Redstate

So yes, I want to repeal Roe vs. Wade, and yes, I am proud of my pro-life voting record.

It's only a talking point if it's meant to dissuade you from a position. Since he obviously didn't try to dissuade anyone from wanting Roe overturned, your objection seems pretty thin.

"There is no way Johnny Mac is going to repeal Roe, especially since anti-Roe judges are often pro-1st amendment."

That's an ad hominem circumstantial argument. It was weak when George Will tried to make it fly, it's weak now.

absentee

"McCain has said as recently as 1999..."

Well, and You are supporting Romney. Do you remember what Romney has said as recently as... a couple of years ago?

And if one open the link you provided, here's what McCain was saying in 1999:

"``I believe that the pro-choice community feels that abortion is a procedure that we would like to eliminate,'' McCain said in an interview with The Chronicle last night. ``So yes, I want to repeal Roe vs. Wade, and yes, I am proud of my pro-life voting record."

But I really think that on this issue McCain's voting record speaks for itself.

The difference is that McCain's rhetoric at the San Francisco event actually matched his relentless efforts to thwart and undermine the pro-life community's voice. That's why they were so damning.

Mitt Romney's pro-choice rhetoric in Massachusetts, on the other hand, always seemed out of sync with him. Which is why all the pro-choice groups always endorsed his opponents despite what he was saying.

Mitt Romney's actions as governor proved those pro-choice groups to be prescient.

As Ann Coulter said, if Mitt Romney had to recite the Communist Manifesto in order to defeat Teddy Kennedy in 1994 - we'd still all owe him a great debt of gratitude. And she said further, which I agree with, that when even "loser Mormons" like Harry Reid claim to be pro-life, you have to take comfort that him belonging to a wacky religion isn't all bad. :-)

So Romney was bad about lying about being pro-choice?

I don't know if Romney is truly pro-life or pro-choice at heart. I think he'd govern as a pro-lifer.

But the idea that you are taking one sentence from a 20 year career and giving it more weight than actual Senate votes and every other word McCain has said is very disingenuous. It makes me think you aren't serious and you are just pimping your candidate.

You can buy the wholesale, perfectly-timed conversion of Mitt Romney but now the 20 year, pro-life record of John McCain. That's disturbingly myopic.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Other than showing up to vote the right way so that pro-life opposition forces in his pro-life red state wouldn't throw him out on his ear, John McCain has not lifted a finger and in notable cases - such as his firm opposition to the Wisconsin Right to Life's case before the Supreme Court last term - has stood firmly against it.

Just b/c the word "Right to Life" is in the case doesn't mean it has anything to do with his pro-life record.

If you oppose McCain b/c of McCain-Feingold, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

His pro-life record and actions are the most consistent and longest of the major candidates.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

John McCain has no problem with you being pro-life as long as you shut up about it.

Another important point about McCain's speech in 1999 is that it came in the midst of his alleged proud 20-year pro-life voting record.

So while Mitt Romney did a clear pivot and about-face, which he has admitted to, John McCain spouted something that could have just as easily come from the mouth of Hillary Clinton when it was...(wait for it)...politically expedient.

He was running against George W. Bush for the GOP nomination and he signaled that he was clearly willing to sell out the pro-life community in order to become president.

Call me crazy, but I want to vote for the guy who is willing to pivot and sell-out the pro-abortion community to be president over the guy who was once willing to sell-out the pro-life community to be president.

In fact, there's a good case to be made that while Romney has flipped on abortion, perhaps McCain is the one who tried to flip before flopping back.

If it was planned or thought out, maybe. But coming out as against Roe being overturned is not a good strategy in a Republican primary (see Giuliani, Rudy). And it wasn't like McCain defended his comments or adopted them as strategy.

I think the more likely explanation is the most direct one. He was trying to thread the needle of being pro-life but wanting some cross-over votes. His extraordinary openness means he talks with media members a lot more and in a lot less controlled settings than most politicians. He lets some words get ahead of his brain (not the only time). As soon as he had time to reflect on what he said, he realized it wasn't his view and had never been his view.

That's why the fact that there is one sentence at one time is such a small thing. If he had put it in his platform, campaigned on it, given interviews explaining his pro-choice views in 2000 that would be a very different story (in fact, it would resemble Romney's situation).

But if you care more about one sentence than a life long pro-life record, that's your choice. I must admit that I don't think you are serious about what you're saying. It feels much more like you have a visceral dislike of McCain and want any little thing to harp on.

The fact that you could possibly argue that Romney's record on abortion is more consistent or more pro-life than McCain's is silly.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

George W. Bush was clearly cornering the pro-life vote, so McCain was gambling that there might be enough pro-choice votes in the GOP combined with pro-choice independents who could swing the election his way.

He didn't have the benefit of learning from Rudy's failed candidacy because, of course, it wouldn't happen until 8 years later.

But again, McCain's general antagonism to the pro-life movement lines up a lot more with that one sentence than it does his voting record - which is why I think it is so damning and why so few ardent pro-lifers support him.

You do not want to get into an argument about who has been more pro-life and has been pro-life longer.

I mean you have seen this right:

As for your other talking points. McCain called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" and their post 9/11 blame America attitude more or less confirmed that. The idea that you can stretch that to include all pro-lifers is incredible.

McCain has had a pro-life record his entire time in Congress. No conversion midway. No conversion to run for President in 2000 or 2008.

And from the article you link to:

he believes the GOP "must be an inclusionary party, and we must respect the views of others" on the issue.

That pretty directly plants him in the pro-life side of the aisle but open to keeping people like Romney 94 and Romney 2002 in the party.

Also from the article:

"I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal. . . . But that . . . must take place in conjunction with a sustained effort to reduce the number of abortions performed in America."

So if you are going to take one sentence he said in 2000 and hold that up as Sen. McCain's view on abortion, you are being disingenuous. His long voting record and every other statement he has made during his 20+ year career has been pro-life.

Of the final 3 Republican candidates, Sen. McCain has the longest and most consistent pro-life record.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

...the Senator's comments at a fundraiser, I believe, in San Francisco that he didn't think that the country was ready for Roe to be overturned and, as such, he didn't think that it should be.

Any evidence of your claim.

absentee

``But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.'' - Sen. John McCain

Sorry...I didn't realize that BlackRepub had already linked it above, but here it is again:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/08/25/MN54171.DTL&...

You have now brought up the same sentence that BlackRepub did originally. But you have kept doing it even after people have responded. Add something new or stop posting. I will repeat for the fourth or fifth (and last time):

So if you are going to take one sentence he said in 2000 and hold that up as Sen. McCain's view on abortion, you are being disingenuous. His long voting record and every other statement he has made during his 20+ year career has been pro-life.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

...I didn't realize that BlackRepub had already mentioned the same incident above.

The exact quote is worth highlighting, however.

Let me just blockquote and bold the important part:

So if you are going to take one sentence he said in 2000 and hold that up as Sen. McCain's view on abortion, you are being disingenuous. His long voting record and every other statement he has made during his 20+ year career has been pro-life.

Sen. McCain easily has the longest and most consistent pro-life record of the the 3 remaining candidates.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't see how McCain's own position on one or more court-related issues can influence his selection. How is he even going to know what the nominee supports when hardly anyone he could pick would have a clear record? I don't think he's going to ask nominees what they think about his work in the Senate.

However, I have a hunch he would most likely pick people from the Democrats' "list" of their pre-screened and pre-approved nominees.

The only way ANY President could "repeal" Roe is by refusing to allow his administration to enforce it. None of the candidates will say they will do that, and none of the states care enough to try to find out.

absentee

The National Right to Life Co-Founder Dr. Carolyn Gerster disagrees as well.

I understand people's support of other candidates. But it is pretty hard to deny that McCain has the longest and most consistent pro-life record of the 3 remaining viable candidates.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

John McCain has a consistent record of voting the right way and then turning around and doing everything in his power to undermine the pro-life movement's power to affect real change that might actually lead to a repeal of Roe. He has also said some rather disparaging things about some of the pro-life cause's most ardent group of supporters - evangelicals.

McCain has supported Bork, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. If it wasn't for Democrats and some other Republicans who voted against Bork, Roe would have been overturned in Casey.

McCain helped clear the logjam with the Gang of 14 that prevented the use of the filibuster during the last term of Congress. Thus, the 55-45 R majority was able to guarantee President Bush approval of any qualified nominees to the Court. I doubt Bush would have nominated Alito if the Gang had not cleared the way. And in case it matters, my analysis from the day after The Deal was reached was that it would be a good thing for conservatives and the judicial selection process.

And I'm unaware of what comments you are referring to re: evangelicals.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Yes, the Gang of 14 cleared the logjam and allowed all great and well-qualified nominees to the federal bench to be seated as evidenced by how few federal judicial seats are now filled.

Oh wait...no...in fact another one to the 4th Circuit just had to ask that his name be withdrawn because no action was taken on it. There are, in fact, so many vacancies that some courts are facing judicial emergencies with judges who took senior status basically having to work almost full time just to help the court keep up with the workload.

The Gang of 14 didn't "clear the logjam" as you so inaccurately put it - it just moved it to the secret conferences of the Gang of 14 where McCain no doubt presides over the meetings.

Perhaps the president should just give in and ask the Gang of 14 who he should nominate instead of nominating who he sees fit.

Wait a minute...I know this may sound silly, but I think I read it somewhere that in the American system of government, the president is supposed to nominated the judges to the federal bench. Come to think of it, I think I read it in this little document called the United States Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

If the constitutional option had been exercised, all of those judges AND MORE would be seated on the court right now. John McCain actively sought to thwart that outcome when it thwarted the constitutional option.

To claim that the Gang of 14 somehow facilitated anyone being seated on the court who would not have otherwise been seated is a bald-faced lie. The plethora of vacancies on the court is the evidence.

there was no evidence that there were 50 votes for the Nuclear Option. There were a lot of rumors that many Rs were not comfortable actually voting for it but wanted to keep the bluff up.

I doubt you actually read my day after analysis. But it goes through how the structure of the Deal took away the filibuster entirely for that Session of Congress. If you want to argue that isn't true, please look at the argument and respond to it. Anyone who would get filibustered under The Deal would not have 50 votes anyway.

By having The Deal in place, President Bush knew a qualified nominee would not be filibustered. The Ds in the Gang upheld their end of the bargain, and we got Roberts and Alito. It's a great example of bipartisanship working, which is why a lot of partisans don't like to admit it.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But before I do, I just want to say that I clearly remember that the question at the time was whether there would have been 49 or 50 votes plus Dick Cheney. If John McCain had supported the constitutional option instead of coming out against it immediately, there would have been absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it would have passed and then Henry Saad would be on the 6th Circuit right now.

Instead, John McCain threw him and a couple others - as well as every other nominee who had to withdraw since - under the bus.

That is not conservative leadership on the judiciary - which directly affect the pro-life movement.

For example, that assumed that Sen. Specter would actually vote for the Nuclear Option. 49 was the number of Rs minus the Gang Members. Not all of those 49 were out and loud in their "support." There were rumors about the White House and Frist implicitly okaying the Gang because it was a safer way to get to the same result for that Congress. I have no way of knowing whether those rumors are true, but unless you have some source with 49 Senators writing their names on a piece of parchment, I don't think Frist had 49 Senators actually willing to vote aye.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

First off, we start with 55 Republican Senators
minus Lincoln Chafee
minus Arlen Specter
minus Olympia Snowe
minus Susan Collins
minus another Republican senator, perhaps Coleman
minus JOHN MCCAIN is how we get to 49

The rest were clearly being pressured to fall in line and if John McCain hadn't come out in opposition to it, it would have likely passed, if narrowly, and actually allowed the president to fulfill his obligations to the judiciary under the constitution.

Instead, however, John McCain actively opposed the lever that might allow a floodgate of conservatives to fill every vacancy on the court at the time.

Think of how dramatically the chances of the constitutional option succeeding might have improved if he had, I don't know...actually come out in favor of it?

If he had, then I think it is clear that the constitutional option passes and we have a whole heck of a lot of great conservatives on the judiciary right now.

Instead, John McCain killed the best opportunity that conservatives have had in decades to make really bold progress in reforming the judiciary.

Then there was about a 50% (being generous) chance it passed and all 49 other Rs weren't bluffing. So Bush nominates Roberts and Alito, and we're right where we are now. Remember the Court nominees weren't filibustered because the D Gang Members did what they promised to do.

On the other hand, there was at least a 50% chance that one R was bluffing and staying quiet to help the party but had problems with the Nuclear Option (Coleman, Smith, Warner, DeWine, etc). Then it fails 52-48 or 51-49. And now the Ds are not bound at all. Alito gets filibustered. Hello, Justice Miers.

The Deal effectively killed the filibuster. Why Frist didn't use that fact to push more nominees, I don't know. But that isn't McCain's fault.

So I don't see how you get some grand re-alignment if the filibuster had been deemed unconstitutional. The President and the Senate had agreed that there would be no filibuster during that Session. It was functionally the same thing.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Again, if McCain had supported it instead of actively campaigning against it, Smith, DeWine, Warner, and perhaps even Coleman all would have been along. It's called leadership.

The fact is that those senators (with Coleman and possibly Smith being the exceptions) would have been under severe pressure from their base back home to pull the trigger and likely would have.

Additionally, it wasn't completely clear that Ben Nelson would have not voted for it, either. He was more relieved than anyone.

If McCain supports the constitutional option, we're not just where we are today - we have all of the federal appellate circuit courts filled with great conservative judges (because there have been few vacancies that have arisen since Jan. 2007).

McCain stabbed pro-lifers and the conservative judicial community in the back. And in the end, all you are doing on this line of reasoning is trying to defend another clear act of apostasy against conservatives on the part of John McCain.

Why don't you just chalk it all up to 7 years of BDS from losing in 2000 and he will be a good conservative from now on.

We could wrap all objections up in one package and I might buy it. I'm serious.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Your article ended with this gem: "In 2006, the playing field is tilted in our direction and we should take advantage of that."

I found the rest of your analysis to be about up to par with that quoted statement.

That should be some evidence of how bad the 2006 loss was. IIRC, Ds in WV, NE, AR, ND, and several other places were looked at as pick-up opportunities. Before Rs decided to toss fiscal conservatism to the pork barrels, races in TN, VA, OH, MT and MO didn't seem like they would be close. TN became an open seat, but the others were incumbents in center-right states. It would be like thinking Lautenberg or Levin is not safe in 2008.

2006 was such a bad year for Rs precisely because the playing field was so advantageous for Rs.

In 2008, there are 21 Rs and 12 Ds (IIRC) up for re-election. And only LA, WV, SD, and AR have Ds that could be challenged. Rs have ME, NH, OR, and MN to defend among other open seats in NM, CO, NE, and elsewhere.

In 2010, the field is again in the Ds favor in number of seats and in which seats are up.

Rs have to wait for 2012 (the 2006 crowd again) before the field will be in their favor again.

That should have been a good R cycle. It's one reason the pork barreling corruption is so maddening. Not only is it bad policy, it's bad politics too. But the DCers don't seem to get it.

And for the record, McCain does and it's a large reason why I support him.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Your argument was "this isn't so bad because we can now pick up additional seats later and make up for it."

You were wrong and McCain thwarted conservatives best hope in decades to stack the deck.

I'm sure McCain is happy, but I don't see how any conservative could support this apostate who repents of none of his misdeeds.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I know we all get a snippy right now and I'm sorry if I was harsh. I understand the concerns about McCain's position on several issues: free speech, immigration, etc.

And thank you for the second paragraph which is exactly the kind of comment I was hoping for in this thread. It was original and explains why you trust someone with a worse record of abortion. I disagree with it, but it explains your views.

Your first comment was trying to paint McCain as some closest pro-choicer or enemy of pro-lifers. If you trust Romney more, that's defensible. But McCain does have a longer and more consistent record on life.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard