Posted on 06/16/2008 12:13:45 PM PDT by pissant
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.
So, your answer is yes, you allow me to aid and abet a Socialist thief?
Hey, with GOP'ers like you, who needs enemies like the Democraps?
Relax and debate a common base of ideas and attack the Rats.
How sad that the GOP is saddled with a nominee who couldn't have won their party's nomination without the support of folks who deeply detest the GOP.
And his drift to the (relative) center (aka the left) is nowhere near complete! Anyone here who honestly thinks McCain would veto a "bipartisan" child-healthcare bill (i.e. Obama's current goal for socialist extension of the entitlement system) please speak now (so I can laugh at you). This will be another sacrificial lamb we will be expected to give up for "the wot".
By late October, the sole remaining difference between Obama and McCain could be Iraq/Iran policy. Friendly town-hall meetings with La Raza terrorists are proof McCain does not take American security seriously (and he has actually been at war, so I doubt he is naive enough to believe in the utopian fraud of "transformative democracy" et al). Take from that what you want.
Juan is already making it reeeaaaally difficult.
If he picks an asinine, leftist, mushy VP candidate (Bloomberg, Lieberman, Kerry, Graham, Snowe, Huckabee, Giuliani), he and the GOP deserve to lose BIG.
Would mccain make a promise to only nominate conservative supreme court nominees? I mean keep sending them up to get them shot down no matter the outcome. In the least could we end up with no new supreme court justices under his term? I am about down to taxes and justices as the only reason I can see to vote for him. Is it better to sit back and watch the republic burn or to actually give it your stamp of approval?
BTW, the question was regarding tax increases.
“off the record” Oh, okay.
|
Who's pretending?
Most of us have known that there's nothing covert about his leftist bent.
For extra credit: Who voted Against Ginsberg and Breyer?
For extra extra credit: How many judges did Fred Thompson vote against during his time in the Senate?
Answers:
1) Don Nickles (OK), Robert C. Smith (NH), Jesse Helms (NC).
Several additional senators voted against Breyer because of ethical concerns.
Ginsberg had 3 negative votes, and Breyer 9. At the time, that was the norm — you didn’t attack the president’s nominees for being of the same party as the President.
Of course, Scalia was easily confirmed as well, so it was a two-way street until the entire process was taken over by the political fight over abortion.
Breyer’s vote was 87-9.
An out-of-context quote from a democrat, even one who says he is going to support our candidate, from an event that has no transcript, and no public record, just isn’t going to push me the wrong way.
For all I know, McCain was explaining why he thought he would be able to get good judges through the process, and was explaining that he voted for the President’s picks because he believed the Presidents had a right to their nominees.
Thanks, I pulled the 80-10 vote off of wiki.
For extra extra credit: How many judges did Fred Thompson vote against during his time in the Senate?
*************************
Back at you.
For extra credit: Is Fred Thompson running for President at this time? And, did he make a ploy for Hillary's supporters by bragging about his support for Breyer and Ginsburg?
At that time, it was considered good to vote for the nominee as long as he showed good character. That’s how people like Ginsberg and Scalia got in.
And that’s why the libs tried to destroy Thomas’s character in their hearings.
There are plenty of differences between the two. Obama won’t even salute the flag. Obama has also said he will stand with the Muslims if the political winds turn ugly. The Muslim militant wouldn’t pass a security clearance for janitor.
He could work for TSA as an airport screener. Except for the fact that he has a pleasant personality. /s
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.