Tuesday, May 06, 2008
|
|
McCain Speech is About the Constitution, Not the Issues, Confounding Press
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:20 AM
|
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C.-- I suppose it's natural that the press would assume McCain would spend an entire speech about the judicial system talking about policy instead of principles. The beauty of conservatives, however, is that they understand judicial philosophy is not about enacting preferred policies.
This basic understanding is reflected in McCain's prepared speech, which starts and ends with the Constitution.
The press has trouble grasping this important distinction:
Journalists who pressed for details about "the abortion speech" or the "gay marriage speech" were told, repeatedly, that the speech was not about those issues at all, really, and would focus exclusively on McCain's longstanding convictions about judicial nominations and the appropriate power of judges. Ok, ok, that's fine, whatever they wanted to call it. Well, the McCain campaign was right. There is no mention of abortion, or of same-sex marriage, or of most any particular question that the court has had to decide (two exceptions: the Kelo decision and Newdow.)
But how--how?-- the AP might wonder can McCain offer an "olive branch to the Christian right" in the south without mentioning "abortion" or even gratuitously gay-bashing? Indeed, he's doing it now by appealing to conservatives' intellectual understanding of judicial activism, their resentment at its usurpation of their own democratic decisions, and their inclination to beware the power of that branch of government just as they are wary of the others.
I predict the press will remain stymied, but the audience here is grasping it perfectly.
Update:On the Newdow case, "The 9th Circuit court agreed, as they usually do," prompted a laugh from the crowd. Newdow yields the first applause line when McCain worries "he's gonna catch wind of this and we're all gonna be in trouble when he finds out we met in a chapel."
|
|
|
How citizens of other countries illegally in our country should not be subject to our laws because they are "God's children"? How the rule of law will be abandoned when he pushes another amnesty? |
|
|
How are you doing this morning? |
|
McCain understands the Constitution. That is why he is going to address the La Raza convention this July.
"Finally, as part of his commitment to talking with all Americans during this presidential campaign, the McCain presidential campaign announced that John McCain will attend the La Raza Annual Convention in San Diego on July 14, 2008."
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/6dfb bff2-9e17-4dd1-b2a1-87e4287e69fb.htm
I don't care what he did or didn't do in Vietnam. McCain is a traitor, period. |
|
That was a new one. Do you not care that your government will not enforce the laws or secure the border? We won't last much longer if we don't do both soon.
I'm doing fine, you? |
|
|
|
MCLIJazz,
Aw, there's no need to be intimidated by Virginia Robot.
You regularly say more original things in one post than he does in an entire week with his spam.
Ironically, VA Pat is married to a left wing peace activist.
I imagine she's probably softened him up a bit about Obama---that's why he doesn't believe a radical left wing Obama Administration would be all that bad for our nation. |
|
|
Who is more conservative, Barr or McCain? |
|
Virginia Patriot,
Other than the fact that he is opposed to the Iraq War, I don't know enough about Bob Barr to fairly characterize him on the political spectrum in comparison to other people.
I'll do some research on him.
But regardless of how good he might be on economic issues, immigration, or the judiciary, I wouldn't support someone for President who is opposed to fighting the Iraq War.
That's why I don't support Ron Paul---he's bad on foreign policy.
The War is the most important, transcendent issue.
Among the two major party nominees, McCain is easily more conservative than Obama, and easily less liberal than Obama.
You know that's the truth, and that's why you keep ducking and dodging my simple direct questions to you about it.
:) |
|
The war in Iraq is important for our foreign policy, as an integral part of the larger war against radical Islam. The sacrifices made should be honored.
It's importance pales in comparison with losing our country. Every day thousands of unknown foreign nationals pour across our borders. Illegal aliens are marching in our streets. No one will enforce the laws.
If We The People allow Congress and McCain to give away our country, what will all the generations before us have sacrificed so much for?
|
|
|
...is going to speak at the La Raza convention in July. As a McCain supporter, that puts me on edge, as if the promise to close down Gitmo wasn't enough. |
|
Virginia Patriot,
Between the two major party nominees, whom is more liberal; Obama or McCain ?
|
|
"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism – come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them."
While I strongly disagree with Obama’s kind of touch-feely nonsense, I personally don’t think judicial activism is a bad thing, if it’s based on the Constitution.
I want an active (or activist) Supreme Court, scrutinizing the Executive Branch and laws/acts passed by Congress and I want them to be a lot more willing to call unconstitutional acts and laws unconstitutional.
I would love it, if the Court gutting the previous interpretation of the Commerce Clause and stopped being do reverential to the other branches. That’s what it’s supposed to be there for, to help keep the other two in check the better to preserve our liberties.
So, yes, if Congress oversteps its bounds and passes a law it has no constitutional authority to pass, I want the courts to smack them down a notch.
"Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito."
No, they don’t. They are far too deferential to Congress and the President.
Personally, the only one I’d keep would be Thomas.
|
|
The important thing is that he has an R next to his name.
I understand that McCain is a strict constitutionist. Well, except for McCain-Feingold.
The important thing is that he has an R next to his name. |
|
Obama is clearly the more liberal.
As long as McCain insists on amnesty as the answer to the illegal alien inundation, he will not get my vote.
Get him to stand up for the rule of law and American citizens instead of pandering to The Race (LaRaza in Spanish).
|
|
|
Between the candidates for the major party, disappearing party and up and coming party, who is more conservative: Obama, McCain or Barr? You forget that the GOP now has under 25% of voter registrations. McCain might be lucky to garner 25% if Barr runs. You don't seriously think that a party that has gone from 38% of registered voters to less than 25% in less than 2 years is a "major" party do you? |
|
|
Who has co-signed more major legislation with GIGANTIC Dem/libs since 2000 McCain, Hillary or Obama? |
|
|
|
|
It was "something - Kennedy" right? And Lindsay told all the loud people to shut up... |
|
McCain will be torn: does he fight them because they are cons or does he bend over because they're Dems?
Well, at least one party knows that to win you have to turn to cons... |
|
The Republican Party under GWB seems intent on political suicide. Pandering to citizens of other countries illegally in our country while telling us we must be vigilantes if we object to illegal aliens ignoring our borders and laws. Mel Martinez was RNC Chairman to ensure an open borders candidate in '08. The cheap labor express will be kept running, regardless of the consequences, to party or country. GOP-RIP |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote,
------------
"Between the candidates for the major party, disappearing party and up and coming party, who is more conservative: Obama, McCain or Barr?"
------------
Friend, didn't you read the thread ?
VA Pat asked me a similar question and I already responded that I don't yet know much about this anti-Iraq War Bob Barr fellow to fairly characterize him on the political spectrum, in comparison to other politicians.
:) |
|
I read your comment and noted how you bob and weave while reframing your own question to corner people. I figure I can do the same by challenging your assertion that the current GOP is a major party. It is not, and it continues to shrink as McCain bumbles clumsily through his incoherent campaign hoping to win be forfeit.
Also, this election was never about principles, ideas nor where candidates stand on issues. It has been about the insipid concept of "electability" from square one. It is now becoming very likely that McCain is NOT electable, especially if Bob Barr runs.
It wasn't enough for the GOP to drop the ball completely while in charge of everything, they absolutely insist of putting the party completely out of business. Good job guys! |
|
Since this post is buried under newer posts, I'm done commenting here. All I can say about the GOP in Congress and McCain in the White House is we'll see what happens. Yesterday marked six months to the date until Election Day. Anything can happen, especially for the better, between now and then.
See you in a newer post. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote;
-------------
"I read your comment and noted how you bob and weave while reframing your own question to corner people. I figure I can do the same by challenging your assertion that the current GOP is a major party. It is not, and it continues to shrink as McCain bumbles clumsily through his incoherent campaign hoping to win be forfeit."
------------
Phil, I realize you're angry at me for supporting McCain.
That's fine.
The GOP is one of the two major parties. It has the second most number of registrants, therefore, by definition, it is one of the two major parties.
I did not "bob and weave" in response to any question about Bob Barr.
I'll say it for a third time---I do not yet know much about Bob Barr other than he opposes the Iraq War and he used to be a member of Congress.
But allow me to ask you a question; whom do you believe is more liberal---Obama or McCain ? Or do you believe they are "equally" liberal ?
|
|
I'm not angry at all. I'm resigned to the reality that the next president is going to be a liberal.
As to your question, I KNOW for a fact that McCain is every liberal's dream Republican president. Obama is still a blank slate because he really hasn't done anything important to reveal his true nature. I DO think Obama is probably the most decent and personable person running but probably a rube. I just don't think it is in the best interest to elect a party traitor like McCain who was instrumental in creating the crisis the party is in. Whoever wins in November will be bad but it won't matter if they fail to win with a mandate which is where we seem to be heading anyway. I would argue that Obama is better because the GOP would be forced to regroup and fight him from day one and because he would be under pressure to prove his defense chops to deter any attacks his apparent softness might invite. So to answer your question, the differences separating any of these candidates are so miniscule that it isn't worth debating. Everyone is talking about "holding my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils". I am going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of THREE evils. Barr is the least imperfect and has automatic appeal to conservatives who account for more than 30% of registered voters. |
|
|
If Hillary loses and refuses to campaign in earnest for Obama, there might be another serious 3rd party candidate or two yet to announce. This might turn into a stampede with the winner garnering less than 40% of the vote. |
|
"Between the two major party nominees, whom is more liberal; Obama or McCain ?"
They are both "liberals". That means they are globalists. All of the three *major candidates* suck, McCain and Clinton being worse on the surface than Obama.
|
|
Major party? 25% and declining is NOT a major party and does not speak encouragingly of the nominee. They couldn't prevent the Democratic party from voting McCain into the nomination. A major party can at least get one of their own nominated to their own ticket.
They don't even try to organize locally, it's all commercials. Despite Republicans representing 38% of voters in CA, the CA State Committee told McCain not to waste money or time campaigning to Republicans in CA. In other words, they can't deliver the vote.
The 38% Democrat registration number is not an eye-popping number either. The "major" parties combined should account for more than 80% which they don't.
Conservatives as an identity constitute more than 30% of all voters by themselves and are growing.
The fastest growing party in America is "no party". People just aren't happy with either party.
Voters are turning out for the Dems in numbers double as for the GOP.
Obama is raising 4-5 times as much money as McCain without the benefit of having a single lobbyist on his campaign (McCain has about 35, Hillary 18).
All of these things speak to the very real possibility that the GOP is on the precipice of disappearing. THE GOP IS A FRINGE PARTY JUST WAITING TO BE PUT OUT OF ITS MISERY, hardly a major party. Bob Barr could get 20% this year. |
|
"THE GOP IS A FRINGE PARTY JUST WAITING TO BE PUT OUT OF ITS MISERY, hardly a major party."
It is not without reason some of us call the Republican party "the Stupid party". They earned the title. The quicker the GOP is flushed down history's toilet the quicker the Democrat party can suffer a similar fate. |
|
"Other than the fact that he is opposed to the Iraq War, I don't know enough about Bob Barr to fairly characterize him on the political spectrum in comparison to other people."
Don't let that stand in your way, it never has before. Do what you normally do, just make up something negative about him.
|
|
Pasadena Phil,
Based on the names you've called McCain supporters in general in past threads, I think it's fair to say that you're angry that we are supporting McCain.
In my last comments, I asked you who is more liberal between Obama & McCain---or are they "equally" liberal---and you answered that the differences between them are 'too miniscule to debate.'
Therefore, would I be accurate to your satisfaction if I were to say in future posts that you believe Obama & McCain are "equally" liberal ?
I'm asking you because I want to represent your position precisely as you define it.
:) |
|
Ryan01 wrote;
-------------
"Don't let that stand in your way, it never has before. Do what you normally do, just make up something negative about him."
-------------
Ryan01,
Long time, no chat.
How are things up there in Michigan ?
Do you still have a Ron Paul sign in your front yard ?
By the way, I recently read about your man Ron Paul's track times in his college days.
Holy smokes was he fast---and that was accomplished way before the advantages of using HGH/steroids, modern day tartan tracks, and lightweight track shoes. |
|
|
I'm fine, thank you. I must say you have impressed me for once by knowing that about Paul's track record. He played baseball as well. Paul is definitely a man from the past and there is a lot from the past which was a hell of a lot better than what we have today. |
|
I wish we could have seen Eric Liddell ("Chariots of Fire") run with the advantages of a modern tartan track, modern starting blocks, modern footwear, and modern training.
That lad was fast...and when you factor in that he wasn't tall and therefore didn't have long legged strides---the man must have just been equipped with wings.
And middle-distance runner Steve Prefontaine died prematurely in a freak auto accident (1975) prior to reaching his peak years.
Otherwise, I think Pre felt 'destined' to win Gold in Montreal in '76.
If you enjoy track, there was a great film about Pre called "Without Limits," which came out in 1998.
(Another film about Pre came out in '97, called "Prefontaine," but it is not as good as "Without Limits.")
|
|
|
|