ConfirmThem

I filled out my absentee ballot last night. After much deliberation, I decided to go with McCain, in part because I thought he was more electable and because I like his position on the war, spending, and I thought, judges. This really angers me and I am now having buyer's remorse.

As Stephen (Steven?) Stills sang, "[i]f you can't be with the one you love, honey,love the one you're with." If Romney or Giuliani doesn't win the nomination and it is McCain who wins, conservatives MUST vote for McCain, warts and all. The alternative is PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON or PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. That would be disastrous.

It's a no brainer, and any conservative and/or Republican who doesn't see that is a fool, Rush and Marc Levin included. If you take McCain at his word, he's saying he'd nominate more John Robertses. That's fine by me.

That being said, I support Romney and believe he is far more electable than the media are suggesting. We'll see after tomorrow....

"Then why did Arlen Specter support Aliton?" Hmmmmmmm.

By the way, the supposed "electability" of McCain is based on nothing but his higher name recognition. The national match-up polls are WORTHLESS. Once Romney is the nominee he will quickly win universal name recognition. If McCain is the nominee, the Republicans can only win if we win the argument on Iraq. We will not win that argument. If Romney is the nominee, the argument might be on the economy --and there we may be able to win.

Yes, I completely agree that at the moment McCain's perceived greater electability has to do with greater name recognition (which Romney presently lacks) and the media's relentless barrage of negative reporting about Romney's flipflopping and lack of authenticity. But that's how they operate, and we knew this would happen. Romney must keep fighting.

aurel brings up an important point about the issues of war and economics. The GOP nominee will have better chances if he can take the “it’s the economy, stupid” approach, as Romney can do better than McCain. McCain’s pro-war profile, while commendable, is a liability in the current political environment. Also, McCain’s support for the global warming scam, his Democratesque attitude toward taxes, and other similar concerns make it difficult for him to fire up the base. He would have to rely on contempt for Hillary (if she’s the Dem nominee) to get conservatives to the voting booth, which would make a very negative campaign in spite of all the supposed respect between McCain and Hillary. Also, I must say I find it disturbing that McCain would look down upon a potential Sup. Ct. justice for having the audacity of “wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.” That suggests that being a conservative is something to be ashamed of. Perhaps that’s why McCain does not win over the enthusiasm of conservatives.

From Byron York at National Review Online:

I got a moment with John McCain, after an airport rally here in Orlando, to ask him about report today by John Fund quoting some unnamed conservatives quoting McCain to the effect that, in Fund's words, "[McCain] would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

"Let me just look you in the eye," McCain told me. "I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I've said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked."

"I don't get it," McCain continued. "I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I've supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It's in the record, saying, 'You've got to confirm these people.'"

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. "No, no, of course not," McCain said.

I asked about the "wore his conservatism on his sleeve" line. "I'm proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution," McCain told me. "Remember, in all my remarks, I've said, look, we're not going to take somebody's word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time."

"And maybe as an aside, why would I say anything derogatory about somebody like that? What would be the point, after working so hard to get not only those two confirmed, but the Gang of 14 ­ which I know is controversial ­ but our record of getting those judges confirmed that the president nominated, I'm still proud of."

Even though it left a few appeals-court nominees on the side? I asked.

"It left about three or four that they simply would not bring up," McCain said. "But when you look at where we were, from getting nobody ­ you ask anybody, the Senate was about to blow up and they may not have had the 51 votes to move forward. It was by no means clear. The ones who were left aside, I continued to fight for. We just ran out of time and lost an election."

Finally, I asked McCain if he had anything else to say. "It's distressing," he told me, "on the day before a primary that something like this should come up, because one, it's distracting, and two, I have done nothing but support these people."

Gee, that sounds great—except for one thing: that gang of 14 deal was controversial for good reason. It prevented the senate from being rid of judicial filibusters. Had McCain instead fought on the side of those who wanted to invoke the Byrd option and dump judicial filibusters once and for all, all those empty COA seats would now be filled with quality judges. The 60-vote rule for cloture as a general matter was not in issue. This was only about these totally unjustifiable judicial filibusters. McCain would never want to actually filibuster a Dem nomination, so I don’t know why he would want to preserve the right to do so, except to play at the center of attention as a “moderate.” He could have shown the other “moderate” GOP senators that getting rid of judicial filibusters is not just for the senate leadership and the President’s sake. He would have turned the tide at a critical point, but he choose not to lead in that direction. Instead we got the gang of 14. How excited are we supposed to get over someone who sold out our one chance to end judicial filibusters for the sake of a handful of COA bench seats? I would have buyer's remorse too if I voted for McCain.

So, John Fund just made it up?

I'm sorry but I no longer believe McCain.

If elected, he'd be a disaster.

Before we digitally hang McCain, read what Ramesh Ponnuru has to say at NRO. He is by far the most conservative member at NRO and he is supporting McCain. He posted comments from last spring in which McCain specifically said Roberts and Alito were the two best choices ever for the Supreme Court. If McCain passes muster with Manny Miranda, he passes muster with me.

John Fund doesn't care for McCain and this seems to be a well-timed leak from anti-McCain types. Fund likes attention for Fund. In the comments Ponnuru posted, McCain made a very important point. There could be three openings on the Supreme Court and we can't let them got to waste over faux conservative purity.

Mitt Romney may be many things now (he wasn't in 2005), but he can't win a general election. No polling has shown him remotely competative with Hillary or Obama. He's at his worst when challenged and you can be sure Hillary and Bill will challenge Romney on his many past and varied positions. McCain can win because he attracts independent support. Romney doesn't and that's what is needed to win in 2008.

The Supreme Court should be the goal, not Rush Limbaugh's narrow view of what conservatism should be. George H W Bush could n't pass muster with Rush if he were running in 2008.

“[F]aux conservative purity”? Is that what we are to call it when we decline to be taken for granted? The idea that Romney can’t win and McCain can, is a big myth. (See aurel, above.) McCain may have sold out to the Dems on their tax philosophy, global warming hoax, and other follies, but we ought not be forced to sell out with him.

Faux conservative purity applies not to the voters, but to Mitt Romney. Maybe he had a road to Damascus conversion, but it's hard to consider him the true conservative choice. Just three years ago, he was a liberal on social issues. He didn't even want to be associated with Reagan/Bush in his 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy. I don't want to turn this into a hate fest between the two candidates. My comment applied to Mitt and not the voters. Mitt still can't win a general election though. He doesn't bring any new outside the norm Republican voters to the process.

I can't believe the hypocrisy of the Romney lovers at the Corner (and Quin). They were all OVER McCain for taking liberty with a direct quote from Romney about his support for a private timetable.

And yet now Fund fails to source a quote and, in fact, may have taken the quote out of context and these same Romney supporters are convicting McCain on this one.

I expect this from completely in the tank folks like Hugh Hewitt. I expect more from the folks at National Review and Quin.

If McCain wants to argue that he would be a better fighter for good judicial nominations than Romney, he’s going to have a tough time. On the one hand we have a guy who is endorsed by Robert Bork, and on the other we have a guy from the infamous Gang of 14. I know which one is more likely to get my vote on that score.

I know Fund. I have very very good reason, up to date, to trust his reporting. But that is beside the point. I objected to what he told BYRON YORK, today, in direct quotes. York quoted McCain saying that he supported all the nominees not mentioned in the Gang bang. That is a lie. He killed (or directly helped kill) the Haynes nomination.
Look, I followed all the ins and outs of the Haynes nomination. What McCain and Graham did to him should be seen as inexcusable by every supporter of this site.
Quin Hillyer

My points are twofold:

1) You are trying hard to parse McCain's words to find any inconsistency and then HAMMER him as a liar. As I said, the word "Liar" is the problem. Was Romney a liar for telling the voters of Massachussets that he would be pro-choice but then govern as a pro lifer??? Is THAT a lie in your book? I don't think it is, but under your definition it is.

2) You guys hammered McCain for taking a Romney quote out of context and using it to score points. (You again used the word "lie.")

I disagreed with the handling of Haynes. But I can say that without calling anyone a liar.

PS:

I just listened to John Fund on Mark Levin's show. Fund stands by his story and says he has multiple sources.

John Fund made it clear he said McCain MIGHT not nominate someone like Alito if he wore his conservatism on his sleave. As for Robert Bork, good for him that he endorsed Romney. WHile Romney didn't want to be associated with Reagan/Bush in the 1980's, McCain was voting for Robert Bork.

Heaven forbid anyone wear their conservatism on their sleeve. Lets keep our dirty conservatism hidden where McCain can’t see it so he will not take offence. Otherwise, one MIGHT not be seen as federal judicial material. I predict that conservatives MIGHT not vote for McCain.

I remember when McCain seemed like a great Senator. I thought of him as a conservative, and as you point out, he voted for Bork. But that was before he became Mr. Maverick Moderate. He teamed up with Feingold for that stupid campaign finance reform. Now he’s into global warming, opposing Bush’s tax cuts, and the Dems just love him. The Gang bang was really the last straw. He had a chance to be a hero, but instead he just had to muck things up.

From what I'm hearing the Dems in 96 said Dole would be the most formidable, best candidate the GOP could run against Clinton. That was just a set up to knock him down. Combine that with war hero and "his turn" and the parallels become even more eerily familiar.

Go Mitt.

To me, that's laughable. Compare John McCain's career-long voting record with this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney_jurist_picks...

jdigital, Romney said in that article:

The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include "strict construction judicial philosophy."

"With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.

Additionally:

Romney ... replaced regional judicial nominating committees that were viewed as politically tainted with a centralized Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission considers applicants using a "blind" first phase of the selection process that removes names from applications in an attempt to ensure the candidates will be judged on their merits. In addition, all of Romney's nominees have been submitted to a Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Nominations, which rates candidates as qualified, well-qualified, or unqualified -- and each has been found to be either qualified or well-qualified. After Romney nominates the candidate, the pick must be approved by the Governor's Council, where Democrats hold eight of nine seats.

Well, I agree with you that those are the two most comforting paragraphs. I could copy and paste others.

Here is what he said on the Weekly Standard blog (Campaign Standard) this morning:

"Hayes: McCain and Alito
Today, 9:11 AM • By Stephen F. Hayes

John McCain came out early in support of Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. He worked behind the scenes to generate more support from his colleagues. He pointed to his 2000 campaign promise to appoint conservative judges as one reason he was pleased with the Alito nomination. He spoke on the Senate floor in favor of Alito's confirmation. He even spent several months campaigning for president telling people Samuel Alito was one of the "finest justices ever appointed to the Supreme Court."

The inescapable conclusion? A President McCain would not appoint Supreme Court Justices like Samuel Alito.

We know this because in the days before the potentially decisive Florida primary, someone (we don't know who) claimed to have heard McCain (we don't know where) say that he was concerned about Alito's conservatism (we don't know when).

I understand the conservative objections to John McCain and I'm sympathetic to many of them, including his willing participation in the so-called Gang of 14.

But this is scurrilous."

Is Stephen Hayes a liar too?

this is silly. not least because it seems so far that Roberts is rather more conservative than Alito.

while McCain did a horrible thing with Haynes, that's the only truly objectionable act he's committed on judges. I support Romney, but if McCain wins the nomination I would proudly cast my vote for him. that's not to say I don't have serious worries about McCain, but they're not the usual ones (that is, not immigration on which I'm disgusted with both sides; and certainly not on judges, when he's strongly supported all but 1 of Bush's judges, and voted for every SCOTUS nominee since he's been in the Senate; rather on his support for embryonic snake oil research (though with recent breakthroughs that is mitigated somewhat) and his adherence to the cult of global warming).