Posted on 10/17/2008 5:41:40 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
ABOARD “Straight Talk Air” (between New York and Miami)—Sen. John McCain would “absolutely” not compromise on Supreme Court nominations if elected and would continue to nominate strict constructionist judges if any of his Supreme Court nominations were defeated by a hostile Senate.
McCain said that and much more to HUMAN EVENTS chief political correspondent John Gizzi in an exclusive interview Friday morning.
The Republican presidential nominee also said, if elected, he would gladly join running mate Sarah Palin on a trip to Alaska to view the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but has not yet changed his mind on oil drilling in ANWR.
McCain said he would consider former rivals Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for his Cabinet and backed away from earlier talk of Democrats Al Gore and Andrew Cuomo in his prospective Administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Q: On the Supreme Court, you have said you will make nominations of strict constructionists in the mold of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. If such nominees are “borked,” defeated for confirmation in the Senate, will you promise to continue to send similar constructionist nominees to the Senate for confirmation?
A: Absolutely. I will send [judicial nominees] to the Senate with a record of strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. That’s what the founding fathers said they should do. It’s not an idea of mine. That’s what the founding fathers said when they called for the separation of branches [of government] -- executive, legislative, and judicial. I mean to somehow think this is a departure of what our fathers have clearly stated is really a continuing puzzlement to me. My point is that judges who legislate from the bench are not within their line of responsibility as clearly cited by the Founding Fathers.
Q: Now the four justices you cite as models for nomination -- Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia -- have all at different times voted to overturn parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign legislation you co-authored. Would you appoint justices who would do that?
A: Well, obviously, I wouldn’t impose any litmus tests. No justice that I would nominate would I expect to agree with me on every single issue. The majority of justices just made a ruling on detainees I didn’t agree with. That was very disturbing to me. And so, I can’t say I would agree with every decision. But if I can count on every justice that I name to share my view of the judiciary, then in the long run, things should come out OK.
. . . . .
Q: So will you send the Senate a “border security only” package?
A: I’m still open to a comprehensive package. But I understand we have to sit down on this. We must secure the borders, we have to have a temporary worker program, we must round up and deport 2 million people who are here illegally and have committed crimes. But people who have gotten here illegally, obeyed the laws, learned English, lived here all their lives and have lived decent lives -- they have to go through the naturalization process. They are God’s children.
. . . . .
Q: My colleague Allan Ryskind, who worked with you to defeat Morton Halperin’s nomination to a Pentagon position in the Clinton years, said he wouldn’t mind Joe Lieberman as secretary of defense or state, but would very much mind Al Gore or [Democratic New York Attorney General] Andrew Cuomo in your Cabinet. Are you seriously considering Gore and Cuomo for a McCain-Administration?
A: Not necessarily those two. But you’ve got to reach out. You’ve got to work together and you’ve got to be inclusive. Look, I know that I disagree with HUMAN EVENTS on the issue of climate change. But there are Democrats who have areas of expertise that all of us agree on. For example, Warren Buffett is a Democrat, pro-choice, a lot of things. But I think a lot of Americans would approve it if Warren Buffett were to come in and offer his expertise and help clean up this mess. Do you see what I mean? I wouldn’t appoint Warren Buffett, say, secretary of defense. But I would say, ‘Warren, hey come in and sit down with us. Help us clean up this financial mess. Help us on what to do. But I don’t know what the specific job would be, so it depends on the job you’re talking about.
There are conservatives that can get through a Dem senate. McCain knows that.
|
For a moment there, I was tempted to send in my absentee ballot with a vote for McCain, but then he mouthed off about "God's children" and climate change, praised Warren Buffett, and evidenced that he is still "stuck on stupid" when it comes to bending over for the Democrats. |
|
Screw Romney and Giuliani. Bring in Sowell and Bolton.
Interesting.
Sounds like McCain decided not to irritate conservatives today. Smart move. He spent the last few weeks supporting liberal economic policy and praising people such as Gore and Cuomo and his polling fell out beneath him.
I don't trust McCain...but at least consideration to ANWR and the appropriate judges won't give others trying to elect him heartburn.
Now he’s taking my language.
GO McCAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slick Willard... Andrew Cuomo... Slick Willard... Al Gore...
Like deciding if I want to put my testicles in a meat grinder or in a wood chipper.
see this is what sucks for McCain.
Obama can say whatever the hell he wants and MoveOn and Kos and all the far left groups won’t call him on it.
McCain can say something out of the mainstream conservative arena and he is tarred, feathered, stuck to the wall, etc (and that’s probably what should happen when you talk about having Al Gore in your cabinet)
But I make this request, as an American and a proud member of the military who doesn’t want our country to fall under socialism. Can we please give McCain some type of pass for the next 18 days to do what he thinks he needs to do to win? WE know what WE need to do on the ground to keep him running. McCain is much more easier to deal with than the socialist.
My absentee ballot has McCain/Palin bubbled in.
I stupidly filled it out on the morning of the bailout vote but kept it on my desk after his treachery on live TV.
But hey, go right on ahead and assume that just because I have major issues with the RINO infestation in the GOP and here on Free Republic...that I must somehow be an Obama lover.
OOOOOOH.... powerful person! Like you have the ability to make a difference.
If you are still undecided at this point, you have bigger life issues.
He has a knack for touting "bipartisanship," amnesty, and climate change at the worst of times, doesn't he?
Can we please give McCain some type of pass for the next 18 days...
The ends do not justify the means.
And, seriously, McCain should be old enough to realize that his job is to represent the GOP's predominantly conservative constituency rather than advancing his own personal agenda.
Call John McCain. He’ll tell you exactly where to stuff your absentee ballot!
I have just a bit of power, as an individual voter. But, if others see things the same way I do, it can make a difference.
Do you not remember the 2006 Virginia Senate election? The difference was a few thousand votes...about a third of a percent.
John McBarnum: You can’t fool all the people all the time, but you sure can sucker a whole bunch of ‘em for while.
Sorry, I don't waste my time on Democrats.
By the way, I like how you've been here for less than a month, and now you're insulting me instead of defending your candidate.
The GOP’s predominantly conservative constituency failed to nominate a candidate this election. Where were you and the rest of the conservatives during the primaries?
We got: another Arkansas bubba, a slick haired guy from three states who ran a leftist athletic show and the most Democratic state in the union; Ruddy and McCain. Where was the REAL conservative candidate?
Hey, I will admit Willard is good at running things. Like a business.
I think he would be good as Sec. of Commerce.
Au contraire. Just firing people and implementing Socialism doesn’t demonstrate good business acumen.
The media ignored Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson jumped in too late, and Ron Paul was vilified for his non-interventionist beliefs despite the fact that on every other issue he was more conservative than McCain.
And then they let Democrat and "independent" voters in States with early primaries decide the races.
You’d be wise to vote for McCain. Let’s avert the immediate crisis first. Then we can raise these issues with President McCain. It’s not as though we haven’t had a RINO president before. We’ll survive.
0bambi, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. On judges alone, I doubt I’ll live long enough to see the damage fixed.
From the Barack Hussein Obama Truth File:
“I thought he was rehabilitated”
- Barack Obama on William Ayers.
Somehow praising Al Gore just seems in a whole different league.
Hey, I voted for Ron Paul, and McCain was never going to get my vote (My tag line was: Real Conservatives do not vote for a Socialist). Then my eyes were lifted. This Conservative will vote for a Socialist like McCain if it means that a Marxist with a background in Black Liberation Theology will stay out of the White House.
Oh, and Palin was pretty convincing that McCain CAN get it right. Obama has NEVER gotten it right. Even the broken clock analogy has not applied to him.
If not, my local election registrar has informed me that it can be spoiled, and I can cast my vote in person.
and hence, the GOP has done terrible in developing conservative leaders.
someone should write a book called “The Articulation of Conservatism” and base it on the Reagan delivery model.
While were at it, we should open a Ronald Reagan School of Political Communication.
But to answer your previous question about what happened to our one conservative candidate (Fred), it was truly baffling to watch his campaign waste a gigantic grassroots effort.
With the selection of Palin, the mantra of GOP leadership has been turned over to the next generation. I suspect Bobby Jindal and Palin to play major roles in the upcoming years.
But if Obama wins, you can forget our future. If there’s a 50% majority willing to put this socialist in, there’s no way we’ll get these people back like Reagan did when the free handouts start, no matter how bad it gets (see Michigan, California, Maryland, etc).
fieldmarshaldj: “Au contraire. Just firing people and implementing Socialism doesn’t demonstrate good business acumen.”
But the primaries are over now, and we’ve got more important issues to worry about. We are going to get a President McCain or a President Obama whether we like it or not. That’s fact.
McCain probably dislikes us and our conservatism as much as we dislike him. He’s also a weak candidate, but he’s not a Marxist. Say what you will about him, he’ll do the right thing on some issues. Obama, on the other hand, is wrong on virtually EVERY issue.
Conservatism is temporarily defeated. Fine. We can try to take the party back another day, but now we need to focus on the immediate threat—Obama.
This may all be a pointless exercise, anyhow. The Socialists f**ked us both ways infiltrating both parties. Slick Willard types in ours, Obama types in theirs. 1/3rd of the votes cast for Democrats in this election may be absolutely fraudulent, and the Supreme Court and this President won’t stop it.
I wonder how many of the GOP primary votes were fraudulent or otherwise cast by non-Republicans (i.e. Democrats).
parksstp: “If there’s a 50% majority willing to put this socialist in, there’s no way we’ll get these people back...”
Oh, I don’t know about that. The problem is fixing all the damage that’s done. It’s going to be pretty nigh impossible to unravel nationalized health care once it’s started, and it can take 20-30 years to fix the courts once activist judges are appointed. As much as I dislike McCain’s wishy washy politics, I really have no choice but to support him. I’m certainly not going to do a Chris Buckley, “McCain sucks so I’m voting Obama.”
For the first time in 16 years, I didn’t even cast a vote in the GOP Presidential primary. It was because there was no serious Conservative candidate to vote for with Fred’s departure.
The jerk should have been up there before, during, or after he named Palin as his running mate.
Is it impossible for a politican to use common sense..? Especially when energy, specifically ANWR, is a major issue these days?
fieldmarshaldj: “This may all be a pointless exercise, anyhow.”
It’s definitely pointless if we lose the election by not voting. It may be pointless if we vote, but I’ll take that over a guaranteed loss any day.
Well I could afford not to vote in my state, since it’s going for McCain regardless. This entire election is the biggest f**king nightmare in my lifetime (it makes 1992 look like 1980).
I have problems with McCain. I think that we have to deal with it though, AFTER he gets into the White House.
Hussein in the Oval Office would be ten times worse. I really believe that.
RD
look, I’m being honest. I’ve lost a lot of sleep over this. I am terrified of Obama, I mean literally scared. His associations, his radical policies, the fact he might get 50% of this country to vote for him? I mean, it’s game over if he gets in. We’re screwed on so many levels: the Chinese know it, the terrorists know it.
McCain is far from the perfect candidate. But he’s the only thing we have standing between freedom and oppression. If the GOP still controlled Congress, I’d wouldn’t be as worried since O could be kept in check. But O-Reid-Pelosi + Supreme Court Nominees, and the fact that the MSM will be able to claim their first major victory over alternative media and we’ll never get our folks back in power.
We need to take a stand now. I’m flying home to vote in FL. I’m praying everyday for our side. My career decision hangs in the balance.
If you can’t find a way to vote for McCain, not because of Sarah, then at least think about the troops.
McCain really needs to win by the biggest margins possible in both electoral and popular votes. Why? I think we risk serious violence if McCain wins by electoral votes but not the popular vote (think 2000 on steroids). Plus, the Democrats have contested and won other elections in the courts. If they get close, they’ll try to find a sympathetic court and keep recounting until they win.
The days of Democrats losing graciously are long gone. McCain won’t fight if he loses, nor should he. But the Dems are not going to stop until they’ve exhausted every trick in the book.
He sounded good throwing meat to crowd at that rally in Florida today. Most enthusiastic crowd I’ve heard with him.
I disagree with you most profoundly.
McCain has it right on the judicial nominees, but it will be practically impossible to get them to the floor for an up or down vote, if the Dems get a super majority in the U.S. Senate (60 votes).
Vote and support Republicans running in the U.S. Senate race.
parksstp: “If you can’t find a way to vote for McCain, not because of Sarah, then at least think about the troops.”
I agree 100%. I served during the Clinton years, and it wasn’t pretty. I think that’s part of the reason why we had trouble in Iraq, especially the army. It was hurting for personnel and equipment.
Now Obama, he’s clearly stated he wants to scrap our nuclear arsenal, eliminate missile defense, and slash new weapon programs. Now if that doesn’t frighten you, I don’t know what will.
For later.
Sitting in the red states watching the RINO states remove the Conservatives from the field.
Where was the REAL conservative candidate?
Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Alan Keyes- All removed as an option before the red states got a chance to say boo.
Red states where McCain, btw, failed to carry much at all.
Pelosi Predicts 250 Seat Dem Majority
[did she say this at the parade when all US troops came home from Iraq?]
The Hill | 10/17/08 | Alexander Bolton
Posted on 10/17/2008 5:47:09 PM PDT by KansasGirl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108517/posts
Japan wins seat at UN Security Council; Iran fails
France24/AFP | Oct. 17, 2008
Posted on 10/17/2008 6:17:34 PM PDT by nuconvert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108535/posts
Right we got McCain, so why would we want Mitt too?
There is no wisdom in voting socialists into the party meant to oppose socialism. Socialism rises because there is no opposition to it. Until that simple conclusion is realized, socialism will continue to thrive and Conservatism will continue to languish.
Your path is the path of greatest peril.
The immediate threat is *not* 0bama. the immediate threat is the lack of opposition to socialism, because the Republican party is overtaken with socialist/globalist idealists.
Without rudely and profoundly rejecting the globalist ideology, our doom is sealed.
McCain is much more easier to deal with than the [other] socialist.
I disagree with you most profoundly.
How so...a hypocrat congress...a hypocrat POTUS appointing hypocrat SCOTUS judges?
McCain’s often wrong but he’s an honorable man and not hell-bent to destroy the country AND there’s Sarah!
But he is hell-bent on comprehensively bending over for the ones who want to destroy this country, and that's just as bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
