Redstate

I rarely post here, but I see the same people making the same argument over and over. You are like the kid who takes his ball and goes home because something doesn't go his way. I would much rather have McCain than any dem, and I suspect there are many who agree with that.
It's like the more lather you can work up, the more your position is validated.

And it even comes in red.

I confess, I do not understand this notion that losing is winning.

But he doesn't provide a quote at all. He doesn't even get the half a phrase that Fund used. He said the "impression" was that McCain said Alito was too conservative. In fact, that's not impression I got from the very abbreviated quote that Fund gave in his piece. Saying someone might have been too openly conservative to get through and saying someone is too conservative (no qualifier) are actually different statements. To say it anotehr way - Hillary is too liberal, but might get elected because she's hedging and hiding it well enough. Edwards on the other hand, is too openly liberal to get elected at all. Someone trying to get both a liberal and a victory would probably eschew Edwards in favor of Clinton. Likewise, on the nomination front - Roberts and Alito are both conservatives - Roberts was somewhat enigmatic and understated, Alito quite the opposite. In a Democrat Senate, Roberts could get through, Alito would turn into the second coming of Robert Bork. To say you would rather Roberts - an easier confirmation, to the more difficult path with an Alito is as much a matter of political reality as it is judicial philosophy.

If any of our candidates had the ability to replace Stevens and Ginsburg with two clones of John Roberts in a Democrat Senate (one that could have 53 or 54 Democrats in it) would be a trade we should all be okay with. If you think Pat Leahy's judiciary committee is going to let us get Edith Jones or Miguel Estrada, or Janice Rogers Brown on the SCOTUS, you're nuts.

And like the dog that didn't bark, it speaks volumes to why conservatives as opposed to Republicans won't vote for McCain. By explicitly excluding Alito in his reply McCain, McCain clearly indicates he would NOT WILLINGLY nominate another Alito. Probably afraid that unlike the previous vote on SCOTUS, his beloved shafting of our 1st Amendment rights wouldn't survive another case.

From what I can tell, we have 4 sources and two relatively conservative trustworthy reporters willing to stick their noses out.

And a non-denial from McCain that doesn't deny it. It's enough for me. YMMV

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Fund isn't universally respected, and Novak? I think he just likes making headlines.

And what are the four sources? Novak has two, and Fund relied on Novak's reporting for two. So I only count two.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

By who, the left? Or just the McCainiacs (now that McCain is taking heat for his Alito comment)? If you got some examples of where Fund went all Jason Blair and just made stuff up in the past, I would love to see them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Look him up.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

On the Hillary campaign?

Is it really necessary to trash the guy based on his personal life? I don't know the facts of the case (nobody other than Fund and the woman at issue really do anyway) and it doesn't matter anyway, because it has nothing at all to do with his reporting. It's not a valid basis on which to question that reporting.

This is a really slimy thing to do. It's got to be the worst thing I've ever seen here, since I've seen the directors propagating this stuff as well. Apparently it's too slimy to get into the details here, but not too slimy to hint at and use to try to discredit the guy anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

When you use anonymous sources, the only thing you have to back your story is character.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

RS should lay it out for us with links and commentary, rather than rely on innuendo to trash the guy. If they refuse to even link to it (instead just telling people to "google"), that gives me pretty good idea just how much credibility and relevance they really believe it has.

And his journalistic cred comes from his record as a journalist, not some personal issue with some woman in his past.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

When I write in the comments I speak only for myself. Heck, when I write on the Front Page I speak only for myself, though RS does place limits on what I may say there, since RS is responsible for the front page.

But my comments are my own. Please don't drag RS into this.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

So I'm not dragging RS into this based on your comment. You are the 3rd admin I've seen allude to this without providing details of the allegation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't know what the gossip is; I'm not googling it; and if I knew, I wouldn't spread it.

I'm not perfect, but I'm not a nasty, rumor spreading gossip.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

There is a rather obvious difference between gossip and anonymous reporting and I think you know it.

And as long as we're talking, do you remember back on RS 1.0 we could do links using brackets [] -- these things? It still seems to be possible, but I can't remember the combination to make the magic happen. And every time I need to post a link, I have to pull out your (printed off just for me) handy little diary, and very carefully and studiously follow every little keystroke (rinse, repeat).

Do you know how to do the bracket thing?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

And RS 2 doesn't have that kind of linking, but RS 3 will have non-HTML, easier commenting.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm just going to mess one up to show you.

See how close it is? There must be some way to make it work.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

link worked

Jack Bauer For President 2008

I promise you, I worked long and diligently this morning (look at very bottom of thread for proof) trying to get that little procedure perfected. I probably should continue to hit preview.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I wish I were smarter than the equipment I'm operating. :(

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

That's a better batting average than anyone in baseball has ever had. Don't beat yourself up too much. I would suggest putting Neil's HTML help in your favorites on your browser. Then, any time you need to post a link you can cut and paste his example as a template. Just fill in your http for his and it should work just fine.

And yes, preview is your friend.

Jack Bauer For President 2008

Maybe Ericka can clear this up. The way I'm reading it is that John Fund wrote his article using two sources. Novak decided to check it out and contacted a couple people who were there.

Their memories weren't as precise as Fund's sources, but backed the general gist of the statements.

If I'm wrong, I agree. This would make Fund's story seem less likely as Novak, as a source, would not be saying what Fund says he said. And who's on first?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Novak can simply ask his sources (if he hasn't already) if they were Fund's sources. And he already knows whether or not he was. I guess I need to go read the articles in question, rather than the RS Cliff Notes.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Non-cliff notes version. My first impression was right. John Fund's sources are not Novak's sources. Novak got curious after the Fund uproar and contacted some old friends who had been at the meeting. They verified what Fund had reported, though not with precise language, more like impressions.

But their impressions were even worse than Fund's quotes, IMHO, because with Fund's quotes, you could spin it that McCain was only worried about confirmability. Novak's sources just seemed to think he was saying Alito was too conservative.

I can't help you if you don't believe Fund or Novak. I find them to be reputable and trustworthy reporters, though I frequently disagree with their conclusions. They do seem to know those aliens within the beltway.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Novak is a reliable and trusted reporter. Personally I preferred Crossfire when Buchanon was the host for the right, but Novak is a muckraker from when muckraking was a respectable occupation and asks tough questions to whoever he interviews.

I can understand not wanting to put your name out there and ending up on the enemies list of a possible next President of the United States... especially if those sources are considered friends of the campaign now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"FACT McCain voted for Alito and Roberts so stop trying to make something out of nothing!"

He voted for Ginsburg and Breyer too yes? So I guess he would appoint justices like them too?

"FACT last night in debate he said he would appoint people like them so why not belive him when he voted for those two?"

Was he saying this around the same time he was lying about Romney? Yeah, why wouldn't someone believe him.

You leave out that almost every Republican senator voted for Breyer and Ginsburg. And McCain made it absolutely clear that Breyer and Ginsburg were not the type of judges he would nominate. Here's McCain on the subject, on the Senate floor:

"The fact that there will probably be a large number of votes on that side of the aisle against Judge Alito doesn’t upset me as much as it saddens me. I didn’t agree with the judicial philosophy of Justice Breyer or Justice Ginsburg. I knew that Justice Ginsburg worked for the ACLU and held liberal views. But I also believe that elections have consequences. The President of the United States-at that time, President Clinton-nominated them as his selection. There were very few-a handful of votes against either Justice Breyer or Justice Ginsburg."

Also, compare John McCain's record on judges with Mitt Romney's record on judges in Massachusetts. The contrast is stark: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney_jurist_picks...

... appointment process in Massachusetts? At all?

Before a MA Governor's judicial picks get to the State Senate they need to be approved by the nine-member Governor's Council - the members of which are popularly elected. Now factor this in; eight out of the nine of them are Democrats.

Now add the fact that the Democrats hold 35 out of 40 seats in the MA State Senate.

Not even Reagan could have done better in that environment.

But I also believe that elections have consequences. The President of the United States-at that time, President Clinton-nominated them as his selection.

Admirable sentiment. Too bad he was too busy being "bipartisan" to remember this when it was a Republican President making the nominations, don't you think?

In fact, I remember him saying then something to the effect that the "Advice and Consent" clause meant that the President should confer with the Democrats to pick an "acceptable" nominee before making the nomination to the Senate.

Romney/Pace 2008

''So far I have not ever given any weight whatsoever to whether I think someone can make it through the Governor's Council. I send them individuals who I feel are highly qualified and have the right judicial temperament related to crime and punishment."

I said this down below- I'm not pointing to his votes for Ginsburg and Breyer as bad things. Rather, I'm pointing to the absurdity of saying "he voted for Alito and Roberts" as a positive, because if that is some sort of indicator of who he would appoint, then he would be just as likely to appoint liberals as conservatives.

Bottom line: the yes votes for Alito and Roberts are no more meaningful as plusses than the no votes for Ginsburg and Breyer.

Do you people think if you keep on posting all these outright lies on Patriot McCain you are going to stop whats inevitable? FACT McCain voted for Alito and Roberts so stop trying to make something out of nothing! FACT last night in debate he said he would appoint people like them so why not belive him when he voted for those two? These anti McCain people just hate him maybe these are jealous of his patriotism?

Just because McCain voted for Alito doesn't prove he would appoint another Alito if he were president. McCain would not have dared vote against Alito. Senators will often vote for nominees whom they would not nominate if they were president.

I'm glad that McCain said he'd appoint judges like Roberts. Roberts has proven to be a good conservative. And I'm not saying McCain's comments are a deal-breaker, but they are troubling. I'd take another Roberts on the Supreme Court over anyone whom Hillary or Obama would appoint.

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

You asked "why not belive him when he voted for those two?"

Here's why. On immigration, McCain has recently stated that he has gotten the message and he will secure the border first. During the debate, he was asked if he would vote for his earlier amnesty bill. He would not answer the question, and his dodges were so blatant that it was ridiculous.

This proved to me that, without a doubt, McCain has no intention of securing the border first. As president, he would sign his own amnesty bill in a heartbeat. This shows that McCain's position changes are insincere and can't be trusted. If he told a private audience (a setting where his true feelings are more likely to be spoken) that Alito was too conservative and he is now saying differently, how can I possibly believe him?

He also voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg.

www.republicansenate.org

McCain has a history and can't escape it know matter how many lies he tells. Not only is he lying about his judicial picks he's lying about Romney's supposed support for public timetables for withdrawals and refuses to admit he's lying when called on it.

For the record, I'm a Huckabee supporter and don't trust Romney because I doubt him. I oppose McCain because his history of antagonism of conservatives leaves no doubt!

For the record, below is the full quote from Romney in context. I defy anyone to make a reasonable case that Romney supported Congresses demand for a public timetable for withdrawal.

MR. ROMNEY: There's no question that the President and the Prime Minister O have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those should not be a public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds before you're gone.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

McCain should be ashamed of himself. He should stop lying and apologize to Romney. His continuing to beat an obviously dead horse in the debates last night prove he's at best being mislead by his staff which calls into question his fitness for office or at worse he's deliberately lying and a fool!

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

FACT: John McCain didn't merely vote for, but sponsored and worked toward passage of a bill that abridges Freedom of Speech. And no I don't give a d*** how five SCOTUS justices VOTED when the case came before them (because they sure didn't use reason or logic).

FACT: John McCain was a critical member of the Gang of 14 who scuttled a showdown over whether Bush would get straight up or down votes on ALL his judicial nominees, not just the ones to SCOTUS. As such he stood against having principled, reasoning judges providing legal decisions.

There are other facts that will keep me from ever casting a vote for John McCain as well. But don't worry, it won't make a difference to the outcome of the election. He was never going to carry the People's Republic of Maryland anyway.

McCain, while I have a tremendous amount of respect for his service, does not hold the market on patriotism. The fact that you would even possibly impugn the patriotism of others in order to block serious criticism of your chosen candidate speaks volumes about your honor, or lack thereof.

You have no clue as to what each one of us brings to the table. Neither do I, and neither does almost anyone else on here, unless they either knew each other in person, or met through Redstate. The fact that you would even be so presumptuous and vain as to consider that as a line of criticism offends not only my intelligence, but also my sensibility.

I have been mostly silent over the past week as to the noxious effect that you have on Redstate, and the general feel of the populace here that you are nothing more than a McCain shill, and a pretty lame one at that. I have many friends out here who support John McCain, but even they wouldn't stoop so low as to try to question my patriotism simply because I disagree with them.

I have a request (and since I'm not a director, I can't enforce it, but simply hope you heed my advice): Stop it. If you can't manage to conjur up a comment that questions other people's motives...if you can't manage to strain together one coherent thought that makes sense...if you can't manage to cobble together a conclusion that doesn't reek of your rectal cavity, then please knock it off. You do Redstate, and your own reputation, a disservice. And, quite frankly, it's aggravating.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

Nick,

I said what i said and I stand by it! if you don't like it tough luck. Your disclaimer by way says it all you are Romney hack.

All you McCain haters want to attack, attack, attack and then cry how you won't even vote for him in the general and you help Republicans how? You don't; all you are trying to do is stop the motivation for John. That is not helpful at all!

that sometime before November, we will all need keyboards for the blind. And Prozak.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Then please give money to moveon.org cause those are exactly type of folks you would be embracing

Just because somebody doesn't like McCain doesn't mean they are a proto-Marxist... as a libertarian, I have great qualms about McCain (and, for that matter, all the other candidates, but more so McCain than anybody else on the GOP side).

There's a difference between "I will do what I can to make sure John McCain is not our next President" and "I would like a Dennis Kucinich clone in the White House". Keep that in mind.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

By actively choosing to vote for neither frontrunner, you increase the winner's margin of victory by one vote. (In contrast, choosing to vote for the winner instead of the loser increases the margin of victory by two votes.)

Staying home to protest a lousy Republican nominee does not give you the right, when faced with a leftist President wrecking the country, to plead in defense, "I didn't vote for him!"

To quote an esteemed RedState contributor, losing is for losers.

It's not just about supporting the country and the party; it's also about being able to live with yourself afterwards.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

You'd rather have 2 justices appointed by Obama or Hillary than 2 justices in the mold of John Roberts? (not that I am lending any credibility to anonymous quotes, one from a Romney supporter)

It seems to me that people like you are more hostile to conservatism than is John McCain.

We're more hostile to conservatism than McCain? Last I checked, my name is not on a raft of bills with a Who's-who of the uber-left. If you're a moderate or liberal and wish to vote for McCain, please do so. He's the closest to your ideals. But please, don't make me gag.

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

Not on this site.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

half of the RS non-director commenters off the site?

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

However this is a Republican site. You don't get to oppose the Republican nominee for President here.

I don't think half the commenters on this site are stupid enough to pull for HRC though.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I know I've had my disagreements with your views regarding the election from time to time, and this will be another one, so I apologize.

I'm not trying to rabble rouse here, but if there are a significant number of Republicans who think that McCain would not only be a bad choice as our nominee, but would actually have a deleterious effect on our party both short and long term, should we not stand up and object?

For example, I feel that it is extraordinarily important for the country to have a viable conservative movement. It's not about my party-it's about my country. Allowing a deeper slide towards socialism is not acceptable, and the conservative viewpoint needs to have a strong vehicle to advance that. With McCain as the supposed leader of the party, that will not happen, and I would actually predict a backwards swing.

Now, if I care about that, shouldn't I, to paraphrase WFB, stand athwart Redstate yelling "Stop!"?

I'm not advocating a vote for HRC. I could never stomach that. But, I know that unless McCain picks someone in the mold of a Barbour or Coburn, he will not have my vote-rather, the Constitution Party candidate will. (and, for the record, if Huckabee's pandering is rewarded with the VP nod, I'll have trouble keeping it to just my vote, and not more, to reward the Constitution Party with)

It isn't about my petty dislike of McCain. For me, it goes to the heart and soul of the party, and a battle to keep it conservative in order to keep my views viable.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

Nick, I mean in no way to discourage a healthy primary fight.

But if you can't vote for the nominee in the general, the expectation will be that you not belabor the point here.

Back when I was going not to vote for the nominee if it were McCain or Giulaini, my plan was radio silence here at RS on the matter. I was going to write purely about state level politics instead of the national election, if necessary, to avoid abusing Red State in that way.

And that's how it ought to be, given the express goals of the site.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I respect that, and that will actually probably be the actions I take-blogging about rebuilding the party, and bringing in a dose of Show-Me politics.

But I would be remiss, if this is the final days before that goes into effect, if I didn't state that I think the primary goal of Redstate should not be a "My party, right or wrong" attitude. It should be one where we work towards a more conservative party, and a more conservative nation.

Redstate has a tremendous potential to tap into those that have been, and are starting to, get sick and tired of this slow leftward jaunt. We have an unbelievable opportunity to tap into that, help to reshape, redefine, and revitalize conservatism, and to use that energy and those commentors to retake the country for the conservative principles that we need to right our ship of state.

That's been my rallying cry. I don't want McCain, but I don't want Hillary. But, seeing it as the lesser of two evils doesn't work for me. The "he's a b@stard, but he's our b@stard" logic doesn't work if the b@stard in question would end up doing harm to both our party and our movement. (and, for the record, I'm not calling McCain a b@stard-it's a old line of logic, for those of you who might need clarification)

For all Rush Limbaugh's faults, he had a good point today. It goes against the losing is for losers line, but I think it holds resonance: if the country is going to go to hell in a handbasket, even if there might be varying degrees, wouldn't be at least want the person holding the handbasket to be someone who doesn't have an R behind their name?

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

Party politics are never going to be philosophically pure. Politics is the art of compromise. If you can't handle that, if it's not something you can put up with, then politics aren't going to be right for you.

Part of being a team player is that sometimes you do just have to back your jerk over their jerk. Goldwater endorsed Nixon and campaigned for Nixon in 1960 becuase Nixon was his jerk.

If you don't do it when it's your time to compromise, others in the party will notice. And then when you try to take your turn, expecting them to compromise, they won't.

Goldwater understood this. Reagan understood this. If Limbaugh doesn't, then well, I'm sorry to hear that he's wrong.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I just know that it's a different dynamic whenever you are the candidate, and not part of the general electorate. That's my take on it, anyways.

I'm a team player, and I would have went for Giuliani and potentially even Huckabee. McCain, though, is different. He seems to get pleasure from arguing with his own party. I can't recall anyone before who seemed like he would take a position not because he believed in it, but just to see how many people it would p*ss off. That's not someone I see as a uniter of the party, much less the nation. We have someone like that running California. We don't need it in Washington.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

Our enemies in the war certainly are interested in seeing who we elect, and absolutely do not care about judicial nominees.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

and had W not done such an outstanding job of protecting us the past 6+ years, there might actually be a reason for this party to pull together behind a not only non-conservative candidate but a backstabbing, liberal RiNO candidate who would be good on the GWOT. By which I mean, this party only holds together when we have an enemy stronger than each other.

On the surface, it would appear our enemies would greatly fear a president who is a war hero, a former POW, and strongly pro-military. Those are the 3 things, the only 3 things, about McCain which I honor and respect (but I hope I don't count as one of our enemies). But under the surface I would not be surprised if they look at McCain and see an old crank who might not survive the stress of another attack on our homeland. I certainly have no confidence in his strength and vigor when I look at him.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I think he can take sitting in a desk after going through that.

But in any case, I hope you'll agree that while we're at war, actively seeking to defeat the Republican is not a good idea, which is why I'm coming down hard on those who try to use Red State to rally support for that idea.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

any more than Rush is. Since 1998 I have been proud to be a Republican...well, to be a conservative, at least, and proud to be an ex-Dem.

As for McCain's vigor, look what the GWOT and political infighting have done to W. All presidents age terribly and it definitely takes a terrible toll; it is not just "sitting at a desk." If it were we'd go for Romney and forget the rest.

I just keep thinking McCain can't get any older-looking, and he doesn't sound tough or inspiring; he sounds irritable and tired.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Rainbowtrout *is* try ing to rally people to defeat McCain, should the Senator be the nominee.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Mark Levin, Mark Steyn, Andrew Ferguson and Rush, then, rather than Rainbowtrout. They have the best arguments against McCain that I've heard/read. If you'd censure those 4, I don't want to be here.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I think there's actually still time for Rush to come around. But I know for sure he won't actively work to defeat McCain. So if you're with Rush, then I have no quarrel with you, Peg. :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

but that is the topic for another blog.

We "know" there have been many foiled attacks. We could argue semantics and I know W has many faults, but had we been attacked you can't deny it would have been blamed 100% on him.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

that has been observing McCain since he first ran for office in my CD in 1982, and familiar with some of his personal dealings; he cannot be trusted.

He has done this over and over and over again. He said that he did not vote for Bush's tax cuts, twice, because they did not accompany spending reductions. I KNOW, at the time, he said it was because it gave too much relief to the rich. I KNOW he is not knowledgeable about MONETARY policy, one of my bailiwicks, because I have asked him.

Currently, senators and other Republicans can reign him in, to a certain degree; he is one of a hundred. I fear the man as POTUS with the power of all those hundred and much more. He is a loose canon and his self righteousness would likely lead to a disastrous presidency.

Much less, Republicans would be left in a bad situation in 2012 when he would turn 77 his first year of a second term if he lived that long or elected to run.

This man will NOT be President.

What this? What is the this that he has done over and over? absentee

Saying one thing, changing it later. Denying it. Saying he never said it.

1. I gave you one about the tax cuts.
2. He's weaseling about McCain/Kennedy. He didn't say he would NOT sign it or vote for it, just that it wouldn't be voted on in the Senate.
3. He said he did not say, or recall, saying he was not well versed in economics. He said in NOVEMBER, 2007 and previously. I have heard him say it.
4. Then there is his outright hypocrisy. Currently, he is still taking 'soft money' from many corporations which appear before his Commerce Committee. The media turns a blind eye and the other Republicans don't want to appear mean-spirited by pointing it out to the electorate. Gee, I guess, more campaign finance reform is necessary to keep the lobbyists and special interests out of McCain's office Washington. Of course, in the past he was up to his neck in the Keating 5 and his wife and father-in-law had a sweetheart deal with Keating in a shopping center.
5. He insists on his consistent pro-life stance yet he said he would not overturn Roe v. Wade.
6. He says he for less government and its intrusiveness but promoted the war on tobacco.

That's for starters. He is WRONG on too many big issues. This is another politician that you have to understand what the definition of 'is' is. Nominee McCain would make for a great field day for the MSM.

absentee.

By "this" you meant a bunch of stuff completely unrelated to the topic.

In other words you really didn't have an answer to what I was saying, you just wanted to repost your "McCain is bad" shopping cart. Got it.
absentee

You ask, "What is the this that he has done over and over?"

I reply with SPECIFICS about what he has DONE. Then you say it is 'unrelated'. You are confused. No wonder you are a McCain apologist. Got it.

BTW, an original post cannot be a 'repost'.

but this line of attack on him is very weak. If the point was to get him to say out loud that he supports judges like Alito, he has done that and the story should be over.

Second, I wasn't bashing anyone for voting yes on them. I was saying you made the absurd assertion that McCain's "yes" vote on Alito meant anything, when clearly it didn't; if it did, we'd have just as much reason to think he would appoint a lib. Oh, and capitalizing FACTS all the time doesn't make your argument more effective.

The fact that McCain didn't join Lincoln Chaffee in voting against Alito is now considered a commendable item on his record? Let's remember that the man has been waiting for the presidency for over 8 years, and maybe, just maybe, he was voting yes on Alito to attempt to solidify his record on judicial matters.

The main reason your argument falls is because you can cherry pick any single vote to make it seem like he has a record. It seems strange indeed that you're willing to call his single vote for Alito a clear indicator of his conservatism, while ignoring that he also voted for pretty much every Clinton appointee.

If McCain wanted to show his strength on judicial nominees, he would've voted for the nuclear option. Plain and simple.

Mitt did well by all accounts on appointing judges in Mass. Do you know, or care, that the governor is forced by law to choose from a list of judicial nominees selected by a committee of the State Congress? Or that the state supreme court justices that created gay marriage in Mass were in place before Mitt took over. He did all he could to get a constitutional amendment to correct the ruling, including marching with the citizens of the state and getting a court order to force the state congress to return from their Christmas recess to vote on the amendment banning gay marriage?

I hope you didn't know.

If you did, you are engaging in the same lying, twisting smear tactics as McCain.

this is not a single instance, this is a pattern for John Sidney McCain.

maverick, stick to his guns, fight for his principles kind of guy -- unless it means arguing with Senate Democrats about a well qualified, intelligent, quality judge.

Then, we have to keep our powder dry. For what, exactly?

And you do realize that even his supporters only have three recommendations for him: WOT, judges, and pork.

And as president, he will still not have full control of pork. And he wants to close Gitmo and opposes harsh interrogation techniques.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

And Romney has stood up and said he was wrong, as did Ronald Reagan after supporting a woman's right to choose in California.
Do you still not get it? McCain is no conservative and Romney has a strong grip on conservative principles and can actually articulate them much as Ronald Reagan did. This showed through so true in last night's debate, even with McCain continuing to try to lie. No, never, a vote for McCain. And, Romney did not appoint the majority of the judges who made the decision on gay marriage in Massachusetts, and it was not a unanimous decision. He also did all he could to get the legislature to put the issue on the ballot in Massachusetts. Why do you people never tell the whole story instead of just the parts you want to hate someone?

And what precisely does that have to do with John McCain or the story in question?

Bringing up negative things about Romney in response to negative things about McCain only makes you look like you have no answer to the actual charge, so you're resorting to the Chewbacca Defense.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Skip ahead to about 0:41, and my apologies for the subtitles.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

I seriously don't get it.
absentee

He's already shot the Straight Talk Express right into a bridge abutment. All he has left is the WOT, judges and pork.

Without judges, we're down to the WOT and pork. And many of us recognize that the president has very limited resources in relation to pork. He was actually in a much better position in the Senate to do something about it, but failed. Particularly as the House passed some fairly strict earmarking rules, but the Senate won the battle in conference, resulting a thin gruel.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

This is just preaching to the choir at its finest. You already "knew" he wouldn't give you good judges. This didn't convince of anything. And how could it?

This blog entry is flimsy at best, and it is flimsy in support of of an equally flimsy premise. People holding it up and going "I told you" are just hearing what they want to hear because of what they already "know".

absentee

Before Ginsberg came on board, Stevens was the farthest left on the spectrum.

He's getting elected based on moderates; he feels no allegiance to conservatives and I highly doubt he'll care if we revolt.

McCain certainly is not going to be swayed by Conservative protests. He despises us and won't give in like GW did.

I sincerely belive McCain hates Conservatives more than Democrats.

Was not that conservatives were screaming "she isn't conservative enough!"

If McCain nominates another... oh... Souter, let's say, the response will be different from Miers because everyone could yell "she isn't sufficiently qualified" and her ideology didn't really come into it.

Souter, whatever you think about him, had a resume that was good enough that the arguments that worked so well against Miers would not have worked against him.

It should also be pointed out that when Miers was nominated, the left, the moderates, and the right was all screaming bloody murder.

If McCain nominates someone like a Souter... do you really think that those three groups will all start screaming with one voice again?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

My point is that conservatives will vigorously oppose McCain if he appoints someone to the SCOTUS who: (a) is not qualified (e.g. Miers); and/or (b) is not someone who has not established himself as an originalist/textualist over an extended period of time (e.g., Souter).

If an appointment fails to the meet the foregoing criteria, then, yes, there will be Hell to pay.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Only worked because the left and the squishy middle agreed with the conservatives.

I suspect that McCain is smart enough to avoid nominating someone with a resume similar to Miers in the future so we can eliminate (a).

Let's say he nominates someone who fits (b).

Do you think that the left and squishy middle will jump at the opportunity to hand McCain a devestating media loss?

Really?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

He isn't relying on the votes of conservatives to win. He has proved you can stick it to the base over and over again and still do well enough electorally. So why is he going to care what we think of his nominee? He might think a fight with the base over a consensus SCOTUS nominee makes him look good to the independents.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Perfect assessment of the opposition to Miers

Jack Bauer For President 2008

Seriously, more moderate? How are you getting that from this?

I can't believe the reactions either. I can't believe the extent to which people are hearing what they want to hear. How can people praise Roberts and Alito and simultaneously suggest that some people anonymously recalling that Senator McCain might have suggested he preferred ONE of the saints over the other because one was more outspoken than the other.

I can't believe people are taking up torches over this!
absentee

"simultaneously suggest that McCain wants moderate judges based on the fact that"

Stupid browser.

... to the god of "Bipartisanship™."

It's possible he will not. But let's be honest, no one is going to be surprised if his "Bipartisanship™" gets the better of him and he reaches "across the aisle" to find a "consensus" nominee.

It's just who McCain is. A "Bipartisan™."

Romney/Pace 2008

We've seen where it has gotten Bush. W, early in his term, and even more recently, has made any number of attempts to reach across the aisle, to work with Democrats, to include them in the process. He was willing to talk, and willing to give a little to get most of what he wanted.

The Democrat response was basically to spit in his eye most of the time. I personally don't see them being any different to a President McCain. And I don't see McCain, with his personality and temperment, being terribly inclined to continue to reach out if they're going to bite his hand every time. If McCain denies the Democrats the White House, will people like Feingold and Kennedy even return his calls?

The Democrats may do for us what we haven't been successful at ourselves - they may push McCain to the right just by their sheer intransigence and dislike for Republicans. McCain the President would be a far cry from their "buddy" McCain the Senator.

to push through judges who wear their ideologies on their sleeves. He would have done this because his style is combative and his relationship with the press has been and still is adversarial. In the case of John McCain, the style is to reach accomodation and to keep the press friendly. Giuliani would have relished the fight while McCain would seek to avoid it. That said, McCain's nominees would be much more conservative than those put up by Democrats but probably more moderate than Alito and certainly Bork. Look for Roberts-lites if McCain is elected, people who are talented, right of center, but not controversial.

Again, this should not shock anyone and I fail to see why this has caused such an uproar.

That may be a legitimate thing to worry about. But that has little to do with to the so-called proof that McCain doesn't want conservative judges. Even these anonymous sources suggest that during this phone call he said he'd appoint judges like Roberts.

He's been saying that all along. There's no there in this story. Those predisposed not to believe he'd appoint good judges already think he won't. No one objective is going to change their mind as a result of this. Not only is it a rumor, but its not proof of the first story by any stretch, and it isn't even very damning. It basically boils down to him preferring judges who are equally great, but not flashy about it.

I just don't see how this story is compelling, or even interesting. It just seems like throwing meat to the dogs to me.

absentee

If McCain indeed said he wouldn't want someone who "wears his conservatism on his sleeve," this would be in keeping with his style. I wouldn't expect a Bork or even an Alito-type nomination for precisely this reason.

I certainly don't intend to vote for McCain in the primary, but this has absolutely nothing to do with it.

When you have someone that has repeatedly kicked you and spit on you, say he wants to give you a hug, you might just be a little distrustful. So then when you hear that he told someone he was going to just shake your hand, then while you weren't looking, sucker punch you you immediately find it plausible.

It's obvious you don't feel that way, absentee. And honestly, I can't imagine how anyone gets there, but it looks like about a third of the Republican party does.

What is there to trust? That he'll appoint judges like Roberts? How is that bad? I'd appoint Roberts. Isn't that also what he said in this exact same phone call, according to the exact same anonymous sources??

Hasn't it been the line at Redstate that we want strict constructionist judges? Not activists? Isn't he saying, according to the very same so-called damning sources, that those are exactly what he'll appoint?

Someone says that someone else says that in a phone call one time, McCain preferred Roberts to Alito, and that he would be appointing Judges like Roberts.

HOW on earth that is turning into some kind of betrayal on judges is seriously beyond me.

absentee

I trust that he won't nominate judges he thinks are too conservative, and that his line for that is a ton more liberal than someone claiming to be conservative should draw it. I trust that he'll run his nominees past the Democratic leadership.

And I trust that he'll leave the country and the party in shambles.

Basically, if you believe what Novak and Fund are reporting, you believe that he can't be trusted when he says he'd nominate guys like Roberts and Alito. Because it isn't part of his core, it's what he thinks he has to say to get elected.

Same sources same phone call said he'd nominate Roberts. You completely disregard that and assume liberal. Why do you "trust" these anonymous sources so completely on Alito, and not one whit on Roberts?

Sorry, this story from Novak couldn't be sillier as a "gotcha". And it couldn't be farther from "proof" of anything, making the blog even sillier than the article.
absentee

So in other words, he campaigns in public for full and complete support of Alito, but in private says that he wouldn't nominate him. And that's OK because he's consistent on Roberts.

Straight talk takes on new meanings every day.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

If that's right, that's even MORE suspicious. They still refused to be named, and they now admit that they don't really remember what he said?

Great.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

So...why does that matter?

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Ah, true.

The amount of rumormongering that's gone on is just sickening, and from people who know better. Namely Fund, Novak and Santorum.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Novak checked AFTER the first article appeared.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

It might be necessary, but no, my ideal is nominating a judicial conservative and fighting like hell for him.
That said, it sends a terrible message to judicial conservatives throughout the country that if they do their jobs and properly apply the Constitution, they can forget about SCOTUS nominations, or perhaps any kind of promotion. This also reeks of the type of stealth nomination that garners conservative support with a wink and a nod and then we once again end up paying for it for the next couple of decades. That didn't work for President Reagan or for the first President Bush and frankly I'd rather not try that again.

www.republicansenate.org

,

I think one of the principal differences may have been that Alito got confirmed by a narrower margin. In the coming years I'm afraid were going to need a wider margin.

McCain can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned.

I would be very careful before you declare someone to be infallible. We all make mistakes.

Jack Bauer For President 2008

After all, the senior senator from Arizona happens to agree with you. Screw the facts, right?

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

My point is Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton would nominate Justices like Ginsburg. I believe both Governor Romney and Sen McCain would nominate Justices like Roberts. I don’t think any of them would nominate someone like Souter.

There have been 17 Justices appointed by Republican presidents since 1950. By my count, 7 of them went bad or started that way, 8 were more or less conservative, and the jury is still out on Roberts and Alito, but the odds say that one of them will go bad.

So just using the initial 15 we have a track record on, that's 46% of them going bad. Which is why judges basically shouldn't be the sole reason you support a nominee. Because if it is, you're going to be disappointed.

With McCain there are other reasons, but darn few. And many reasons not to.

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

What did he do to deserve that? His first choice only just quit, you know. He didn't have the option of going to McCain sooner. Not his fault Giuliani just sat on his hands until Florida and then failed.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

tsunami of endorsments, most of which are obviously bandwagon given the timing. I endorsed my fav BEFORE votes were cast. I abhor suck ups.

apologies to Ted

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

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

but now, ....

I hate wash pols, in general...

hate is too strong

have to love them to get to heavan!

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

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

Paul Mirengroff on Powerline:

"With McCain now in the driver's seat for the nomination, it's not surprising that he's picking up major endorsements. Earlier today, I read that William Barr, the Attorney General during part of the Bush 41 administration, has endorsed McCain.

However, in Olson's case at least, the endorsement could have been expected quite apart from McCain's recent successes. Almost two years ago (I think), I attended a dinner at which McCain spoke. I can't remember whether Olson introduced him, but it was clear that he had great respect for McCain."