Patterico's Pontifications

1/29/2008

Beldar on Why the John Fund Piece on McCain Doesn’t Matter

Filed under: 2008 Election,General,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:40 pm



Beldar pronounces himself unaffected by John Fund’s report that John McCain dissed Alito.

Because, Beldar says, McCain was already a totally lost cause on judicial appointments anyway.

I’d like to think Beldar is wrong.

(Because, if McCain is the nominee — and he may be — I will vote for him. I’m not on the Professor Bainbridge “I care about the judiciary but I’m not supporting any Republican” Death Train to Nowhere.)

But, sadly, I suspect Beldar is right.

We have a better chance at good judicial nominees with McCain than with Hillary and Obama. There’s no question about that.

But it’s not like I trust the guy on the issue. To do that, I’d have to be an amnesiac or just plain stupid. And I’m no amnesiac!

36 Responses to “Beldar on Why the John Fund Piece on McCain Doesn’t Matter”

  1. And I won’t vote for him. I’d rather fight a Democratic administration, than repeatedly be stabbed in the back by a Republican one.

    Skip (7ef1e3)

  2. But it’s not like I trust the guy on the issue.

    Bingo. The difference is that while we can’t trust McCain to do the right thing on judicial appointments, we sure as hell can trust Clinton or Obama to do the wrong thing.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  3. I absolutely agree with Patterico and XRLQ. I’ll vote for McCain over Hillary … but I won’t like myself the next morning.

    DRJ (517d26)

  4. Vodkapundit is either quoting rumors or starting one that Giuliani will throw his support (and one delegate!) to McCain, so start looking for McCain/Giuliani bumper stickers.

    I’d like Giuliani as a VP nominee. He’s be articulate in a debate and effective as the designated attacker that a VP nominee must be and a Presidential nominee can’t. However, I’d feel a lot more comfortable with Fred on the ticket — even with McCain. Maybe especially if the nominee is McCain.

    DRJ (517d26)

  5. Good to see some rational thoughts re a potential McCain candidacy. The thread at HA is kind of like watching 300 people getting ready to drink the cyanide koolaid.

    voiceofreason2 (53537e)

  6. No conservative vote in the California general election means anything anyway. Anybody really think that CA will go Republican? The only thing we have any conceivable influence over at all is the primary.

    Therefore, I can withhold my vote in November and keep my conscience clear.

    ManlyDad (d62cf6)

  7. Haven’t voted for a Democrat since JFK (my first election), but this November I will vote for anybody but McCain. I remember all the way back to the Keating Five.

    nr2pencil (029bc5)

  8. I just won’t do it DRJ. I would become physically ill if I pulled the lever for McCain. And I know that’s as much a flaw in me as it is in him, but that doesn’t change it.

    The judges issue doesn’t sway me, because judges are a lost cause anyways. Just do the math. By my count, there have been 17 SCOTUS appointees by Republican presidents since 1950. 7 of them have gone liberal (or started that way). 8 didn’t. And the jury is still out on the last two, but the odds say one of them will go bad. So if 46% of the Republican nominees go bad, we’d basically have to win 40 years straight to get a conservative court. And that’s not going to happen.

    So you can’t scare me with the Hillary/Obama nominees, because, guess what? I’m going to have to deal with them anyways, or their like from the next Democratic president. And with McCain/Hillary as the matchup you’re looking at Ruth Bader Ginsburgs versus David Souters.

    That’s a push. So if we’re damned anyways, I’d rather not bear any responsibility for it.

    Skip (7ef1e3)

  9. The Keating Five was a phony scandal as far as McCain was concerned. I was a volunteer for him in 2000 but will hold my nose when I vote for him in November. I already voted for Rudy by absentee.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  10. Phony in what way? Basically all the report “exonerating” him said was they couldn’t prove that everything he did for Keating was a quid pro quo.

    Skip (7ef1e3)

  11. Why would anyone even consider the possibility that McCain would be decent on judicial nominations, after this came out:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199909/ai_n8855062

    http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html

    Personally, I think that anyone who says abortion is “necessary” (as McCain did, see my sources linked in this comment) is going to be awful when it comes to judicial nominations.

    At the very least, the sources I provide will eliminate the brainless Republican defense of him that “You can trust McCain because whether he agrees with you or not, he’ll let you know where he stands, and he’s said that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, so you should trust him on that.” My memory is too good to allow me to trust this thing.

    Alan (78d614)

  12. Oh, I of course won’t vote for him. The GOP has become liberal enough; I won’t be complicit in this RiNO drive to push the party further and further left. John McCain won the Lincoln Chafee Award from the Main Street Republicans. For that and infinitely many other reasons, the idea that it’s a betrayal of the conservative cause to sit out the election just won’t wash this time around.

    Alan (78d614)

  13. The problem with a McCain, as well as with Bush, is that they alienate and discourage the base with their non-conservative positions, they squelch any real conservative opposition, all while their holier-than-thou attitudes alienate the general public which leads to a shift, perhaps long term, to the Democrats. If McCain were to win, we’d be stuck with him for eight years, possibly longer if his VP (Graham?) were to run as McCain’s successor. That’s 8, maybe 12 years of having to watch McCain push liberal programs down our throats, while Congress stands by either because they were bought off or because they felt the need to back a (nominal) GOP President (as Congress did with Bush’s NCLB and Medicare expansion). Just as I think we’d be better off now if Gore had won in 2000 and then lost to a real conservative in 2004 (for one thing, we’d still have a GOP controlled Congress), we probably would be better off if McCain were to lose in 2008, opening up the door for some real conservatives to run – and win – in 2112 and beyond. Put another way, a couple of decent Supreme Court picks wasn’t worth 8 years of watching and suffering through Bush’s so-called conservatism and the four years of pain from having a Democrat succeed him.

    stevesturm (8caabf)

  14. If the “Republican” Party nominates John McCain, I will walk into the voting booth this November and pull the lever for Hilary Clinton, and a straight Democratic ticket.

    John McCain is not a conservative in any sense of the word.

    He is a liar, and an egomaniac. He is an oathbreaker, and I use that word deliberately; when he proposed McCain Feingold, he did it deliberately knowing that it would violate his commissioning and Senatorial oaths to uphold the Constitution.

    Ultimately, it will be to the benefit of the country; if the “American” voter wants Socialism so badly, then I, like Mencken, believe they should “get it good and hard”, dipped in ground glass and no lube. Perhaps after enough pain living like Eastern Europe in the 50’s, they will be ready to be free again.

    And when that pain arrives, I don’t want the Socialists to have any RINO cover. How often have we seen the Democrats and their house organs in the MSM use McCain and other RINOs to put “bi-partisan” lipstick on the pig?

    Rudyard Kipling said it best, in “The Gods of the Copybook Headings”:

    “Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
    And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
    That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four —
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

    * * * * *

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man —
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began —
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire —
    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”

    SDN (af7e3e)

  15. Patterico, even in these dire electoral days, you made me laugh with:

    Professor Bainbridge “I care about the judiciary but I’m not supporting any Republican” Death Train to Nowhere.

    Tru dat, as my undergraduates say. Here is the calculus I use. If you sit out the election, you are genuinely voting for the other side. You can say you aren’t, that your hands are clean on that issue, but the effect is the same.

    And if someone really does hate McCain that much, and thinks that poorly of him, why NOT vote for Clinton II or Obama? That is what “sitting out” really means.

    I mean, I know lots and lots of lefties who would literally die under torture before voting Republican. Most of them like Obama. So after Clinton II does its usual scummy political warfare, and gets the nomination (which will happen), will those people then “sit out” the election, since they detest Hillary Clinton so much?

    Nope.

    They’ll vote for her anyway, because they don’t want Republicans to appoint Supreme Court justices. They don’t want Republicans to continue what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don’t want Republicans involved with drawing Congressional districts. The list goes on.

    Sure, you can say that Republican X has violated the sacred trust of conservatism by doing this and that. You won’t be wrong. But as I posted before, the nearly beatified Ronald Reagan did many things as governor and President that do not fit the conservative mold (like signing pro-abortion bills). It was about being pragmatic, not the illusion of ideological purity.

    Politics is about what is possible, not perfect.

    Notice that, even though many progressive Democrats detest the Clinton machine, they don’t want to “send a message” to their party. If African Americans are angry at the Clinton II’s electoral shenanigans, and sit things out (which I honestly doubt will happen), the Republicans will win in this divided electorate.

    But I doubt it will happen. The Democrats have their eye on a bigger prize than ideological purity.

    With all respect to the Bainbridge Brigade, what they want is kvetching rights after the Democrats they helped to elect come to power. They should just say that Republicans need to lose, and vote Democratic. It’s more honest, and it appears to be how they feel.

    People are supposed to vote how they feel. And not voting, is indeed a vote for the winning candidate.

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  16. You are being honest, SDN. I honestly don’t know why you think that McCain is worse than Hillary Clinton, but that is your right. Still I applaud you having the intellectual honesty to vote that way.

    I don’t agree with you, but you aren’t playing word games, at least.

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  17. Eric: Be careful in how you push some of these ‘just say no to McCain’ people. I realize that not voting is a complicit ‘soft’ vote for the winner, but if you hound them enough to get them to actually go vote and they vote against McCain, that’s a hard AND a soft vote against. 🙂

    Verlin Martin (899dce)

  18. ManlyDad – “No conservative vote in the California general election means anything anyway.”

    This is entirely true and is why the Electoral College needs to be abolished. Voting Republican in a Presidential election is a complete waste of time, the vote means absolutely nothing in a state that has been sure to go Democratic for many years. This is a complete reversal of how a democracy should work.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  19. Skip #8,

    I respect your decision and please don’t take my comment as an attempt to talk you out of it. However, the conventional wisdom from 1996 (as evidenced by this New York Times article, was that President Bill Clinton nominated lawyers to the bench who were so moderate they were almost conservative. The conclusion was that Bill (with significant input from Hillary) focused mainly on putting women and minorities on the bench, not ideologues. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered one of those non-ideologue moderates.

    So that’s what we’ll be facing for the next 4 years (and 2-3 Supreme Court justices, not to mention scores of federal district and circuit court judges) if Hillary is elected President.

    DRJ (517d26)

  20. JayHub,

    Voting Republican in Texas doesn’t mean much, either, but it’s more fun than in California.

    DRJ (517d26)

  21. 19: After what McCain said about Roe v. Wade, why think he’d be any better than Hillary?

    Alan (f1706f)

  22. Because I have the *Stop Hillary* fever and anyone is better.

    DRJ (517d26)

  23. Hi Mr. Martin:

    Agreed. It just makes me irritable when people want to “sit things out” and still maintain their right to complain about a situation they helped create. That is what happened with my parents and Perot. I begged them not to do that—and they knew full well Perot had not a ghost of a chance to be elected.

    But they just had to “send a message” to the Republican party about how awful GHW Bush was as President.

    The reply to their message was, again, eight years of Bill Clinton and the possibility of eight more of Hillary Clinton.

    Sigh.

    DRJ, nice to hear that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a moderate, isn’t it?

    From wikipedia:

    Ginsburg is part of the “liberal wing” in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure, which takes no account of judicial actions post-confirmation) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices. In a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns, Ginsburg emerged the second most liberal member of the Court (behind Justice Stevens).

    I guess all things are relative!

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  24. Phony in what way? Basically all the report “exonerating” him said was they couldn’t prove that everything he did for Keating was a quid pro quo.

    Comment by Skip

    Keating was a McCain constituent and he did contact a regulator on his behalf but that is constituent service. I’m not aware of any money that went to McCain beyond normal campaign contributions. With the others, there was much more criticism and Cranston was censured. The conclusion of most people at the time was that it was a Democrat scandal (they were in the majority) and McCain was dragged in by the ethics committee Democrats to make it “bipartisan.” The unfortunate effect was to make him a zealot in campaign finance reform just as catching tobacco company executives lying to his committee made him an anti-tobacco zealot.

    I’m not saying he is using good judgment in these matters, just that he was unfairly entrapped in the Keating matter.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  25. To answer in a more serious way, Alan, here’s how I view it:

    President George W. Bush was disappointing to me but especially on immigration and in curbing wasteful spending (including earmarks). However, Bush’s Supreme Court nominees – Roberts and Alito, not Miers – were excellent. And remember that even though President Bush promised to nominate conservative judges, his nomination of Miers shows that even promises by a believer can go awry.

    But if there’s even a chance that McCain could give us another justice like Roberts and Alito, I’ll vote for him because I know the Democrats would never let that happen.

    DRJ (517d26)

  26. the Keating Five wasnt a democrat scandal that mccain got dragged into. he attended both meetings w/ the regulators were pressure was exerted for keating. he also received more in contributions than any of the others. he was in it neck deep. as for a congressional ethics committee “clearing” anyone of wrong-doing, well thats a pretty low standard.

    Article from 1989 on Keating Five

    chas (fb7ad4)

  27. 25: You didn’t answer my question. After McCain unequivocally stated that Roe should never be overturned (he says otherwise this time, but he lied about changing his position since 1999, so you know you can’t trust him), and after he called abortion “necessary,” and after he made McCain-Feingold his signature (sole?) achievement (and good luck trying to find another Roberts or Alito who’ll uphold McCain-Feingold–so McCain will surely pick another Souter, just to preserve his legacy), what could possibly make you think McCain would even consider nominating a good judge?

    Alan (f1706f)

  28. First, whether a person is for or against abortion doesn’t determine whether I think s/he will be a good judge. Second, I know the Democratic candidates won’t nominate a person I think is a good judge. At least it’s possible McCain will.

    DRJ (517d26)

  29. With all respect, Alan, you seem to think you know precisely how McCain will think, and what he will do. This seems motivated by how far from conservative ideals he has fallen, even though you must know that a strict conservative could not possibly win the national election (given the current demographics of party affiliation and voting patterns).

    At the same time, you seem to not consider that you also know what Clinton II or Obama will do. Not maybe. Not based on flip-flopping. Based on demonstrated performance.

    Your focus seems entirely on hating McCain, which is fine. But does it do any good when it comes to the national election? Do you honestly believe that the nation will be run as well by Clinton II or Obama? Maybe “more poorly” is a better term.

    Do you honestly think that Clinton II will appoint judges the same way as McCain? Truly? Have you read Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s biography? She was an ACLU lawyer. How about Stephen Breyer? Both of these folks seem attracted to the idea of using international law in our courts as precedent, and both are absolutists on pro-abortion issues.

    And McCain would truthfully nominate Justices just like these two?

    I’m not saying that McCain is the best or a good choice. But this line of argument seems to claim that McCain’s decisions will be the same as Clinton’s. And there is not a single shred of evidence that such is the case.

    Again, your vote is yours. I mean no disrespect. But ask yourself, by the standards that you state, would you have supported Reagan for President, based on his performance as Governor of California? Not from what I have read here.

    Oh well. I am tilting at windmills. Everyone has a right to vote or sit out as they please. But giving the country back to the Clintons (because I doubt poor Obama has a chance against the Machine) is a strategy I with which I cannot agree.

    Night to all…

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  30. DRJ, you once again made an assertion without backing it up. Why on earth do you think McCain might consider nominating someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade after he said it should never be overturned? Bear in mind, McCain isn’t saying he’s changed his position, as Romney has. Romney is saying, “I’ve changed my position.” McCain is saying, “I haven’t changed my position, and you’re a liar if you suggest otherwise.” (Remember what happened at a debate where Romney brought up McCain’s flip-flop on this issue.) What reasons do you have for saying that McCain might be better than Hillary?

    Eric, cite me one instance where candidate Reagan said Roe v. Wade should never be overturned. Yeah, Reagan signed abortion into law, but I’d rather have someone with a pro-choice record who’s anti-Roe than someone who’s pro-Roe. McCain is pro-Roe. Reagan was not.

    And by the way, I’m sick to death of this ridiculous argument that if my line of reasoning would’ve led me to reject Reagan, that shows something wrong with my line of reasoning. It’s a one-in-a-million shot that someone with Reagan’s record as governor of California would turn out to be anything like Reagan was as president. Dinesh D’Souza’s biography of Reagan unequivocally calls Reagan’s first term as governor a failure. I’d say his entire record as governor would give conservatives enormous reason to distrust him. Fine, Reagan turned out great. But how many candidates with this many problems with the conservative cause would turn out great like Reagan? Would Mike Huckabee? Or Rudy “I’d give my own daughter money to have an abortion” Giuliani? Give me a break. For the sake of logic, retire that “Your line of thinking would’ve led you to reject Reagan” argument. Conservatives made a gamble with Reagan, and it paid off. It remains the case that gambling like that is a very dangerous thing to do, and shouldn’t often be done.

    Alan (78d614)

  31. By the way, Eric, don’t ever distort what I said. I didn’t say McCain would nominate a Ginsburg or a Breyer. I said he’d nominate a Souter. And Souter didn’t have Ginsburg’s or Breyer’s left-wing credentials. The beliefs were there; the paper trail was not. And McCain will do the same thing. Yes, I know this, because McCain is pro-Roe, because his only real achievement in Congress was McCain-Feingold and he’s never going to appoint justices who would destroy his fascistic legacy, and because he has demonstrated a career-long passion for working with Democrats to defeat major conservative goals and advance major liberal goals.

    Mark my words: After four years of McCain, you’ll hate yourself for ever having doubted what I’m saying here.

    Alan (78d614)

  32. And one more thing, Eric. This electability argument is really wearing thin. You say that a strict conservative isn’t electable, nationally. Okay, how does that make McCain acceptable? Your argument is like saying that because you can’t have a perfectly sterile operating theater, you might as well do the surgery in a sewer. I didn’t ask for Alan Keyes; all I’m saying is, no John McCain. I don’t demand perfection; I just want someone who isn’t WRONG ON ALMOST EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ISSUE, who isn’t a proven serial liar, and who isn’t such a loose cannon that the thought of him controlling our nuclear weapons makes me break out in cold sweat. Is that asking for too much?

    Alan (78d614)

  33. I will vote for the Republican nominee, even if it is John Mcpain and I have to hold down my gorge while doing so. It wont be the first time I have done that, and wont be the last. Of course the Democrat nominee will take Californis’s electoral votes. But, a high enough popular vote total for the Republican could either enhance his national victory or detract from the winning Democrat by denying a majority. Besides, If I dont vote, I forfeit the right to complain.

    Bar Sinister (eb65fa)

  34. “If I dont vote, I forfeit the right to complain”

    I don’t agree with that when Eric says it either.

    The right to complain is about government, not who you voted for. It doesn’t matter if you NEVER vote, they people that are elected still affect you.

    Verlin Martin (899dce)

  35. Ah…with all due respect, when you write:

    I just want someone who isn’t WRONG ON ALMOST EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ISSUE, who isn’t a proven serial liar, and who isn’t such a loose cannon that the thought of him controlling our nuclear weapons makes me break out in cold sweat. Is that asking for too much?

    Does that mean that you think Hillary Clinton does not fit those criteria? I would argue that, by all those criteria, Hillary Clinton is worse than McCain. As I say, you clearly fear/hate McCain more than you do having Clinton II or Obama in office. So vote for her. The result is the same, and I respect people who just say that.

    Look, this is turning into a battle. If folks want to hand over the government to the Clintons again, great. My mother in law is in your camp. But she doesn’t say she is a conservative.

    Mr. Martin, when you sit out a election, you support the people who do win. Such a person has the right to complain at the situation they helped to create, but it sure doesn’t seem right to many people, myself included. Better to vote for the opponent, or do what I am doing: go down swinging, trying to keep the Clintons out of office again.

    To quote someone I respect very much on another blog at times like this: peace. I don’t want to battle about this. But be careful what you are wishing for: you may well get it.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  36. Eric: You seem to think I am wishing for something or advocating a particular path, I am not. I am responding to you and others about the ‘right’ to complain about government when you don’t vote and what a no vote means, etc.

    I have made my stance on voting plain, to you even, in that I would vote for the Republican unless it was Huckabee or Paul and then I would probably vote Dem. So it’s hard to say that i need to be careful what I wish for.

    You, however, I think should be careful. Instead of these people sitting it out on election day and maybe helping Hillary, you may talk them into actively helping her by voting against McCain (is what I was suggesting in my last comment before the complaint one).

    Mr. Martin, when you sit out a election, you support the people who do win. Such a person has the right to complain at the situation they helped to create, but it sure doesn’t seem right to many people, myself included.

    You may offer ‘soft’ support for the winner when you sit out an election, but that does not mean you relinquish your rights. Your second statement in that could quite easily be turned around in that the people sitting out didn’t create this situation, the people that nominated the bad choices did.

    Verlin Martin (899dce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0787 secs.