I'm one of those hard line conservatives, that is sooooooo pissed at McCain and his backstabbing, that I CANNOT stand the thought of McCain winning. I willfully long for the defeat of the RINOs and their McCainiac leader.
Posted on 02/17/2008 6:58:04 PM PST by jdm
I'm one of those hard line conservatives, that is sooooooo pissed at McCain and his backstabbing, that I CANNOT stand the thought of McCain winning. I willfully long for the defeat of the RINOs and their McCainiac leader.
We all understand why you would say that.
What do you believe the Supreme Court will look like in four years with Hussein or Hillary in the White House?
What would it look like if McCain is in the White House?
I would expect enough difference to make me vote for McCain.
No difference in the Supreme Court at all between the three Democrats offered ... McCain, Obama, or Hillary!!!
Just as one example, I would expect Hussein to nominate a person who would decide that the Constitution not only permits but requires that U.S. taxpayers contribute money to the UN to eliminate world poverty.
Hillary would appoint somebody who would decide that the Constitution not only permits but requires that taxpayers provide all healthcare for everybody in the US, and that no healthcare shall be provided outside the national healthcare system.
How would you characterize the nominee of McCain?
Absolutely. I had not really heard her stumping until this past week. She is scary. Not like when she was on Larry King.
Hugh Hewitt has posted some excerpts from her speeches.
I believe that. But I also believe that McCain will nominate better candidates for the Supreme Court by accident than either Hillary of Obama will do purposefully.
The next four years may see quite a few replacements on the Court.
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
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:
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,
Stepping back and looking at the big picture:
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?
N.E.V.E.R.
And that’s just fine by me. I won’t turn our armed forces over to a Socialist or Marxist. Can you spell “WON’T”?
The GOP already beat you to it, turning over the armed forces to a Socialist or Marxist, by allowing McCain to come this far. As a retired military member, I know very well what I'm doing.
Let the Democrats take the fall, because they are responsible for their actions. And so is the G.O.P.
Our ONLY HOPE is for a backlash against the Democrat President.
“my fear is-democrats will grow up.”
your fear has no basis in reality.
I hope you’re right.
Great essay!
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.