Redstate

is it fair to call him a "flip-flopper" on abortion?

He's using the same rhetoric that NARAL uses: "If we allow the states to decide for themselves whether or not every human life should have rights, then some women will be 'forced' to get illegal abortions."

That's similar to saying that by keeping cocaine illegal, we're 'forcing' cocaine users to break the law.

Except that abortion involves the immediate termination of a human life. And abortion-on-demand involves the death of a human who didn't have to die.

Spiral, for voters like you who just truly don't trust the Senator I don't think he can do much to win you over. The idea that his 20-year record is all a ploy to lull pro-lifers into complacency is too far fetched for me. And coming from people who trust Romney's just-in-time conversion, it seems almost disingenuous.

FWIW, I intend to cover judges in a separate entry so I won't go into those issues right now. But McCain views on what makes a good judge and his support for people like Bork (who many Rs did not support) are quite reassuring. I'll address The Deal as well, but the short version is that I don't believe it reflects one's view of judicial philosophy.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

or do you think that he'll somehow find people who support him on campaign finance but also think Roe should be overturned to appoint to the courts?

I know you said you'd talk judges elsewhere, but these are inseparable issues. See my post below.

And as to your comment about trust and the unlikelihood of him winning me over - seriously, I emailed him on Thursday pleading with him to help me trust him. I want to.

Like most R Presidents, I don't think he will pick judges based on outcomes he wants. He will look for good judges based on the same criterion that most Rs use: judges who oppose legislating from the bench and will follow the Constitution. I also think the Miers incident should help no matter which R was President. And unlike Reagan, McCain will have a large bunch of H.W. and W. appointed judges to choose from. That makes the selection much easier. The biggest problem with judicial selection, IMHO, is not campaign finance but the D majority in the Senate that may be 54-56 by the time the next seat opens. That would squelch the chance to get a Janice Rogers Brown nominated by any of the Rs.

Thanks for at least staying open about him. I'm trying to get some comments from the campaign on some of these issues (ESCR specifically).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think that many, perhaps most, Republicans are ambivilent on the abortion issue. Both Romney and McCain could easily be in this category of Republicans.

I think that there are many Republican politicians who are primariliy interested in economic issues and/or national security issues. When they get ready to run for public office they have to decide what position they will take on issues that they have not been primarliy concerned about.

In most areas of the country, including Arizona, being a pro-abortion Republican is a real disadvantage in the Republican primary. So, a prudent Republican takes a pro-life position and votes pro-life to keep that part of the Republican coalition happy. I don't think that this is far fetched in the least. In fact, anyone knowledgable about Republican politics probably accepts this as a given.

The West and Southwest is not a rabidly pro-life area. Barry Goldwater among others was a pro-choice, libertarian Republican.

I do agree that such a thing happens among many Rs and that McCain was interested in government because of national security issues. But most Rs take a nuanced position if they don't care and hedge on some abortion votes. McCain's record is pristine and long.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I agree that one does not have to be "officially" pro-life to win in a Red State. But let's take your Barry Goldwater example for just a moment.

How often did Barry Goldwater vote against the pro-life cause on actual issues like federal funding for abortion? Not often.

The only recent openly pro-choice Republican in Arizona was Jim Kolbe, who received many primary challenges until he retired from Congress.

So, again, I will acknowledge that McCain has voted the right way on issues that are narrowly labled abortion issues. But as I mentioned before, there are significant advantages from a political perspective in voting pro-life if you are a Arizona Republican and significant disadvantages in voting against the pro-life issue.

Twenty years ago, it was not so easy to be pro-life, you know? Even for republican politicians.

but from my research and what I know about 1981-1985, it was pretty easy to be pro-choice and Republican. If anything, pro-lifers were seen as a fringe and not accepted as in the mainstream. Kind of how the NYT thinks things are today. It was people like McCain winning that changed that perception, especially winning outside the South.

I think today you are correct that Rs in most places who are ambivalent would choose to be pro-life. But McCain was doing it when the conventions were still contentious over the issue of putting different pro-life views into the platform. He was considered a pretty down-the-line Reaganite back when that was a faction of the party, not the whole thing.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Being pro-life was an advantage in 1982 as it is today. Ever hear of a Republican named Ronald Reagan beating George H W Bush in the GOP 1980 primaries?

The idea that his 20-year record is all a ploy to lull pro-lifers into complacency is too far fetched for me. And coming from people who trust Romney's just-in-time conversion, it seems almost disingenuous.

How wonderfully well said, Adam.

The idea that his 20-year record is all a ploy to lull pro-lifers into complacency is too far fetched for me.

It doesn't have to be any kind of ploy. It simply makes a lot of sense to vote pro-life as Republican senator, even if you don't care about the issue. It's a heck of a lot easier to be pro-life in this party than it is to be pro-choice.

That voting record tells you absolutely nothing about how important the issue is to him. His 1999 statement tells you all you need to know about that, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Yeah, today it's expected that Rs are pro-life. I don't think that was true in the early 1980s. But I defer to anyone who was older than me in that time and knows AZ or the West.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

If we have reached the point in politics where words are more important than actual records, that's really sad. It does explain a lot of things that have happened in this primary though.

Remember his comment was in extremely pro-abortion San Francisco, and he still opposed abortion, but focused on actually reducing abortions and getting the infrastructure in place so that there are actual pro-life gains.

Remember, reversing Roe v. Wade, while extremely necessary, is not the whole battle at all. It only means that states would be able to pass abortion restrictions. It would not automatically protect the unborn. Many states have bills passed that explicitly say that they will allow all abortions not federally prohibited, once Roe v. Wade is overturned. These are some of the largest and most populated states. They also border many other states, and you can bet there would be many interstate abortions.

Overturning Roe v. Wade may not even reduce the number of abortions. In his 1999 statement, McCain does express a desire for Roe v. Wade to be gone, but an even stronger desire to see abortions disappear. Which makes him, on his single worst day out of a fantastic record over 20 years, more pro-life than most pro-lifers, who seem to think that a single judicial success is the whole battle.

If we have reached the point in politics where words are more important than actual records

In the case of a legislator looking for executive office, both are important. His statements are at least as important as his votes. His votes don't tell you anything about his priorities. They don't tell you how he would lead because being a legislator is not a leadership position. Your job as a legislator is to cast votes, up or down. Whether you are 51% in favor of something or 100% in favor of something, the voting record looks the same. His statements, past and present, tell us what we need to know about his priorities.

Remember his comment was in extremely pro-abortion San Francisco

Now it's a good thing for a politician to tailor his positions to the media outlet he is speaking? Pro-choice in San Fran and pro-life in Des Monies? Weak.

he still opposed abortion, but focused on actually reducing abortions and getting the infrastructure in place so that there are actual pro-life gains.

Then we should congratulate Hillary Clinton on her pro-life position because she says she wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. She also doesn't want to see Roe overturned. The rhetoric here is the same. The infrastructure you refer to is reversing Roe. Our hands are tied until Roe is gone. For a few days in 1999 he wanted to leave our hands tied.

Overturning Roe v. Wade may not even reduce the number of abortions.

Some people are going to get abortions anyway, so lets not even bother, right?

McCain does express a desire for Roe v. Wade to be gone, but an even stronger desire to see abortions disappear.

He expresses this by saying he doesn't want to see it get overturned because it would lead to women dying in illegal abortions? That sure is a funny way to express that desire. I suppose Hillary Clinton also expresses a desire for Roe to be gone when she talks about safe, legal, and rare abortions. It boils down to the same thing.

Which makes him, on his single worst day out of a fantastic record over 20 years, more pro-life than most pro-lifers, who seem to think that a single judicial success is the whole battle.

This is just completely nonsensical. "Safe, legal, and rare" or "I hope it would eventually become irrelevant" are not pro-life positions, much less "more pro-life than most pro-lifers." The pro-life position is to throw out Roe ASAP and then work to put restrictions and bans in place at the state level. McCain repudiated that here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I also respectfully request No Threadjacking. This is a diary on McCain and on abortion. It is not about stem cell research. It is not about campaign finance. I hope to cover both later. And in case it slips your mind, I am an editor here and I will delete your comments if they threadjack.

On judges, see my reply to Spiral. I hope to look at judges in a different entry. But many pro-lifers opposed Rudy even thought they think he would appoint good judges. To some pro-lifers, the executive branch and having a pro-life President are important goals too. This entry is trying to address those concerns and views. I think McCain will appoint good judges for a few reasons, but there is less evidence on that than on his abortion views. I will cover in detail later.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I began typing that before you posted your threadjacking comment. But the bottom line is that this is a diary of limited value of one can't talk about Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court Appointments in assessing McCain on abortion. I appreciate the effort, I'm not slamming you. I just don't see how we can have any sort of educated intelligent discussion about a president and abortion within mentioning that building across the street from the backside of the capitol. Much less assessing what he really thinks about abortion by looking at what he's currently saying about a very related issue - federal funding for stem cell research.
But I'll just step away until I see you've posted on judges - I just hope we can talk about abortion in that thread.

You make a excellent point. Discussing abortion without discussing the ideological direction of the federal courts and all of the controversies that have resulted from the fight over the federal courts is of limited value.

But we can wait in the wings for Adam's diary on McCain and judges.

I meant to direct the threadjack at the stem cell research part. I should have been more clear. I consider the issues separately and will cover them as such. I think conflating the two makes a lot of otherwise strong pro-lifers seem out side the pro-life movement.

I think Roe is fine in this thread and some on judges, but I will be writing a diary on judges so I don't want to have to do all that research right now and dig up his record, quotes and votes. I understand the overlap and that's why I'm trying to engage on judges a bit.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

FWIW, I intend to do an entry on judges alone. I understand they are a large part of the pro-life movement. See my comment upthread about pro-lifers worries about Rudy and why pro-lifers are looking for other things besides judges.

But as I quoted from the Senator's website, he does say this as the first thing in his section on "Human Dignity":

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

I could go on, but I'll save it for when I thoroughly research the judges issue.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Good. I look foward to your blog on McCain and judges.

For now, I will, even as a stauch opponent of McCain, acknowledge that McCain has a very respectable record on voting pro-life in the Senate. In my comment "Re: Trust" I mentioned that I don't read as much into this as others do.

NONE of the current candidates has agreed to nominate someone to overrule Roe (as modified by Casey). But even if he were to do so, he or she would not be confirmed in the Senate. Finally, even if one were confirmed, it would likely not be a fifth vote. We only know of two, and one won't likely be there long enough to see such a case.

And don't forget, wanting to overrule it isn't enough. They will also have to deviate from the rules to grant cert where they have no reason.

I think that with Kennedy on the outskirts, we don't know where he will end up. But I will say this, I think that any of our 3 left would nominate the final justice. Thus abortion is not a huge concern with me because I feel that all of our guys would appoint the right judge-even Rudy.

If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh

How do you know? What makes you think they are "sure bets" to GRANT CERT were such a case to arise (which I seriously doubt one will)?

There is every reason to think the two will not do so in a post-Casey era.

Roberts said a justice cannot overrule a prior decision just because he disagrees with it, and he recited the conditions O'Connor laid out in Casey for how it can be overruled. He had called Roe at one point "settled law," volunteering that term. In his confirmation hearings for chief justice, he called it "more than settled."

The judge who worked with Alito for over a decade promised that Alito would never be a vote to overrule Roe. This judge claimed to know Alito well, and he knew Alito's commitment to stare decisis.

Also, neither Roberts nor Alito signed on to the concurrence in last year's abortion-related ruling.

Justice Ginsburg spoke out recently to claim she did not think the ruling would ever be reversed. She may not know the Constitution, but she knows the court on which she works.

That said, the "right judge" may not even exist in a post-Casey world. There are not that many people out there who would be so deeply opposed to the ruling to actually be willing to grant cert with the sole purpose of overruling a precedent. And THAT (cert votes) is what it ultimately comes down to even more than votes to overrule.

Of course all that is also irrelevant if no state attempts to challenge the court, and I see that as being a VERY likely scenario at a time when even pro-life states cannot pass minor abortion regulations.

in federal appellate court and tried hundreds of cases and that has paid close attention to the supreme court's opinions for 25 years and its nominations, and esp Roberts and Alito, I am confident that we now have 4 votes to reverse Roe/Casey,

WITH A CASE THAT IS ON POINT!

That is the key to Roberts. He likes narrow rulings, IF HE CAN. The others are not so picky.

We need one more vote and a case on point where Roberts has only two choices: affirm or reverse

He would reverse.

That's just my humble INFORMED opinion.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

My primary question remains would be with regard to certiorari. Would it be realistic for a justice like Roberts or Alito to grant cert for the sole purpose of reversing a prior ruling?

One can see why they might turn down the opportunity when Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano appealed since everyone knew the court had five supporters. If they were to grant cert with only one or two changes, why even bother with a final ruling? The whole nation would obviously know the outcome. That would seem kind of suspicious.

Cases don't come before them at random. Justices choose the cases they want based on the recommendation of their clerks and factors that, since Casey, would in no way allow for a challenge to Roe's central holding.

The only parallel I know of were the couple of liberals a few decades or so ago who were later found to grant cert on every challenge to the death penalty.

cases come to the court. My opinion is based on ALL possible issues.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

But after Reagan, H.W. and W. all did it, it kind of set a precedent. It would be a big statement to go now. I thought W. might. But I don't think any of the Rs will go if elected.

I note that Jindal has been (I saw him) so maybe that's a goal for 2016.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

It's not hard to be a pro-life Republican in Arizona. It would be very difficult for a pro-abortion Republican to win the Republican primary for the US Senate every 6 years, as McCain has.

So, call me cynical, but I don't read as much into McCain's pro-life voting record as others do. I simply acknowledge it as a fact and look to other issues, which will not be discussed on this diary but on a future Adam C diary.

If Kay Bailey Hutchinson can win as a pro-choicer in TX and the AK Senators can win as pro-choicers there, I don't see why you think being pro-choice would be a deal breaker in AZ. This isn't GA, AL, or OK.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

It is true that Kay Bailey Hutchison is "nominally" pro-choice.

But Hutchison has voted about as pro-life as McCain has.

If Hutchison were to vote against the pro-life cause on all these issues and not have serious primary challenges, then you would have a more persausive point.

First, I (and many pro-lifers) think it does matter that one considers themselves pro-life.

Second, here are a couple places where KBH voted differently.

No Vote on banning Partial Birth Abortion.
Yes on Harkin Amendment to Support Roe.
No Vote on banning abortion at military bases.

It's not a lot different, but that Harkin Amendment sticks out.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I intend on covering the subjects where Rush and McCain disagree to. But part of my purpose with this series is to remind people that they do agree on some major issues. In the focus on immigration, The Deal, and campaign finance reform, sometimes issues like abortion, marriage, War, and pork are forgotten.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

knives if McCain gets the nomination and is facing a democrat member of the msm-dem party, then Rush's old saying:

"I'm just sitting here minding my own business, and the libs attack institutions and principles that make this country great, so I defend them"

will kick in when McCain is the embodiment and target of many that Rush and he share, that Rush will be his greatest ally.

As Pat Buchanan says, Hillary can concentrate the mind.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Unfortunately, McCain and Rush both hold grudges more than I would like. But perhaps the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle will kick in. Only time (and a McCain nomination) will tell. :)

And gamecock, please consider this series on the issues my response to your "Defend Yourselves" diary. I was thinking about this before then, but that probably pushed me over the edge.

It's also why I'm trying to focus the commentary on the issues rather than trust, leadership, "backstabbing," etc. We have tons of diaries on those. I'm trying to plumb the record, quotes, and promises to get an idea of where Sen. McCain is on each major issue.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain is attacked by people he came to see as his fan club, will provide Rush a way to defend McCain without having to recant. Rush is much more a defender of ideas, and he and McCain share many.

Adam, while I have many disagreements and problems with McCain, some may well be due to his resentments against Bush 2000, and that his pre-2000 record will become more instructive.

Moreover, while I think McCain had a bad debate and that Mitt looked like the next president to me for the first time, I did see in McCain, despite of, or maybe partially because of, his age, the one quality that would make him a great President, and that is

MCCAIN EMBODIES PATRIOTISM, in a way much like Reagan did, but maybe even more, and God knows we need this. I don't have the fantasy of a united nation given all the 20% or so far lefties for which 911 was only a 72 hour affair, but I do think McCain could unite 60-65% of America on the war and on the need for a strong nationa defense, aggresive in the world,

and after all, that is the President's first duty, that only he can do.

He would be a President that we could be proud of.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

But I almost ended my endorsement with your last line:

"He would be a President that we could be proud of."

I was afraid it would be seen as a swipe at President Bush. But you put it even better when you say "MCCAIN EMBODIES PATRIOTISM." And it is something we haven't seen since Reagan. I also think that his patriotism (as much or more than his moderate views on some issues) is why he is appealing to moderates, independents, and some of the MSM. This is why it is frustrating for me when people see his appeal to independents as a negative. To me, he is solidly center-right and quite conservative on some issue (including abortion) but he also appeals to the middle because of his patriotism. I don't want to take this thread elsewhere, but this Reaganesque quality is probably why I choose him over Fred when I had it narrowed to the two of them.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

esp. since i know gamecock is not a mccain fan

thoughtful assessments

"Do the day's work."

They have to play politics after all, and while it stinks, somebody has to do it, and since I'm not going to, I admire those that can suffer fools 24/7. And I must also say, that as to McCain, despite the problems, there have been many times I have stood up and cheered him alone in my house when he puts the libs in their place on the war and America.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

protestors who were crashing one of his events

"we beat you before, we're beating you today, and we'll beat you tomorrow."

"Do the day's work."

I see most conservative radio talk show hosts being apathetic about a McCain versus Clinton race. I think that Rush might criticize both McCain and Clinton in a race like that, to retain his credibility with those who have been listening to him criticize McCain. Sure, Rush will offer more criticisms of Clinton than McCain in the fall. But he won't want to be labeled as an RNC mouthpiece, so he will continue to point out problems with McCain's record and statements.

And it will be similar when it comes to other conservative talk show hosts. Hannity will probably be more pro-McCain than Hillary. I would suspect that Mark Levin will continue bashing McCain and Laura Ingraham will probably be in the Rush Limbaugh camp.

Do you think they would change their issue focus? On the War and on pork, McCain is a clear choice over Clinton. Would Rush/Hannity/etc start to focus on issues that are good for McCain rather than bad for him? I dunno but it could be a way to support McCain without losing face.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

He's the closest thing we got to a Republican Party talking points dispenser. I think some of the others (like Rush) would give reluctant support, but it would continue to be reluctant till the end.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I was using a list from a neutral site that listed votes. I did want to separate ESCR and abortion because I think too many strong pro-lifers are being pushed out of the pro-life movement because of ESCR and the goal posts are being moved. I also want to cover those issues separately (especially after I get some comment from the campaign on any shift since the recent breakthrough). FYI, I do not intend on writing about cloning or violence against the unborn in a specific diary.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I apologize for the word 'dishonest.' Still, I think its pretty clear that your criteria for inclusion in this post is whether or not it helps McCain.

"I apologize for saying dishonest, I just meant that you were being dishonest"

Cute. I apologize for calling your comment irritatingly dissembling.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I had been considering this series for a while. Gamecock had a provocative diary that demanded McCain Supporters "Defend Themselves." I didn't like the tone and didn't "defend myself" there. But it did encourage me to start this series.

I started with abortion because I had written a recent diary on his March for Life comments and because it is an issue where I think his record is not as well known as some other issues.

Assuming I have the time, I intend to tackle ESCR, campaign finance reform and judges. But as you might note, I didn't do research on those this time. I looked at his abortion record, his abortion quotes, and his campaign positions on abortion.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't think your intention was to dissemble, which was I retracted the 'dishonest.' But the same criteria you use to exclude discussion of judges and embryo-destroying research would exclude discussion of cloning and violence against the unborn legislation. The only common factor for what you include is that it helps McCain with prolifers. The only common factor for what you exclude is that it hurts McCain with prolifers.

You're still saying, I don't mean to call you dishonest, I'm just saying you're being dishonest.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

No, I'm saying that whatever his *subjective* thoughts and motives are, *objectively* the only common factor is whether or not McCain benefits from it among prolifers. I don't assume Adam C. is acting in bad faith. You should stop assuming I'm acting in bad faith.

I want to honor your request (direction) about threadjacking, but I also want to address your point about people being "pushed out of the pro-lilfe movement" on ESCR. For the vast majority of people who consider themselves pro-life, or at the very least those who are either outspoken about the issue and/or cast their votes based on it, the principle on which the position is based is that life begins at fertilization. As such, embryos are human beings and must be protected. For that matter, many would say that the "excess" embryos should not be created in the first place. If life doesn't begin at fertilization, then the issue is moot and we really ought to talk about something else, and if that principle is compromised, it becomes extremely difficult to argue our case. If it does, it is entirely reasonable to expect that those who call themselves pro-life would also oppose ESCR, including and especially taxpayer funding thereof. That doesn't mean that we would not continue to work with those who disagree with us on ESCR on other issues, as we worked with many pro-choicers on matters like PBA.

I've attempted to keep this comment on the narrow grounds of your previous comment, but if you want your reply to this comment to be the last word here, we'll take this up again when you get a straight answer out of the campaign on where your man currently stands on the issue.

www.republicansenate.org

I understand the pro-life argument over the issues, which is why this diary is about abortion not the pro-life movement. I just didn't want 50 comments arguing ESCR when I took the time to research his abortion record and present it.

When talking about ESCR, the Senator says it "divides the pro-life movement." I think that's accurate. About 45% of the country considers themselves pro-life. About 30% oppose ESCR. It's like Partial Birth Abortion on the left. If you oppose PBA are you automatically not pro-choice (i.e. pro-life). I don't think that's accurate or else Rudy would be pro-life. On the other side, I don't think support for ESCR should dent someone's anti-abortion record.

Thanks again for trying to stay on topic and I understand the overlap and I'm happy to discuss it as it relates to his abortion positions and promises.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

In terms of how ESCR relates to the abortion issue, I think it says quite a bit about his understanding of and the thought that he has given to the life issue. The better a pro-life candidate understands the issue, the more likely he is to take care to make decisions and assume leadership on issues related to it. Again, it's a bit of an overlap and I don't want to discuss McCain's record on judges (well, I do, but I'll wait until you post on that), but I want a President whose SCOTUS nominees will overturn Casey. (Actually, I want a President who would choose people who would overturn Marbury, but that's another story.) I have more confidence that both Huckabee and Romney would go out of their ways to make such nominations. This is a case of taking what I can get. My sense is, and I could easily be wrong on this, that none of the three has taken the time to seriously consider the types of judges that he would want to nominate, instead choosing models who are popular among conservatives and relying on staff to make recommendations based on how judges would rule on particular cases. To be sure, I have no problem with relying on staff, but I would like a President who would ask the right questions about the type of judge a person is rather than focusing exclusively on how she might rule on various cases. While such an approach would be disappointing, I have more confidence that Huckabee and Romney would ask for recommendations based on how judges would rule on Casey than I do that McCain would.

Further, assuming that, like Romney and Huckabee, he does make such nominations and that Casey is overturned, I would like to see a President who would use the bully pulpit to press the issue. That doesn't mean that he'd allow it to consume his Presidency, but going to a state that's considering pro-life legislation and making a speech on it would be nice. Again, I could see both Romney and Huckabee doing that while I couldn't see McCain doing so.

www.republicansenate.org

The federal courts have influence on all issues, including abortion. So, your concerns are correct.

during a 20 year record of quotes, votes, campaigns, and endorsements. If you want to take that one sentence and give it weight over all the rest, that's your take.

I just hope you're not supporting Rudy or Romney because of their abortion positions, since they have much more than one sentence in their records.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Nobody's saying that Rudy and Romney are ardent pro-lifers.

A straw man argument if there ever was one.

The issue is this: Which among Giuliani, Romney and McCain have a record of deliberately going against the Republican party's position on important issues in a high profile way.

Easy. John McCain.

So, while one could imagine a Giuliani or a Romney appointing conservative judges to keep the GOP cohesive and unified, McCain has been a supporter of divided the party by taking high-profile maverick positions. So, one could easily assume that this behavior will continue if McCain is elected President.

well. What kind of judges would he appoint. Depends, if you are talking about his first term or second term. With Romney it is always about getting elected. It is his core.

It's clearly YOUR issue, since it's the only topic you seem capable of discussing.

THE topic is whether John McCain is pro-life or not.

If someone posted a blog entry saying "John McCain IS Human" you'd have thirty comments about why he really isn't.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

There would be no basis for an argument about this (other than ESCR which, I agree with Adam, should be treated as a separate issue). Blame McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Zuiko, you were discussing the comments. Read what I was replying to. Spiral decided what the "real" issue was. I wasn't even addressing your thread of comments.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

If someone posted a blog entry saying "John McCain IS Human" you'd have thirty comments about why he really isn't.

Anyone who doesn't fall in line and agree that McCain is unquestionably pro-life is juts some kind of mindless reality-denying McCain-hating bot, right? That's what this paragraph says to me. There's a legitimate reason to question his pro-life bona fides.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Yeah except I didn't say anyone. I'm talking to spiral. Is it your contention that anyone is credible merely based on the extent to which they are critical of John McCain?

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

"There's a legitimate reason to question his pro-life bona fides."

By the way, it is at least as reasonable to question the motives of the people in this thread as it is for the people in this thread to question the motives of McCain. What makes spiral immune to questions of record? I've watched his comments for weeks.

His reasoning always reverts to the same thing. McCain can't be trusted. He applies it unthinkingly to all discussion of McCain, and can concede no positive point. Can you?

We talk about bots on this blog all the time. Is an anti-McCain bot the only kind you don't believe exists, zuiko?

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

You attacked the motives of a mysterious group of people (30 comments). Maybe you are right about him given his posting history, but don't include me in that group. If the comment was specific to Spiral I wouldn't have even responded.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It was specific to spiral, evident by my directing it at spiral, and saying "you" directly to spiral. I know who I was talking to. When I want to insult zuiko I'll do so. And I will do it in a sentence where every letter starts with z.

I was talking to spiral, and it seems clear to me. I wasn't talking about the sentency you and Adam were talking about. Read what spiral said. He basically redefined the issue, as is his standard practice everytime someone says the Sentator's name. I was talking about Spiral, not zuiko, or the mysterious others.

C'est la vie.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

I just got the problem. You mean thirty comments. I meant SPIRAL would have thirty comments. I wasn't saying ONE would have thirty COMMENTERS.

I was indicating the frequency of his one-note objection.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

McCain's the one who floated that trial balloon out there. He's the one that threw away that 20-year voting record because he thought it might help him get to the White House.

I personally don't care much if he is really committed to the pro-life cause or just going through the motions, but I care what kind of judges he would appoint, because that is the way he is going to have an impact on this issue as President. If he were really committed to the pro-life cause, it might make up for his commitment to *ahem* other issues that will negatively impact his choice of judicial nominees.

Because of this, I have less confidence in him on judges (and therefore life) than any of the others in the top 4, including Rudy, who isn't even pro-life.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I responded to your questions about his 1999 comment earlier in the thread when you brought it up there.

McCain endorsed pro-abort Marylin Brewer in the GOP primary in the 47th Congressional district when Chirstopher Cox vacated the seat to become SEC chairman.

Fortunately, the pro-life Campbell won the seat.

But one should look at McCain's views on abortion with some scrutiny, considering that there is really no reason why a pro-life Republican would prefer Brewer over Campbell unless one prefers pro-aborts to pro-lifers representing the very heavily Republican 47th district of California (I think it voted for Bush over Kerry by over 10 percent).

I was living in Orange County, California when Marylin Brewer won the 1994 GOP primary race for the California State Assembly because 2 pro-life Republicans split the conservative vote.

Once in the California legilsature, Marylin Brewer voted conservatively on many issues. But one issue on which she really offended pro-life activists was this one:

A far Left Democrat assemblywoman from the San Fransisco Bay area proposed a bill that would require all health insurance companies in the state of California to offer abortion coverage. Brewer voted for the bill and defended her decision at on the party meetings I attended.

So, when Christopher Cox resigned his seat in Congress to become SEC chairman, pro-lifers were very much opposed to Marylin Brewer and very much supportive of Campbell.

Why did McCain endorse Marylin Brewer if he is such a pro-lifer?

If so, that would tell a lot about about his (lack of) consistency in pro-life issues.

But I highly suspect his endorsement was due to other factors. Not everyone sees every decision and endorsement through the lens of abortion. I'd have to see his endorsement letter to see what issues he cited. If he said "we need more pro-choicers in Washington" that would be damning. If he said "she stands up for the military and supports cutting pork" then it would be different. At least it would be to me.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And I'm pretty sure that the endorsement had nothing to do with abortion. It might have been an immigration thing. Immigration was a huge issue in this election.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I can tell you that both the pro-choice Brewer and pro-life Campbell were members of the California state legislature.

Campbell was a down the line conservative on almost any issue you care to name.

Brewer was an Arlen Specter type, but perhaps more conservative on economic issues. The California legislature doesn't vote on military issues very often at all.

But McCain made his choice. And it was for pro-choice not pro-life.

does it make bush less pro-life?

"Do the day's work."

Roberts and Alito.

We can debate whether he was correct, but his reasons were clear.

HTML Help for Red Staters

similar explanation for mccain's support of the pro-choice candidate in california.

maybe, for instance, he thought she had the best chance of keeping the seat republican

or maybe it was some other legit reason

to jump to the conclusion that he supported her because he's really pro-choice, or because he's doesn't care much about the issue, is not justified

"Do the day's work."

You could just as easily say McCain was attacking pro-choicers from presenting their views. His free speech issues are distinct and apply to pro-life and pro-choice groups. Just b/c a major case was brought by pro-lifers doesn't make campaign finance reform a pro-choice issue.

"McCain fights to protect incumbent pro choice Senators like Feingold and Kohl in office."

This is blatantly misleading. Sen. McCain has campaigned for hundreds of Republicans and in twenty years I don't think he has ever endorsed a Democrat (although he did support Lieberman (I) over Lamont (D)). I know what you are insinuating and it has nothing to do with his abortion views. He has been a very loyal Republican when it comes to elections and campaigning.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

True. But McCain Feingold did not impose new regulations on the mainstream media, which is very pro-abortion and very liberal on all kinds of issues.

So, the fact that tilting political speech in the direction of the mainstream media was McCain's only significant legislative accomplishment in his 20 years as a Senator gives us an idea about how committed he is to (a) anti-1st Amendment views which conflict with the views of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (b) the pro-life cause.

McCain's fight against Wisconsin Right to Life group over their attempt to run ads against Sen. Feingold was a protection and help for Sen. Feingold. You argue that it is an unintended consequence because McCain did not know in advance who he had to get into a fight with. I agree that McCain never campaigned directly for Feingold's reelection, but what he did do in court still resulted in protecting Feingold.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You mean people like Sam Brownback? Yeah that certainly is damnng.

OH, you mean Kennedy. Well scratch Bush's pro-life record then.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Yes his record supports the pro-life position, that gives me some comfort, but some of his other undertakings raise question marks for me.

It's my opinion there are certain people within the Dem party that the Rep party should not be compromising with. It makes no since to me why we should have to. I'm sure that there are people within the Rep party that the Dem's would not compromise with as well.

Whether you like his position or not, he's stuck to what he says. He still wants both border security and a guest worker program. He still wants to win the War in Iraq. Even when things got unpopular, he hasn't shifted his goals. Why that wouldn't apply to abortion, I dunno.

I think the bigger worry is that a 55 D Senate could stop any judges that RedStaters would like.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I would readily grant that 55 Democrats could stop any nominee RedStaters would like. That doesn't mean, though, that they could stop every nominee RedStaters would like. I hope that whoever we nominate has the stomach for a fight on this issue even while he is balancing it against others. I have no doubt that they could stop the first nominee. They might even be able to stop a second. I can't see them blocking any more than that, at least not for a single vacancy. So what I'd like to see a Republican President do is nominate Edith Jones. If the Democrats reject her, nominate Sen. Kyl. If the Democrats reject him, nominate Janice Rogers Brown. Politically, I don't thinkg the Democrats couldn't hold the fort with such highly qualified nominees coming one after the other.

www.republicansenate.org

With every nominee they bork, they'll need to come out strongly against the next one ,etc.

It will become markedly clear that their main objection is that they will not confirm a nominee unless he or she declared undying devotion to abortion.

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

mcconnell or olson

both are very well-qualified, but it's not clear what they think of certain important questions, such as roe

"Do the day's work."

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

"still"? Umm...the last time I checked John himself has admitted that "he's heard the message" about the fence. Isn't that prima fascia evidence that at one time he hadn't gotten the message?

And, if it's a recent "conversion", does that mean that Romney gets a pass for his 'conversion' on abortion. At least Mitt has uttered the words "I was wrong" which is more than I've heard McCain say about his 'former position' on border security.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

the complete context of everything they have done!

It's like studing the Bible's record. I can lift a piece of scripture out of it's context and make the Bible say something it actually doesn't.

And yet it's perfectly fine to discuss individual issues when it come to the other candidates. Interesting.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

on all condidates like this. Frankly, I appreciate the discussion because it helps illuminate for me the strengths and weakness of each. However, we are electing a man and that man's character is of upmost importance to me, not just in reference to one issue.

McCain has some great things about his character and he also has some poor things. This post is about one of those great things.

i'm not of your persuasion, but that is a pithy and funny way to express your position.

"Do the day's work."