like Obama is around actual black people and Hillary is around normal human beings.
Simply put: voting for him would break every moral covenant that I have ever made.
He’s Captain Bullshit, and this Republican hard-ass ain’t buying it.
TexasJew on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
unseen:
That is really nasty thing to say. Wishing people dead is just wrong.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Texas Jew:
Oh please. Republican hard ass my ass. The last time Republican hard asses got a conservative Republican president they were all to happy to help the liberal Democrats ruin the man. So spare me the whining. Hardline Conservatives had their chance to come up with someone else and could not get that job done. So maybe it is time they stopped bitching and whining and started trying to figure out where they screwed up.
But noooo, instead they want to {once again} join forces with liberal Democrats to undermine a Republican running for office.
With friends like that…..
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’m not outraged, but it seems obvious that he’s trying harder to woo Clinton supporters than he has Republicans. I’m sure he feels that this is the way to win, but I guess we’ll see.
Esthier on June 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM
McCain sucks.
jaime on June 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM
If Registered Republicans voted overwhelingly for Mitt, he would be the nominee. I mean come on, Huckabee did better than Mitt.
Besides, when you look at the huge numbers of people who turned out for that Democratic primary, the idea that Democrats were also voting in the Republican primaries is just ridiculous. It is a fantasy. Mitt lost, plain and simple. McCain won, plain and simple. Most Republicans want to win in 08 and they think McCain has the best chance of doing that. It is not his fault if the crybaby sore loser contingency can’t beat him.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Well for you, evidently, thats all the info you need in order to draw a conclusion. I, on the other hand, needed more.
Zetterson on June 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Esthier:
Trying too hard to woo Clinton supporters? Oh yeah, who cares about the general election.
Why should he try to woo people who hate his guts and wish him dead? Why bother? What is the point?
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I’m still amazed at how an ultra liberal like Ruth Bader Ginsburg could win Senate approval by a 96-3 vote.
SoulGlo on June 16, 2008 at 4:24 PM
So maybe it is time they stopped bitching and whining and started trying to figure out where they screwed up.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 PM
They screwed up by voting for this idiot.
I won’t.
TexasJew on June 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
There is no such thing as a “rabid McCain supporter.”
Even those of us who are going to vote for him are doing so frequently with regret.
Kensington on June 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Republicans, generally, play fairly and adhere to the tradition that a president gets to appoint his judges.
Democrats, on the other hand, throw tantrums.
Kensington on June 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM
The Democrats who voted McCain in FL were more likely disgusted with their choices on the D side of things than they were intending to frak with the GOP primary.
If the Democrats were wanting to nominate someone likely to lose big to Clinton or Obamajebus, wouldn’t they have gone for someone like Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee?
Sekhmet on June 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM
But they don’t follow McCain’s lead. In the end its just another example of the right caving to the left and getting nothing for it. I’m not totally against Republicans making deals on this kind of thing with democrats but caving in exchange for nothing is idiotic. More often then not this has been John McCain’s history. I’m still waiting for a reason to vote for this RINO.
Dollayo on June 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Rudy Guiliani’s campaign got one thing right: Florida was going to be the most important GOP primary, and the winner of Florida was very likely to become the nominee.
So what Republicans do we have in Florida? Retirees, military types, Cuban-Americans (i.e. Hispanics). Add to that the fact that as of the Florida primaries, Hillary was still “inevitable,”and the Cult of Obamajebus hadn’t really taken off yet. That left a lot of Democrats seriously thinking of voting GOP this year. So who could they vote for with a straight face?
So the people in FL who pulled the lever for McCain are very likely to do it again in November. This makes them, at least temporarily, Republican voters.
Sekhmet on June 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I am just saying …
Dawnsblood on June 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Well then Texas Jew, don’t vote for him. Go ahead and pout like some over grown brat. But somehow I have the feeling that if and when the day comes you actually get a nominee you can stand, you will expect other people who call themselves Republicans to support your guy.
Why should they?
No, you just want someone who will kiss your butt. and it pisses you off that McCain is that not that guy. And why should he? It is not as if being a conservative is a real election winner right now anyway.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Criticizing McCain for voting to confirm a qualified presidential appointee is the height of hypocrisy for those who have wailed about the obstructionist Dems.
If conservative voters want to start acting like conservatives, rather than like a bunch of whining little babies, sucking on their ideological bottles, then they could start by defending McCain for understanding and acting within his constitutional role as a senator.
Priscilla on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Another pop quiz:
Which Senator voted for restriction of political speech/1st Amendmnet rights: John McCain or John Kerry?
Which Senator supports the closing of GITMO, thereby weakening our options in the GWoT: John McCain or Barbara Boxer?
Which Senator supports/voted for the marginalization of American law by wishing to enact an easier “path to citizenship”, better known as “comprehensive immigration reform”: John McCain or Edward Kennedy?
Which Senator voiced support for/said he would vote for the Warner-Leiberman “Climate Change Security Act”: John McCain or Barack Obama?
Which Senator voiced opposition to drilling for our own oil in ANWR: John McCain or Charles Schumer?
Yes, McCain hasn’t always toed the party line. But these are just a few ways in which McCain has taken sound liberal positions. Positions, often unpopular or controversial, which, at the very least, should be of some encouragement to leftist voters. And it should also give you pause before throwing the term “conservative” or “Republican” out there too lightly.
catmman on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I’m thinking that it was more like:
“Which Republican comes closest to being a Democrat? I’ll vote for him”
LegendHasIt on June 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I am not a rabid McCain supporter, but I respect the man. I accept the fact that he won the nomination fair and square and I think he deserves support from people who keep claiming they are Republicans.
And anyone who would complain about McCain not being conservative enough while they sit back and let someone like Obama win is either a fool or a hypocrite.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM
catmann:
McCain wanted to send the prisoners at Gitmo to a military prison and try them in a military court. He did not want to turn them lose. But no doubt, Obama is leaning in that direction…but hey why bother to vote? Just let Barry win.
And as far as first amendment rights are concerned, conservatives had no problem supporting Fred! Thompson inspite of his support of McCain Feingold. It is all about pereption, screw reality.
Terrye on June 16, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Which Senator actually co-authored ‘Warner’-Lieberman, then took his name off of it and gave it to another RINO to push through, because it would run off even the halfway sane Mediocrats that are his real ‘base’ for the Presedential election?
LegendHasIt on June 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »