John McCain and War

National Review Online ^ | February 04, 2008, 5:00 p.m. | Andrew C. McCarthy

[calcowgirl]

And do they raise terrorists?

Who is "they" that you are referring to? The communists? And what is your definition of terrorism? The communists advocate violence and most definitely have engaged in things that qualify as terrorism, under my definition anyway.

More importantly, do they recognize the sheer madness of attacking us with a nuclear weapon? Of course they do. Do you seriously believe that Iran, Syria, or N. Korea wouldn't use a nuke on us, via terrorist?

To what end? Do you think they would do this without provocation? If they do, they know what the repercussions would be. It ain't pretty.

[calcowgirl]

Where in her post was there any "wise ass" comment? You're getting hysterical.

I think he doesn't like it when I pointed out the flaws in his post thereby challenging the "many years experience within the Party and a of Conservative credentials" that he touted (while refusing to back-up). His referencing Wikipedia didn't make a compelling case.

[Yosemitest]

This is one of the WORST and MOST CRITICAL elections that I've seen in my 50 plus years of living!!!

I've suggested, several times, other possibilities for candidates, and as of today, I'm supporting Bob Barr, but I'd rather have Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfield, Duncan Hunter, or even Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or G. Gorden Liddy, than the current piece of trash the Republican party is running.

As for your concern about Supreme Court worries, read this, and get a clue.... McCain is a Democrat, plain and simple!!!!
I recommend this blog.

McCain, Judicial Nominations, Sleeves, and Warts
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 by Beldar at 07:43 AM

I don't much care about Wall Street Journal political reporter John Fund's report yesterday that's roiling the blogosphere and cable news talking head shows. Fund reported that Sen. John McCain

"has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because
'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

Since Sen. McCain led a gang of other Republican renegade senators in deserting their party's sitting president and colluding with the opposition party to throw some of that president's pending judicial nominations down the toilet — jettisoning along with their confirmation chances the chance for a constitutional showdown that could have ended senatorial filibustering of judicial nominees — there is nothing that Sen. McCain can do, and certainly nothing he can say or write as a campaign promise, to restore his credibility with me on the subject of judicial appointments.


Oh, yes, he did vote to confirm Roberts and Alito. But could we possibly set a lower bar than that for someone who's supposed to be a leader of his party and a contender for the opportunity to fill as many as three SCOTUS seats in the next term?

There are a lot of good things that can be said about Sen. McCain by good conservatives — but not on this issue. By taking the "constitutional option" (a/k/a "nuclear option" in Dem-speak) off the table, McCain and his fellow "maverick" GOP cronies doomed not only a handful of worthy circuit and district court nominees to non-confirmation, they ensured that the White House would thereafter dare not make any more controversial nominations to those vitally important lower courts. For "controversial nominations," read "demonstratedly and predictably conservative nominations just like Roberts and Alito would have been, but for the higher profile of SCOTUS nominations."

The only way that the Dems could justify stonewalling Dubya's circuit and district court nominations was that the stonewalling happens mostly out of sight, and rarely if ever makes a blip on the general public's radar screens. They couldn't get away with denying a floor vote to a SCOTUS nominee. But John McCain led the deal that let the Dems guarantee that they could continue to exercise an effective veto on circuit and district court nominations for the remainder of George W. Bush's term, regardless of the outcome of the 2006 elections. The unquestionable result of the Gang of 14's "compromise," as brokered by John McCain, will be two-fold:

There will be more judicial vacancies at the end of the Bush-43 term than there ought to be;
and such district and circuit judges as have been nominated and confirmed by January 2009 will be mostly bland ones whom McCain's Democratic allies permitted to go through because the Dems couldn't dredge up or even manufacture remotely plausible objections.
Some of them will nevertheless turn out to be very fine judges despite their lack of histories around which the Dems could weave their objections. But if your goal is conservative judges, giving the Dems a near-secret and unaccountable veto, which ie exactly what McCain did, is a very, very bad idea.

No sir, the day John McCain led the Gang of 14, he forfeited all of my trust — irrevocably — on judicial selection issues. No ma'am, I don't care what words he mouths now on that subject.

In fact, I'm slightly more inclined to believe Rudy Giuliani's promises about appointing conservative judges than McCain's. Sure, it's contrary to Giuliani's own stance on many social issues; and I'm far from entirely comfortable about Giuliani's campaign promises on this and other subjects. But at least Giuliani hasn't already betrayed this particular trust, and then equivocated about that betrayal. already shown himself to have no backbone, and to be a willing collaborator with the Dems, specifically when it comes to appointing judges at the circuit and district court levels. To the limited extent that I care at all what McCain says now, the mere fact that McCain continues to defend the Gang of 14 deal out-shouts anything else he says. And saying now that he "fought for" the abandoned nominees is just a palpable lie. The way to fight for them was to continue at least threatening to use the "constitutional option." There was no other way to fight for them. There was no other way to even get their nominations to the floor for a vote! To even pretend that those abandoned nominees had a chance once the Gang of 14 struck its deal is comparable to the Brits and French saying in September 1939,

"Well, we did still root for the Czechoslovaks after we forced them to give Hitler the Sudetenland last year. Gosh, we really thought they still had a good chance, but we just ran out of time. How could we know he'd go on to gobble up the rest of their country, and Poland too?"

Stepping back and looking at the big picture:

Collaborating with the Dems to defeat the Bush Administration's most conservative circuit and district court judicial nominees isn't remotely the same as collaborating with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while American POWs (including McCain) were imprisoned. John McCain is not John Kerry, and the Dems are only misguided political enemies of the GOP and conservatism, not profound and literally mortal enemies of western civilization. And I'm sure that in his own mind, McCain has thoroughly rationalized what he did, just like he's rationalized (and now is soft-pedaling) his prior stands on campaign finance reform and immigration.
I'm not one of those self-destructive conservative idiots who is going to sit out the 2008 election if McCain turns out to be the GOP nominee. Indeed, if he is nominated — which I still think is unlikely, but I no longer can rule out as a possibility — I'll support him, and defend him, and promote him, and vote for him against whoever the Dems nominate. I will accentuate the positive, for him or any other GOP nominee.

But just don't insult my intelligence by pretending that John McCain is a reliable conservative on the subject of judicial nominations. From the point of view of any knowledgeable conservative, this is one of the huge warts on this particular candidate. And he doesn't have to "wear" that particular lack of conservatism "on his sleeve," because it's a wart that's as plain as his nose. You can secure my enthusiastic agreement that the Democratic alternatives are uglier, that they're practically "all-wart." But quit trying to pull my leg about McCain and this particular subject, okay?

Maybe if McCain is making a SCOTUS nomination, he really will pick another Roberts or Alito. What concerns me, though, is that at best, he'll gladly let the Dems pressure him into packing the circuit and district courts with Kennedys, O'Connors, and occasional Souters. I have no doubt that John McCain would be willing to take on the Dems on matters of national security, even if it means a bloody, long-term dispute. But I also have no doubt that if pressed (and he will be), he would make his picks, and then cut quiet deals left and right, to avoid such fights over judicial nominees below the SCOTUS level. Since he's already abandoned conservative principles and cut a deal with the Dems on nominees to those courts even when the GOP controlled the Senate, why would he possibly stand up to them as president, especially if they continue to control the Senate?

And you expect conservatives to support this liberal piece of crap McCain???

I'll never, ever, NEVER ... vote FOR McCain.
Can you spell NEVER???

[TigersEye]

I'm not comparing McCain with Obama or anyone else. Perhaps that's why my position ASTOUNDS you. He is simply not fit for office, any office, for numerous outstanding reasons IMO. I don't see him as a flawed candidate or a less then ideal candidate. I see him as a clear and present danger. I came to that opinion long before I had ever heard of Obama and McCain has only increased my reasons for thinking so since then and in dramatic fashion.

Apparently I can't show you anything that will cause you to think, as I do, that he is. I have read dozens of posts supporting him and none convince me that he is not. Almost none of them try. Like you they just say he is less unfit than Hillary or Obama. That argument negates the meaning of the word unfit.

[Yosemitest]

As far as the slide towards Democrats in California, you left out one very important fact,

that Democrats are proud of, but hide at every chance they get.

Go ahead, read it ... at "* * * VOTER FRAUD, AGAIN! * * * " ,

or at the original source from www.worldnetdaily.com.

This was Bill Clinton's November Surprise, just before the election day so as to not allow time to brief the poll workers of the voter fraud authorized by the then ... sitting President of the United States, the Liar-In-Chief.

[Shryke]

To what end? Do you think they would do this without provocation? If they do, they know what the repercussions would be. It ain't pretty.

Oh. Terrorists are rational now? The same people that are happy to kill themselves, wives, and families, to kill US, are now, thanks to our dialogue, worried about consequences?

Why don't think about what I said "via terrorist", as in, they give AQ a nuke to attack us with. Now, how exactly do we prosecute that? If we can't "prove" that Syria gave them the weapon?

[calcowgirl]

I was speaking of the *countries* you mentioned (Iran, Syria, or N. Korea), not the terrorists.

I’m tired of your twisting my words... have other things to do.

Carry on!

[Yosemitest]

When the GOP or McCain ask for money to support McCain, print and send them one of these.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks for posting that—it is a good restatement of history that negates the many posts around here trying to assert that the ‘gang of 14’ was a good thing. You should think about posting it on one of the scotus threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2012562/posts

[Yosemitest]

Done!

[lexusppd]

Everything in the article is pure speculation on what McCain would do as president. It is a FACT however that he DID vote to seat Scalia as well as Alito and Roberts. You really can't get much more Conservative then Scalia. Besides that isn't it more important to have a Justice who decides cases based on the law? That's what they are supposed to do. McCain has said he will appoint those type rather then any he believes will create law. I wouldn't want ANY Justice seated who makes law from the bench even if it is a Conservative one.

Anyway vote for whomever you'd like, it's America and that's what makes it so wonderful a Nation to live in. Many like you don't believe the WOT is important enough an issue and that is your right but at least you are going to vote unlike many here who have said they will simply stay home.

BTW, suppose McCain picks as a VP a man of the caliber of a Ronald Reagan (if there is such a man). Would you then reconsider voting for McCain?

[lexusppd]

Why did you vote for Reagan after he raised taxes?

[lexusppd]

I said: “independents vote pretty much in the same ratio as the D/R ratio”.

Are you familiar with the mathematical concept of “ratio”?

For you to say the demographics, politically are the same in Ca as they are in the nation ...

There you go again. I didn't say that.

With respect to California, I said: “the demographics as to party are not much different than they were in the Reagan gubernatorial era”

**********************************************************

It is you in fact who is throwing out meaningless blather. WE are talking here of a NATIONAL ELECTION. The bottom line is you are trying to compare California political demographics to national demographics and that is not possible under any set of circumstances or scenarios.

McCain will be the president as it looks right now. If that makes you angry then fine. But pulling useless stats from 30 years ago to make a point regarding an election that is like none we have ever faced in our history is lame. many here including, I guess yourself, do not believe the WOT is as important as do I and seem also to believe if either of the other 2 were elected somehow things would work out in that regard.

I believe thinking such as yours is purely disastrous and question the thought processes of anyone who thinks NOW, TODAY illegal immigration is more important then STAYING ALIVE.

[bmwcyle]

Bowing to La Raza (communist) does not make him conservative.

[ksen]

Now is not that time.

Hmmm, it never seems to be the time.

Meh, I'm not voting for anyone on the Left even if they have an "R" by their name. If the voters want to take the country to the Left, they can do it without my help.

As of right now I'll be voting Libertarian for President, and conservatives downticket where they are available.

After voting for GWB twice and getting the largest increase in federal power since at least LBJ I'll pass on voting for another 4 years of the same.

If you think 11th century goatherders pose more of a threat to our way of life than an out of control federal government then you have your priorities screwed up.

Scared voters are pliable voters, the parties are pleased to have their Islamic boogeyman to keep them in power.

[lexusppd]

"If you think 11th century goatherders pose more of a threat to our way of life than an out of control federal government then you have your priorities screwed up."

Eleventh century goat herders, no, but 11th century goat herders had no nukes. I find it sad so many fail in extrapolating from todays events to what seems an obvious conclusion if these crazies are not stopped NOW.

In any case at least you seem as if you will vote in the election and that is a good thing. To not vote means to give up any credibility in anything you say after the election.

[Yosemitest]

"suppose McCain picks as a VP a man of the caliber of a Ronald Reagan
(if there is such a man).
Would you then reconsider voting for McCain?"

Hello ... It's McCain!!!

Would you believe him about anything after all the backstabbing he's done? HELL NO!!!

[lexusppd]

Fine, but IF he did would you vote for him. Just yes or no will do.

[ksen]

McCain is light years better then the alternative and in this time he is the best electable choice we have.

That's the problem right there. You are too worried about "electable" candidates. Why not just vote for the best candidate and let the electability issues work themselves out?

By declaring certain candidates "unelectable" you are setting in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[calcowgirl]

It is you in fact who is throwing out meaningless blather. WE are talking here of a NATIONAL ELECTION. The bottom line is you are trying to compare California political demographics to national demographics and that is not possible under any set of circumstances or scenarios.

NO! My comparison was of Schwarzenegger to McCain. What Arnold, as a liberal Republican Governor in California, has achieved for the liberal agenda is indicative of what McCain will do on a national scale, IMO. Get it?

McCain will be the president as it looks right now. If that makes you angry then fine. But pulling useless stats from 30 years ago to make a point regarding an election that is like none we have ever faced in our history is lame. many here including, I guess yourself, do not believe the WOT is as important as do I and seem also to believe if either of the other 2 were elected somehow things would work out in that regard.

I didn't pull stats to make a point--I pulled the stats only to refute your silly assertion that Arnold had "to satisfy mostly all liberals" in order to win.

I believe thinking such as yours is purely disastrous and question the thought processes of anyone who thinks NOW, TODAY illegal immigration is more important then STAYING ALIVE.

Ahhh... but there is the flaw. I didn't say the illegal immigration is more important than staying alive. It is you that infers if we don't elect McCain, we will all be dead. I simply don't agree with that. I believe claims such as yours are largely alarmist tactics employed by campaign hacks.