This Charles Hurt piece in the NY Post highlights the enormous obstacles John McCain has in winning the hearts and minds of conservatives:
He has taken a commanding lead in the GOP primary by packaging himself as the “true conservative” committed to limited government, to slashed federal spending and to an avowedly conservative Supreme Court.
He claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He even claims the mantle of Barry Goldwater, conservatism’s crack version of Reagan. But as McCain clinches the GOP nomination, he will begin his usual leftward lurch.
He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.
McCain’s appeal to independents and even the left is what makes him such a powerhouse in the general election.
It is also precisely what has so many in the Republican base so wildly fearful of handing him the keys to the kingdom.
If the Republican Party expands “because we have a candidate who’s going out trying to attract liberals by being like them, then the party’s going to be around but you won’t recognize it,” thundered radio king Rush Limbaugh.
The Republican Party will “be over as it exists now,” he warns.
[…]
Still, McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.
Suicide becomes a genuine alternative when existence becomes so unbearable that the grave seems preferable by comparison. Judging by the catcalls and outbursts of “wrong caucus” when Senator McCain’s letter was read at my local Senate District caucus in Minnesota last evening, there is a significant subset of the base that is prepared to choose voluntary annihilation.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Wrong caucus?” I love it!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday:
February 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I don’t see it as suicide to vote against McCain in November. Quite the contrary: Economic conservatism (as opposed to fiscal conservatism) dies if McCain is in the White House.
Whereas it will be alive and well with Hillary in the White House — in Congress. But if McCain is President, Republican Senators will be cowed and economic conservatism will have no voice.
Worse, the next generation will never listen to a pro-capitalist argument again, because a REPUBLICAN President will be granting the anti-profit, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalist premises of the left moral credibility. In the minds of the next generation, only kooks will believe that stuff.
As such, it is McCain who will kill economic conservatism — from within. Something no liberal Democrat could ever accomplish.
And THAT is why it’s preferable to have Hillary in the White House over John McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
If you put Huckabee or Romney under that same microscope, they would fair no better than McCain does.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
murphy, Mitt said that before most of the results were in. Before he knew the CA delegate split would be JMac 167, Mitt 6.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The GOP race is OVER. We can either grow up and support the nominee, or we can make like a liberal Democrat and emulate the immature Obama-Clinton feud and further divide the party.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I won’t be pulling the lever for McCain because he doesn’t represent me, plain and simple. I mean, the choice between Hillary and John is so unattractive. Hillary will ask Obama to be her running mate, and McCain won’t stand a chance. The dems are going to win anyway.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
To be, or not to be, that is the question. It looks like McCain will win the nomination, and it is imperative that he lose big in November, or the party could make this kind of mistake again. We are in danger of a 1-party system, where there isn’t any difference between the nominal parties. America needs a 2-party system, and if that is to be, the Republican Party must lose. The problem with suicide is what comes after. This is more like a metamorphosis, to awaken to a more glorious state of being in the future.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Judging by the catcalls and outbursts of “wrong caucus†when Senator McCain’s letter was read at my local Senate District caucus in Minnesota last evening,”
It seems anti McCain people aren’t very civil people. I’m guessing that it has to do with the fact that they get their opinions from talk-radio which is not always a civil medium.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
There’s a more constructive, rather than destructive, way to “torpedo” McCain in November, and that’s for economic conservatives to cast a protest vote for a 3rd party or independent candidate — with that candidate listing half a dozen commitments for McCain to make, in which case the protest candidate will drop out. That way we can FORCE McCain to adopt the right platform. I believe Mitt Romney would be perfect for that role. The LP candidate would work if he wasn’t anti-war, such as Wayne Root, so that vote total would not be misinterpreted.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
sampo, I refuse to believe that economic conservatism died last night.
Metro #3 right on. It’s only suicide if someone cares more about the party than what the party stands for.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
sampo, did you not see the graph yesterday about McCain’s liberal progression. He just doesn’t represent the base of the republican party. I am willing to sacrifice the next 4 years to strengthen our party. McCain has frequently toyed with the idea, and even made overtures, of becoming a democrat. I will not be led down that road by the pied piper.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Metro,
Kudos.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Metro #10, Romney will likely be filling that role until the convention.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
metro, you and TLG sounded a lot more rational when rudy was in it. but maybe you’re right. romney always seemed more comfortable being an independent as opposed to a republican.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Metro, you keep repeating 167-6
Have the super delegates pledged to the winner of the state or is the breakdown going to be 164-6?
You are spot on in #3.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“economic conservatism died”?
Steve Forbes didn’t think so. Some of us weren’t thrilled to see the national debt double under the bush administration. Maybe you were.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Metro, I actually agree with your point in number 10. I don’t know if it needs to be Romney as the independent candidate, but we do need someone. If we don’t have that person, I will just encourage friends and family to not show up, or if it looks close, to pull the lever for the dems. We do need to purify our party, and McCain will not do that.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
fran, there’s only 3 unpledged delegates in CA. (“Super” delegates are a Democratic thing.)
Hard to see them going to Romney when CA’s pledged delegates are 164-6 for McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Steve Forbes made an utter fool of himself endorsing McCain when economic conservatism is his issue — because he offered no explanation.
Power-lust.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Forbes has had good things to say about McCain. It is obvious he dislikes Romney.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
sampo,
Did McCain ever vote against a debt-ridden budget? Ever? He sure has voted against tax cuts though.
That tells me he’s more interested in keeping taxes high than he is in keeping spending low.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Metro,
I’ve been thinking a lot of the same things, but rather for Mitt to do that in the primary, notas a third party.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Word on the street is that McCain has told Huckabee that the VP slot is his for sticking around to help defeat Romney. McCain believes that Huckabee will bring in the conservative vote.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“Judging by the catcalls and outbursts of “wrong caucus†when Senator McCain’s letter was read at my local Senate District caucus in Minnesota last evening,…”
Also this demonstrates why caucuses are not democratic. People can be intimidated by a loud minority, and be swayed by trying to be popular instead of actually who they think is best. Maybe there’s a reason Romney only wins caucuses.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Jason, Mitt will continue to suffer humiliating defeats in the primary. I do NOT want people to see it as ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM taking humiliating defeats. NO WAY.
A protest vote is a different thing, because the guy has no real shot at the Presidency.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
22, murphy. you’re sadly confused.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
If it’s McCain-Huckabee in November, it’s a no-brainer.
A ticket with one of the Senate’s most liberal Republicans at the top, and then one of the most liberal Governors at the bottom?
Who’s party is this again?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
17, economic conservatism will not die until North Korea outperforms South Korea, Cuba out performs South FL, etc. Market capitalism has captured the center of American politics.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
romney is the guy who supports 500 Billion dollars in farmer subsidies. McCain – $0.
obviously you were out to lunch on the coburn-hannity exchange, but in case you’re interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_rUrKKwyx0
February 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
#25
That’s ridiculous.
Saying that caucuses just pick who is popular and primary picks who is best is absolutely ridiculous.
There is a much better argument for the reverse.
Caucus goers are generally much more informed and likely to go against the popular choice.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
QuacknHack, capitalism’s superior performance has NEVER been enough. We still get 1,000 movies that are anti-capitalist for every 1 that is pro. The middle of America still doesn’t buy it. The moral anti-capitalist arguments of the left are extremely powerful. (I agree with Ayn Rand, and say that is because the morality of Christianity supports socialism rather than capitalism.)
February 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
sampo,
You seem to be out to lunch regarding McCain’s political trajectory.
There’s a reason Bill Clinton says his wife and McCain agree on a lot of issues. Same reason McCain says Hillary would be a great president.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Metro,
Depends how it’s packaged, as with anything else in politics.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Tread carefully, Metro. Rand was brilliant on economics. She flunked theology.
I would encourage you to read Michael Novak’s “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism” for an exposition on the inherent morality of capitalism spawned by Christianity.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Gary, you really don’t want to get into that with me.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
that graph is based on nothing. it would have been more useful if jason used some crayons.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Sampo,
head in the sand.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I empathize with you guys who won’t vote for McCain.
I wouldn’t vote for Rudy for a similar reason.
I’m going to consider voting for him in November.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
32, the middle of America does buy it. No serious Dem even proposes single payor health care, they all model their programs after Bush’s market oriented Medicare prescription drug plan. No serious Dem even proposes banning cheap imports, which is the only way in increase the wages of low skilled American workers. No serious Dem even suggests that environmentalism costs consumers in higher prices and jobs (although Bill slipped the other day). The only environmental proposals they even suggest is emissions standards 10-15 years from now that can be repealed before they cost anything.
Liberals are timid. They are not like the liberals of times past. They have acquiesed to the Reagan revolution on the structure of the economy and only fiddle around on the edges. Margaret Thatcher sold off the nationalized British industries. Tony Blair didn’t even propose buying them back. Thatcher won, Blair was a caretaker. Reagan won, its been all caretakers since.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
31, You didn’t answer any of my points that Caucuses allow for intimidation, and the lack of a secret ballot influence people to vote with whatever group makes the most noise, or with respected leaders… Its allows for alot of influences that are not democratic in nature.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
sampo, the graph is based upon all of McCain’s votes. Sooner or later, you will have to face them.
The ACU rated McCain only 1 point more conservative in 2006 than Ben Nelson (D). And 2006 wasn’t even McCain’s “liberal” year.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
#40: Those are good points. But that trend can only continue if there is a loud voice fighting for them, because the philosophical tendency of the culture is in the opposite direction.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hmmmm- I’m as positive as they come about Romney, but I’m still realistic. We all knew McCain would come out ahead because of New York, but California hurt A LOT. The fact that Mitt will get, what, four delegates out of California is just not good. The best thing that could have happened last night was that Mitt would take the states he took (Minnesota was actually a surpriser, but it’s no NY or CA) and Huckabee would have stunk it up and dropped out. In my opinion, that’s pretty much the only way that Romney can beat McCain. I don’t think it’s over yet, but as far as this Romney supporter goes, if McCain wins Virginia it’s over. McCain is in a VERY good position right now- and he should thank Huckabee almost entirely. If Huckabee had not won Iowa, Mitt would have, and probably NH, MI, NV, maybe SC (at least way closer) and probably FL. In that case I think Mitt would have dominated last night and been our nominee. Therefore, Mike Huckabee is almost the entire reason that we don’t have a Romney nominee right now. And part of the reason that we’re so divided. I’ll admit it, I despise John McCain- especially after the huge lie three days before the Florida primary. I really am not sure I can vote for him, and I’m hoping for a last minute conservative coalescion around Romney. If it doesn’t happen on the 12′th, when is it going to happen? This could be a long four years (Hillary or McCain- not saying they’ll be exactly the same, but I intensely dislike both). Honestly, if Obama was not such a flaming liberal I would probably support him over McCain. As it is, I just don’t know where to turn except hope for a miracle in the Chesapeake area. Sigh.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Besides, if you want to talk specifics, we could come up with a host of awful things McCain would push through Congress with Republicans bending over and taking it. Starting with cap-and-trade.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Jason and/or Murphy, care to read what letter grade the NTU gave McCain in 06? An A
Care read how he ranked in the entire senate? um, 6 out of 100 aint bad.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Quack, I think you’re missing that government has been increasing its share of the economy every year since Reagan.
Right now government spending is 35.4% of GDP.
While Democrats respect the need for markets (as opposed to socialism), they propose increasing government’s share of GDP to 41%.
That may be capitalism but I doubt it’s economic conservatism.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
43, they will trend in the opposite direction until one of the following happens:
People hit the light switch, and nothing happens (See Grey Davis, CA, Repub defeats Hispanic in CA).
Inflation spikes because Dems limit trade.
Electric bills/Gas prices increase because of global warming tax, which imposes burdens on the US and exempts China.
The simple fact of the matter is that I am in the most conservative 95% of the population on economics, and on 90%+ of economic issues Robert Rubin agrees with me. Whoever Clinton/Obama appoints as treasury secretary or to the board of the Federal Reserve will agree with me on 90%+ of economic issues.
The disconnect is not between capitalism and the american center, its between the idiocy of the Democratic base and the fact that most of the leaders in the Dem party know that the view of their own parties base is idiotic. The Dems are hogtied. Rahm Emmanuel and Jon Corzine know what their base wants is stupid, so its not going to happen. They have raised expectations for something (change) which is not going to happen.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The ACU is actively campaigning against McCain, and they still have trouble diminishing his conservative bona fides
February 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Interesting, sampo.
At first glance, it looks like NTU’s fiscal spending record has John McCain three times worse than Obama.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Quack, #48 is making it that much easier for me to feel comfortable in helping put Hillary in the White House rather than McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
47, I agree that the spending is moving in the wrong direction, but with respect to government regulation of prices/prohibition of price and wage competition, trade, and the issues that really impact the decision of where to invest (and thereby where to create job growth), the mainstream libs arnt that far away from the right. When you take spending and income taxes as a percent of GDP over 30 years, the trend is not that big.
Globalism has hogtied economic liberals. That is why they hate it so much.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The public has seen thru the smokescreen and deception of the Romney campaign. Case in point: NTU’s rating of McCain in 05 A, Obama in 05 F.
http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf
keep it up, they’ll only trust romney less and less.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
51, that is true. And on security, if Billary’s political future is at risk, there is NOTHING that Billary wouldn’t do to a terror suspect that Dick Cheney wouldn’t do. There is no conversation that Billary would not listen into that Dick Cheney wouldn’t listen into.
Cheney does it to protect America, Billary will do it to protect their political future.
Only on judges/social issues does it matter who wins.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
39, It sounds like you are considering not voting for McCain in Nov? Since the life issue is one of your biggest issues consider the following – McCain got zero percent ratings from NARAL, and I imagine Clinton pretty much scored 100s with them, while there is no gurantee of good judges on McCain’s side we have people like Steven Calebresi( probably spelling that wrong), and Ted Olsen, and Estrada, on Hillary’s side we will have people like Larry Tribe; with McCain we have a real shot at picking the fifth anti Roe justice – with Hillary there’s a good chance that we will never see the end of Roe in our lifetimes. I think say for a Social Conservative the choice is clear.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
sampo,
Smokescreen and deception, huh? Like how the McCain campaign made robotic calls across California yesterday saying Romney was anti-family and anti-God?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
56, I wouldn’t be so quick to put robo calls on McCain. Huck has been the king of the negative robo call.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
It appears that the gang of 14 will be running the country from now on.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
John Mark #55,
In 2006, on social issues, McCain was more liberal than 91% of his Republicans colleagues. But if that doesn’t convince you, take it from the donkey’s mouth himself:
It’s not social issues I care about. — John McCain, 2/3/08
February 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
McCain’s not running against 91% of his colleagues. He’s running against Hillary, and none of what I said changes the stark differences between him and Hilary.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
John Mark, of course there are stark differences with Hillary, but that does not address the reasons economic conservatives will sabotage him listed in #3.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Save the conservative movement, vote 3rd Party in Nov.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Yes, yes, yes. Suicide is better for the GOP than pending death. Mmm-hmm. Sure.
Yet some are turned away from suicide when the realize the potential agony involved…
February 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
What’s outrageous is that SoCons threatened to sabotage Rudy, despite his stand on judges and a number of other olive branches.
McCain has thrown EconCons no olive branches and instead pissed all over us 3 times in the last debate — and that was BEFORE he’d virtually sewn up the nomination.
Are EconCons just going to be pussies, and show that it’s SoCons who really rule the party?
If so — I’m out.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
60, Or Obama. If you care about Social issues, are your really going to vote for the Larry Tribe team, over the Olsen, Estrada, Calebresi, Brownback team. At worst McCain will pick O’Connor, though I think there’s a good chance he will do better than that. Hillary will be likely to pick judges who will be looking for a right to gay marriage in the Constitution. Voting for Hillary is likely kissing goodbye to Roe being overturned in most of our lifetimes, how can any SoCon vote for that.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
About Last Night
An easy decision looms.
by Dean Barnett
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14704&R=1394E20487
February 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I disagree with Metro’s premise that the Republicans in Congress would bend over and take whatever McCain gave them. The GOP Congress did WHATEVER Bush wanted. They barely whimpered, and yet when he pushed them too far – immigration – they rebelled. Ever since, they’ve done what they wanted. If economic conservatism is really such a hot button issue, the Congress won’t let it be stamped out, just as they didn’t go with the Bush directive on immigration.
It simply doesn’t pass the smell test.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
John Mark #65,
You fail to convince me that Hillary’s judges looking for a right to gay marriage would be substantially different than McCain’s judges looking for a way to censure the First Amendment.
MarkG,
It is by no means suicide for the people who are conservatives first, party second. Until now, the GOP has been the obvious vehicle for our principles.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Metro, Your branch of ecconomic conservatives may have a reason to not vote for McCain, I haven’t looked at it from that perspective. My perspective is that of a Ecconomic moderate, Social Conservative.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
John Mark #69,
You’re right that John McCain is economically moderate. But he doesn’t care about social conservatism. He said so himself.
It’s not social issues I care about. — John McCain, 2/3/08
February 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Aron, that article was far more depressing about McCain than anything you could’ve posted.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
All the pundits are saying that McCain needs to come to the Right now to get the base behind him. Why would he need to do that, he has already won the primaries. Candidates always veer right during the GOP primaries to win and back to left once the primaries are over to appeal to more people in the general elections. McCain didn’t veer right in the Primaries and he still won. Why would he veer right now that the primaries are over? With his huge ego, he has been effectively saying: “If I don’t need the conservative base in order to win a GOP primary, I certainly don’t need them to win the general election.”
February 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Metro, do you assume that Hillary, backed by healthy deep-blue congressional majorities, would return Bob Rubin and Larry Summers to the economic leadership team? I sense the Clintonian economic team is likely to include the likes of Krugman and such.
I also don’t see how people will suddenly abandon magical thinking about economics under a Democrat-led government. The real memories of economic hardship are long gone. The Depression generation is no longer with us, and the years of Oil Crisis and stagflation are fading fast. People no longer seem to believe the party of big government is a problem.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Metro,
While a VP Rudy would more than suffice as an olive branch, rest assured I would be among the first to rush to the GOP’s exit door, restoring my political independence, if Huckabee, the knuckle-dragging nanny-stater, were to become McCain’s running mate.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
#68, ya know, one thing I like about modern conservatism: It’s FOR the 1st Amendement.
Just a few decades ago, you SoCons were AGAINST the 1st Amendment, and FOR the draft — which made conservatism wholly unacceptable to those believing in individual rights.
It’s ONLY because you flipped on those 2 things that we libertarian conservatives are even in this camp at all.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“You fail to convince me that Hillary’s judges looking for a right to gay marriage would be substantially different than McCain’s judges looking for a way to censure the First Amendment.”
If there is no difference between McCain and Hillary on judges why is the conservative legal establishment endorsing McCain. Apparently they thought McCain was going to use a different criteria for picking judges than CFR. Like I said there is not gurantee McCain will pick good judges, but there is allmost a sure gurantee the Dems won’t pick good judges. With McCain throwing out Roe stands a chance, with Hillary it about the same chance as me getting eaten by a whale here in Nebraska.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Aron, from that Dean Barnett article you cited:
How is that even POSSIBLE? McCain is already sitting square in the middle.
Is Dean suggesting that McCain cross over to becoming liberal before 2010, as his current political trajectory indicates?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
P.S. SoCons have been wrong and had to flip on EVERY major battle they’ve fought in the last Century. I’ve chronicled this on this site before. Contraception, interracial marriage, over and over — backwards tiny minds.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Drama queens for Romney!
February 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Aron, WHEW — there’s the old Aron I knew.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
John Mark: With McCain throwing out Roe…
Not only did McCain oppose repealing Roe v Wade, he completely bought into the false assumption that women would be FORCED to kill their children. Were McCain to say that his views have changed on Roe, that would be relevant. But he has not.
Closet liberal.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Yeah. That’s worked so well for the Libertarians, 3rd largest party and all that. How many offices do they hold at local, state, or the national level? I forget.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Alito and Roberts had to oppose repealing RvW to be confirmed. The buzz word for this opposition was support of stare decicis.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
There’s still a good chance that with people like Estrada, Olsen and Calebresi advising him that he would pick good judges that would overturn Roe – obviously Sam Brownback thought. With Hillary you have no such chance.
Oh and if you want to look back seven years, I think Romney has alot more strong stuff in favor of Roe than that.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Things are going to change very quickly now that the GOP primaries are effectively over. McCain will lunge further left as he now sees himself in general election mode. The liberal media will turn 180 degrees and blast McCain away after propping him up so long. The conservative base will turn further against McCain due to his lunging left, and his beloved independents will turn against him after the media fires away. He will go down in flames against the Clinton/Obama ticket and the GOP will wake up and ask, “What did we do to ourselves?”.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
MarkG,
Alito and Roberts did not oppose repealing RvW. They specifically opposed taking a position on it. And they supported stare decisis in general, though both stated it was not a concrete rule that must be applied. Nice try rewriting history though.
And aside from that, McCain is not running for the Supreme Court.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
McCain to Critics on Right: ‘Calm Down’
“I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there’s areas we can agree on,” McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar.
“I think they’ve made their case against me pretty eloquently, and I think the majority of Republicans across the board have stated their view,” McCain said.
“Our message will be that we all share common principles, common conservative principles, and we should coalesce around those issues in which we are in agreement and I hope respectfully disagree on a few specific issues there’s disagreement on,” McCain said.
McCain defended his efforts to reach beyond the Republican party.
“One thing I’m convinced of, without a doubt, is that conservatives are glad when Joe Lieberman and I worked together in establishing the 9/11 Commission and then moved and got many of their recommendations into law,” McCain said.
“I think every day that goes by and Congress does not act on a stimulus package, I think is not helpful,” McCain said. “If I had written that package, it would’ve been somewhat different, but we need to send a signal to the markets and the American economy that we’re trying to do some things in their behalf.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8UKVCE81
February 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
83, While that may be true in the case of Roberts who said Roe was settled law ( I think he even said something to the effect that it was super settled) Alito refused to call it settled law. I think He said that it was of course a long standing precedent and should be approached carefully, but I seem to remember he didn’t go as far in saying it was settled law as what Roberts did. This is just based on my recalling so if you got different facts correct me if I’m wrong.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
John Mark #84,
I know Romney was a stronger supporter of Roe. He specifically stated that his position changed.
McCain says he hasn’t changed. So he’s either lying, or he’s still pro-Roe.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
How many times are you guys going to repeat these lines?—i.e. these despairing and dejected predictions, e.g. the media will turn on McCain, McCain will pivot further left, the base will turn on McCain blah, blah, blah. And what do you hope to achieve by it? Is this sour grapes or something? An expression of rage or hate? A random act of vandalism?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
McCain said “see IF there’s areas we can agree on”???
Admitting he may have NOTHING he agrees with conservatives on?
February 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
McCain internal memo leaves Romney for dead
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/presidential_briefing/?p=287
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
John Mark #88,
I believe you’re thinking of Spector, who was continually trying to paint Roe as “super duper precedent”.
Roberts answered masterfully by not taking the bait, rejecting the central presumption, and avoiding any sound bites all at the same time.
Alito simply rejected the notion of super-duper precedent out of hand.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
89, Or he made a mistatement.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Given the hysteria, outrage, panic, and near apocalyptic despair among the so-called critics on the right (the writer of this top level post is considering suicide!), this is probably sage advice.
This is beyond farce.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
John Mark #94,
Sometimes politicians make misstatements, such as when McCain said Putin was the President of Germany.
But McCain said he opposed the repeal of Roe, and then proceeded to rattle off the standard liberal talking point. That’s a big whoopsie. Furthermore, McCain never retracted the statement.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
93, Yeah I know Specter’s the one with the Super Duper precedent term, but I seem to recall somewhere where I read that Roberts made a comment that it was more settled than what some precedents are – that it was especially settled, I don’t remember what the term was.
I think I do recall that Alito was asked if Roe was settled law and he refused to say it was, which was significant becasue Roberts had said it was settled. At least something to that effect where Alito was asked a question that Roberts came more on the pro-Roe side than what Alito did. I think there’s still hope for both Roberts and Alito voting to overturn Roe, but I wouldn’t say its at all certain.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Did Mitt ever retract the death of his cousin which inspired him to be a committed choicer? Jumpin’ G. Hossephat, what you Rombot’s aren’t eager to let your guy get away with…
February 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I strongly advocated, yelled as loud as I could, for Mitt to announce Fred Thompson, or another southern democrat over the weekend for his VP. If he had done so, he would have taken Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri. And some of the garbage that was being sent his way could have been deflected strongly by someone like Thompson. Because Mitt is such a ‘nice guy’ he doesn’t quite no how to speak loudly in his own defense, or hit back below the belt. And if he does a little, the MSM makes it look as if he is the only one doing it. I still think that was by far the best thing to do last Friday or Saturday. Almost nobody agreed with me, but look what we have now.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
96, Actually right after the statement he said he misspoke and his campaign reiterated his support for overturning Roe. I’m guessing the illegal abortions that would happen was probably a real concern to him as it should be, which explains why on his site about Abortion he emphasizes that ovverturning Roe isn’t enough but that we need to encourage to have a culture that encourages a women to bring her child to birth.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
That’s one interpretation I suppose. I would read it differently. Sen. McCain is flatly admitting his differences with conservatives (As Rudy did with social conservatives) as opposed to trying to suddenly morph into a conservative and argue that he always was one, and who are you to suggest otherwise (as Romney tried to do with tremendous success)?
What he is offering is a transactional relationship, which is how politics gets done in democracies with diverse constituencies. In other words, he is offering to negotiate with the conservative bloc, to issue concessions or promise to promote policies etc. in return for support. This is a sign that McCain recognizes the power and influence of this particular bloc.
Whether he can make his case remains an open question.
For the conservative movement, however, this means coming to grips with the fact that the party has evolved beyond them, that it is possible to build a coalition—a base–without them, and that the conservative movement has become, indeed, another bloc. An important bloc I hope, but a bloc. I’m not too happy about this development either. But unlike the drama queens wailing and gnashing their teeth on this site, I tend to accept reality as it is and try to work within it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
MarkG,
You don’t make any sense. Totally bizarre.
Romney never retracted his reasons for being pro-Roe. He stated the reasons why he felt it was BETTER to be anti-Roe. He has acknowledged this as a change from day 1.
McCain makes statements on both sides of the issue, says he never changed, and you clamp your hands over your ears.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
99, I don’t there’s anyway Thompson would have done that. If he had a huge preference for Romney winning he would have endorsed Romney. And it would have taken having a big preference for Romney for Thompson to torpedo his good friend.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
John Mark #100,
Do you have that campaign statement clarifying his remarks? I’ve never seen it.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
So your preference is for someone who can see-saw on an issue at the drop of a hat?
February 6th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Here’s one source it may not be the most reliable or best source but I guess it makes my point. This is talking about a statement McCain made after his 1999 statement.
The next day, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a “clarification,” which reportedly stated: “I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.”
February 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Here’s the link:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200008
February 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
MarkG, you can insist on playing dumb, but don’t ask me to spend time humoring you for the sake of the argument.
John Mark, if you have a source I’d love it. I’d be interested in hearing McCain explain what he meant the previous day when he said in explicit terms that he opposed the repeal of Roe. Saying that he meant he really supported it is quite a clarification.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
#99 not democrat…going nuts here
February 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
John Mark, thanks for the source.
It seems McCain was simply caught saying what the crowd wanted to hear. Either that, or he said “repeal Roe” when he really meant “outlaw all abortion”…but I see no indication from Team McCain that he meant the latter.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Fine with me. But your fundamental problem is that your candidate has a record in public office that is far too short to indicate what he aims to achieve. His short record ranges from the unimpressive to the frightening, such as the health insurance mandate, higher fees and taxes, abdication of his responsibility to review criminal court appeals, etc.
Your guy has a serious credibility problem, exacerbated by comments on what he used his own eyeballs to see with regard to marches with MLK and his father. His truth-stretching on being a life-long hunter earned sincere ridicule from across the nation.
To be a viable candidate beyond the Choir Rombotic, Romney would have to provide something of substance for people to trust him. He would have to earn that sort of trust. But unfortunately, he squandered initial good will and lost trust with implausible statements over the past year or so.
You can earn someone’s trust over time, but once you’ve done something to lose that trust, it is almost impossible to get it back.
So go on cursing the cosmos for conspiring against your candidate if you must. But don’t expect others to take your or Mitt’s assessment of this state of affairs.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
His trying to please the crowd is a possiblity, and of course that would be wrong. But if we stack the one instance of him pandering and lying to pro-choicers and his whole life of voting pro-life, statements against Roe, and pro-life statements, I would say the balance is in McCain’s favor.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
MarkG,
It never ceases to amaze me at what some people are capable of rationalizing.
Romney raised service fees and fines $240 million, and more than made up for it with targeted tax cuts. Furthermore, he cut the cost of government 20% and erased a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes…and the fees he DID raise were balanced by his tax CUTS. And you have the gall to criticize him on that when McCain voted for higher taxes 52 times, including both Bush Tax Cuts and the Death Tax.
Romney cut health care costs in half through a market based approach and using money already in the system. You criticize him for mandates, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that the only alternative is for MA citizens to be MANDATED to pay for the ER visits of individuals who could have afforded their own insurance. And what has McCain done on this issue? Nothing.
You call Romney’s record unimpressive or frightening based on the above distortions. Yet it is McCain who has a long record of being pro-amnesty, anti-tax-cuts, pro-cap-and-trade, anti-ANWR-drilling, anti-marriage-amendment, anti-First-Amendment, pro-gas-tax, pro-terrorist-rights, pro-business-regulation, etc etc etc. McCain’s always talking about how little he knows about the economy…do you think that’s impressive? And that’s just the stuff he’s consistent on.
You criticize Romney for openly changing his abortion stance, and you ignore THIS list of McFlops on just the social issues alone:
03/17/2005……….Unintended Pregnancy Amendment……….N
3/19/1996……….Unintended Pregnancy Amendment……….Y
06/21/2002……….Military Abortion Amendment……….N
06/20/2000……….Military Abortions Amendment……….Y
06/21/2006……….Overseas Military Abortions Amendment….N
05/26/1999……….Overseas Military Abortions Amendment….Y
06/25/1998……….Overseas Military Abortions Amendment….N
07/10/1997……….Abortions at Overseas Military Facilities……N
06/19/1996……….Overseas Abortion Amendment……….Y
09/04/1997……….Fetal Tissue Research Amendment……….N
10/02/2006……….Fetal Tissue Research Amendment……….Y
05/29/2007……….Partial-Birth Abortion bill……….N
05/20/1997……….Partial-Birth Abortion bill……….Y
09/26/1996……….Partial-Birth Abortion Ban……….Y
February 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It ain’t over ’til Romney says it’s over. Even the MSM is meeker now when they ask Romney, “You’re done now, right?” Pathetic. He is the only conservative choice at this point. He’s gotta stay in and use…..the SECRET WEAPON. Now is the time.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Murphy 113: You’re merely proving my point. Romney’s record is too short and unremarkable to demonstrate any reliable trend. And where it could, that trend is further undermined by his own implausible campaign claims.
Lacking any consistent record, you and Team Romney lash out at others, claiming that they are worse for having held positions, now jettisoned, that Romney held simultaneously but has now jettisoned.
Romney has earned no credibility and lost potential trust.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
MarkG,
Now you have convinced me that you’re not even reading my posts. Bye bye.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
If you want a liberal President vote for a democrat, the country can afford 4 years of President Clinton, the repubs can’t afford one year of McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm