ConfirmThem

You are embarrassing yourself, Quin. Redfaced and screaming, calling McCain a LIAR!!

I thought we conservatives were the grownups. Why are we imitating the Daily Kooks?

Red-faced and screaming? He lied. That is a fact. I just laid out the facts.
I've never understood what is wrong with calling a liar a liar. A lie is a deliberate untruth. McCain knows he did not support the other nominees, because he blocked Haynes, actively. Therefore, he lied.
It's like the time Bob Dole told the elder Bush to "stop lying about my record." Why did Dole come out the worst in that exchange? It was only his tone. The fact is, Bush DID lie about Dole's record. Dole was right to call him a liar.
This is not a case where somebody unwittingly passed along a falsehood. The current Bush did NOT lie to us about WMDs, because he really believed, and had good reason to believe, that Saddam indeed possessed WMDs. Accusing somebody of lying when he did not lie is horrible. That's why it is horrible to say Bush lied.
But lying itself is even worse than an imprecise accusation of lying. McCain flat-out lied. I called him on it, and cited the exact facts. What's wrong with that?

Quin Hillyer

As a lawyer, you know that to be a lie there has to be intent. I firmly believe that you are skipping right over that in several instances as they pertain to McCain.

First, we don't know the whole story about Haynes as it pertains to McCain's involvement. But we also don't know whether McCain - in an impromptu interview in an airplane hanger with Byron York - simply forgot that Haynes was part of the deal. Or maybe he truly believes that because he was willing to vote for Haynes if he came to the floor that this amounts to actively supporting. I personally don't agree with him on that. But I wouldn't call him a liar.

Your post on the Spectator could have said "McCain is Wrong about Haynes." Or "McCain seems to be ignoring Haynes." The effect would be the same, but you would not be engaging in such an ugly accusation.

When you use the word lie, you use the same tactic that the left uses over and over and over. Take a point of disagreement and accuse the guy (usually W) of lying. It's beneath you.

I, for instance, would never dream of calling you a LIAR for the following point you made in the AMSPEC blog:

"3) McCain himself, bipartisan Hillary pal that he is, would NEVER support such a filibuster."

The word NEVER is wrong. You know and I know that there is some unlikely scenario whereby a dem president nominated a convicted felon or some such and McCain would support a filibuster. Does your use of NEVER rise to the level of making you a liar? No. But under your definition it would. Because it's a mistruth meant to deceive.

Similarly, McCain talked about supporting the judges not included in the Gang of 14 and while he may have been wrong on whether we would call what he did "supporting" them - you are way over the top by calling him a liar for it.

Again similarly, you have called McCain (several times) a liar for his attacks on Romney about Romney supporting timetables in Iraq. Now reasonable minds can differ as to whether what Mitt said rose to that level, but "liar?" I guess Stephen Hayes at the Standard is a liar - he took a look at the quote and said essentially that McCain was right.

My biggest problem with politics in the last 15 years (and 99% of the blame falls on the Left) is that when we disagree with sommeone on policy we say that person is lying. Sometimes it is true, but often not.

McCain may have been wrong (or perhaps misleading) on both the Iraq thing and on his recollection of an unsourced quote by the irreputable John Fund. But to call him a liar? Over the line.

We should think about two things:

1/ Who is more likely to beat Hillary or Obama in the fall, McCain or Romney. I think Romney is the better candidate.

2/ Who will PICK better judges. McCain or Romney? I have no doubt whatsoever that Romney will pick MUCH better judges.

I disagree with your first point, but frankly, agree with your second.

Because I disagree on the first, my 3rd question would be, "who would do better picking judges - McCain or Hillary/Obama."

I will support either man 100% and to the best of my financial ability in the general (mitt or mccain). Either would be better than the dem. That is why I wish the conservative blogosphere on both sides would refrain from calling people liars, or flip-floppers, etc.

The blood pressure is rising to a level where people are saying some things that are over-the-top.

I think McCain is the kind of "Republican" who gave us Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Ronald Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy.

I'll take another Ronald Reagan.

People need to calm down. I support McCain, but name calling on either side only makes it more difficult to come together after the primary. Talk radio alone is making many McCain supporters so angry that it will be difficult to get them all back of Romney is the nominee.

Gustafms, did you even read my columns? IT is not a matter of whether McCain couldn't remember what happened to Haynes. He and Graham LED the effort to kill the Haynes nomination. They personally blocked him. Haynes was NOT part of the Gang bang deal; he was not mentioned; and yet AFTER the deal, McCain and Graham kept a hold on him until he finally withdrew. ANd all for spurious reasons, while smearing him. So for McCain to say that he supported the rest of Bush's nominees is just a flat out lie. I stand entirely behind my choice of words.

Quin Hillyer

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006377.cfm

"Senate liberals have had seven years to perfect the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees, and they are poised to add an additional wrinkle this presidential election year. Since you'll want to follow along with the progress (or lack thereof) of federal judicial confirmations this year, especially for the more important Court of Appeals nominees for the 12 federal Circuits, you'll need this practical explanation of the written and unwritten rules, techniques, excuses and "senatorial courtesies" that will be in play by liberals bent on keeping good judges off the federal bench.

Here they are, in no particular order:"

Bush just called on the Senate to quit blocking his judicial nominees.

There was never a hold on the Haynes nomination. The Judiciary Committee could have voted on Haynes and every other stuck nominee.

Graham, nor McCain, nor any other Senator could have stopped a vote in committee had Specter decided to call one.

Haynes could have been reported out of committee with a negative recommendation. That was a real possibility. He could have received several negative votes from several GOP Senators in Judiciary -- Graham, maybe DeWine and Specter. It would have been incredibly embarrassing to the Bush Administration and Haynes personally to be taken down in such a fashion.

Of course some judicial nominees have been confirmed after receiving a negative recommendation in the Judiciary Committee.

Read your own post from September 2006 about how there was no "hold" on Haynes. Maybe this will help lessen your fierce hatred of McCain.

http://www.confirmthem.com/graham_misleads_hewitt

At the end of the day, Quin, my problem with you on this is you are calling a man a liar based on absolute hearsay. You say:

"...Fund stands by his reporting.... so, the key thing is, McCain told York today that he did not "ever" draw any distinction between Alito and Roberts ("No, no, of course not.") That is a categorical denial. As I trust Fund's reporting entirely, what this means is that even if McCain said "might," that does not come close to squaring with his categorical denial today of having ever said such a thing.... which means that what McCain said today to York was another lie. Straight talk, my rear end."

And yet Fund won't name the people to whom this quote was made, or the setting. Or the context. Maybe he was asked, "hey Senator, what kind of judges will you appoint to the SCOTUS?" And he said "Alito and Roberts." Now, maybe the conversation continued:

"Senator, what if you are facing a democrat senate, what kind of justice will you support." And maybe McCain said, "I might draw the line on Alito..." But the grounds there would be confirmability.

Regardless, I can't stand seeing a fellow member of the bar calling a man a LIAR based on hearsay without context.

Call him "misleading," accuse him of "flip flopping," accuse him of leaving out the whole story, whatever.

But liar? To me it's a loaded term. Maybe I listened in Sunday School when they talked about the Ten Commandments, or I listened in Crim Law when the prof talked about perjury. But lying is a HUGE charge in my book.

And due to your disdain (hatred?) of McCain, Quin, you use the word "Lie" or "liar" way too much.

NO CCA nominees are on the docket. Just DJs from Ga, Wy, Tn, and Ark. It is bad enough there was no January hearing. Now the Feb hearing has NO CCA. Mitch needs to start raising a ruckus. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3076

I am simple guy.

But someone who does things like this:

should not be president.

The problem with the Fund story is that he is reporting double hearsay.

I credit the respect that several people have expressed for Fund--that he is a solid reporter. But as trustworthy as he may be in reporting what his sources told him, we still have to address the credibility of Fund's sources, who Fund won't name. To evaluate the accuracy of Fund's report--and McCain's categorical denial--fairly, we have to be able to measure not only Fund's credibility, but the credibility of his sources. Fund's assurances are not enough because he cannot assure the public that his sources are being honest or that the manner in which he obtained the information from the sources did not introduce inaccuracies, such as by using leading questions.

In the end, McCain is confronted with a story repeating statements by unnamed sources without any means to confront the sources, to possibly put the statements if true into context, or to locate evidence (a recording or transcript of the speech in question or other attendees maybe?) that would refute the story. All he can do is deny the story, which is not enough for some people whose desire to believe what Fund reported about McCain may overwhelm their ability to evaluate the situation rationally.

Ahh... but what you miss is that Fund has THREE sources who ALL say the same thing, and Kathryn Lopez at National Review Online has two sources who independently, BEFORE Fund's column came out, told her the exact same thing, in the exact same words. That is now five separate sources all reporting the same thing. By any journalistic standards, that's solid. I spoke to Fund yesterday. I spoke, face to face, with K-Lo just a couple fo hours ago. Their stories are as solid as can be.
Not only that, but they fit with what is already well known about McCain: that he will support most GOP nominees when they come to a vote, but that he just doesn't think the issue of judges is all that important -- in fact, he thinks it is sort of a nuisance -- and he doesn't particularly respect the Constitution itself, in light of several of his well-known issue stances.... and that, as Rick Santorum has been saying vociferously, McCain always opposes raising the social issues that are often wrapped around judicial issues... and that he didn't just JOIN the Gang of 14, but helped create it, AFTER announcing flat-out that he would definitely not vote for the constitutional option.
And then there is his treatment of Jim Haynes, which, I repeat, was utterly shameful and inexcusable.
All of which is not NECESSARY to believe the reporting of Fund and K-Lo, both of whom are known qualities for their accuracy and their judgment about what is a good source and what isn't, but it adds context that makes the Fund/K-Lo reports even more believable than they already are.

Quin Hillyer

K-Lo is a great blogger. But she is so far in the tank for Romney that any context would be lost on her...

I'm sure McCain said something that he shouldn't have. But it's absurd to blast him the way he's been blasted without the context of the quote.

And to then call him a liar without all the facts... Well, let's just say I'll support Mitt wholeheartedly in the general, but some of his supporters sure have acted shamefully in the primary.

What if K-Lo's two sources are two of Fund's three sources? That would not be five still unidentified sources, just three still unidentified sources. But we can't test this because the sources remain anonymous.

What if one or more of those sources has an ax to grind with McCain, or didn't actually hear it themselves, but "heard it from someone who was there"?

None of these three to five anonymous sources has revealed themselves publicly, even after more than 24 hours of intense debate sparked by their comments. Why?

There had to be more than three to five people at the private event where McCain allegedly made the comment. Yet, NO ONE has come forward publicly to say that he or she heard McCain say this. Why?

More questions: When did this private event occur? Where? Who else attended?

The answers to these questions might very well confirm K-Lo and Quin's position. But we cannot get answers because their sources remain anonymous. That makes the conclusions drawn by some about McCain's view of Alito at best premature, if not simply unfair.

Quin mentions several items on which to object to McCain's candidacy. For him, K-Lo, and many others, those items are sufficient to campaign against McCain or for Romney. (And I doubt that there are very many readers of NRO's The Corner who would disagree that K-Lo is actively pushing Romney.) There is no need to dilute those objections to McCain by relying on statements by anonymous sources lacking sufficient context to allow the accused to respond.

1. Gang of 14 leadership. He sold out Bush's nominees.

2. Unreliabiliy on future judicial nominations. He has dissed Roberts and Alito.

3. Age. He looks tired and ancient. When my children see him on TV, they say "He looks like Grandpa." For the record, Grandpa is 85.

4. Unreliable and unforgivible Liberal record. McCain-FEINGOLD political free speech curtailment. McCain-KENNEDY amnesty. McCain-LIEBERMAN. Need I say more?

5. A 25 year Senator. Washington insider now to his very bones. Fatal in '08. And don't insult us by talking about "Mavericks"

6. The darling of Democrats and the liberal media. Why? Because they rightly perceive him as a sure loser.

7. He will lose the conservative base, many of whom will sit out in November instead of voting for him.

8. A man of the distant past. '60's heroics will not cut it in '2008. He does not articulate the best of the past as a foundation for a present agenda, as Reagan did.

9. A Senator. Historically fatal for a Preidential candidate. Cannot differentiate himself as an outsider vis-a-vis Senators Clinton or Obama.

19. A certain loser. He makes Bob Dole seem young and exciting. And at least Dole had the support of Republicans.

11. About 12 more points I don't have time for now.

Look, Lonestar, you must not understand how good journalists work. If this were just some unknown journalist off the street, you might ask the questions you have been asking. John Fund has decades of credibility to his record. He does not report stuff that is just "hearsay." There are ways to check the reliability of one's sources. There is a matter of judgment that must be used by somebody like Fnd before you put something to paper that is not 100% sourced. Fund merits the trust that he has used such judgment. Such judgment does not allow somebody to use THIRD-hand sources. Instead, it only allows for use of direct witnesses. ANd I will repeat that I spoke to both Fund and Lopez. Their sources were INDEPENDENT of each other. ANd all said the same thing. That is significant. It virtually eliminates all questions. K-Lo, to her credit, did NOT report the story when she had it, which was BEFORE Fund. Why not? Because she had only two direct sources, and thought she needed a third. So much for her letting her pro-Romney bias influence her behavior.
The fact is, by all standards of good journalism, this is an airtight story.
Meanwhile, I repeat, MY objections were based on his assertion that he had supported all the other Bush nominees. That was a lie. He actively opposed and smeared the excellent nominee Jim Haynes. His behavior vis-a-vis Haynes was despicable.
I supported McCain over Bush in 2000. His treatment of Jim Haynes was the final straw, though. It showed a man of low character. That low character has been showing through this week.

Quin Hillyer

Whether Fund or J-Lo complied with accepted journalistic standards in reporting hearsay or not, I think it wrong to condemn someone on the basis of hearsay. The common law and the Constitution take a similar view. If Fund and K-Lo's sources will not make their accusations publicly and provide information to test the accuracy of their statements, then their accusations are not credible. I will not condemn a person on that basis. Journalists may think differently.

Nevertheless, I reiterate my point: if the Haynes fiasco is enough for you and others to reject McCain, then you should not dilute your position by relying on an unverifiable accusation based on hearsay within hearsay. I'm not trying to lecture; I just think you open up an unnecessary vulnerability on your position by doing so.