Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Friday, November 17, 2006
The Gang of 14's Legacy: John McCain's Burden
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:26 PM

Today, soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told the Federalist Society that if "Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote."

The AP account terms this a "veiled threat," even though there is no "veil' in McConnell's statement. The forthright priority he is giving the repair of Constitutional process in the nomination and consideration of federal judicial nominations is in fact consistent with his much longer discussion of the importance of the judicial nominations' issue with me from Wednesday's program, and very similar to the opinions aired by Senator Coburn -a Judiciary Committee member-- on yesterday's broadcast from D.C., opinions widely shared by most Republican senators and most center-right activists and originalists. (Senator Coburn has some very interesting info on Peter Keisler's nomination to the D.C. Circuit.)

Early in the week Senator Chuck Schumer was telling reporters that “Judges are the most important,” and that “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”

Now that's a "veiled" threat, because it doesn't forthrightly set out the particulars of the consequences that will follow from the nomination of another SCOTUS candidate like Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito. It also categorizes the two new members of SCOTUS as "hard right," which on the basis of what we have seen to date is just absurd, and an obvious part of Senator Schumer's continuing and relentless assault on the right of Americans to hold originalist, constitutional majoritarian views on the Constitution and its intended operation. Schumer is a master propagandist, and never lets up in his effort to define the terms in ways favorable to his radical agenda of delegitimizing the historical mainstream of American legal theory. (He is not, however, so funny when trying to be.)

There is no need to rush with Senator Schumer. We will have two years to follow Senator Schumer's very dangerous and very dishonest assault on the judiciary.

These exchanges on judicial nominees are very important because they underscore why the Gang of 14 is so great a burden upon Senator McCain's presidential ambitions.

Yesterday, incredibly, Senator McCain was out peddling the spin that the Gang of 14 was a good thing, an accomplishment of which he is proud, and for which the GOP should thank him. In two speeches Thursday, McCain, according to the Washington Post, "defended his participation in the bipartisan 'Gang of 14' compromise in the Senate, saying that compromise helped ensure the confirmation of many of Bush's judicial nominees."

This is, of course, complete nonsense, and the various statements from Schumer, McConnell and Coburn all serve to underscore the obvious: From the time that Patrick Leahy took the gavel of Judiciary after Jim Jeffords big jump to the time that Senator McCain engineered (not "participated in," thank you very much, WaPo) the issue of the radical assault on the judicial nomination process by the hard left edge of the Senate Democrats and "the groups" they serve was the central issue of domestic politics.

And because of Senator McCain, the GOP lost the opportunity to win that issue and restore the Constitution's design.

The demand for "up or down votes on the Senate floor for all judicial nominees" was a central GOP theme of the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, and a very, very powerful one. There was among all three great subgroups of the GOP --the national security conservatives, the free market conservatives, and the faith-based voters-- a shared and passionate demand for sound judges committed to originalist approaches in interpretation combined with deference to the legislated judgments of the two coequal branches, all superintended by complete commitment to fundamental rights. Republicans were united in this very crucial part of the political agenda.

Leahy's abuse of the process motivated everyone in the GOP as it combined an assault on the Constitution with cruelty to honorable, distinguished Americans like Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl. This issue drove many news cycles and was decisive in many campaigns. It elected Republicans because it was a bedrock issue on which the parties divided sharply and on which the Republicans were absolutely, 100% correct.

Never --never!-- in American history had a Senate majority so abused the appellate nominees of a president in his first two years in office. Never --never!-- had a Senate minority used the filibuster to block any federal appellate nominee, much less many of them.

Only once in the 20th century had a SCOTUS nominee failed to receive an up-or-down vote, and the circumstances of scandal and the literally "last months'" timing of LBJ's Administration led to a single refusal of cloture and the face-saving opportunity for Justice Abe Fortas to withdraw his nomination for Chief Justice rather than see it rejected in an up-or-down vote on the Senate’s floor. The record guts the Fortas fiasco of any precedential value, and even a dishonest radical would have to admit there is only one instance in modern times of a SCOTUS nominee who wanted one, not receiving a timely up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate..

From June of 2001 through April of 2005, the Senate's Democrats radicalized the nomination process, further dismembering a process already disfigured by their disgusting attacks on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, and which had not recovered despite the GOP's rejection of such tactics during the confirmation hearings of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer.

Finally, in April of 2005, the GOP's 55 member majority had identified at least 50 from among its numbers to confirm a ruling from the Senate's Chair that would have delivered on the promise of "up or down votes on the floor of the Senate for all judicial nominees," by declaring that it was not acceptable under Senate rules to filibuster judicial nominees.

Had such a vote occurred, a crucial part of the constitutional order would have been restored. There would have been political aftershocks, but the vast majority of GOP senators and, crucially, the voters and donors who had elected the 55, were ready to fight for this key principle.

And then Senator McCain threw the principle --and many fine nominees-- under the bus. The window dressing for this surrender was the confirmation of some fine judges. But, and this is a key "but." they would have been confirmed anyway after the vote on the "constitutional option."

The Gang of 14 did not even work in the term now ending. Many fine nominees who ought to have received votes under the "deal," didn't. They may never get them.

And already Schumer and McConnell are back battling each other on the same front lines, and presenting the same arguments. But now the radicals are stronger, and not just in numbers, but also because of the surrender which left the radicals unrebuked.

Most conservatives and originalists are happy that Judges Brown, Owen, and Pryor are seated today. All three do great work, and each is a potential SCOTUS nominee.

For Senator McCain to argue that the sacrifice of constitutional principle in exchange for the confirmation of three or four judges in 2005 --even as Senator McConnell makes clear that judicial nominations are the most important issue for the GOP as they enter the minority-- is to (1) suggest that Senator McCain is deeply, deeply out-of-touch with the grassroots of the party, (2) doesn't understand the importance of this issue or how it in fact is a crucial part of the war on terror, the pressing nature of which --in his mind-- should excuse all of his other sins against the GOP, or (3) knows that this blunder of his was so destructive of his appeal within the GOP as to require an early and repeated attempt to redefine what happened from disaster to big win. The Big Lie, in others word. Tell it to Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee. Tell it to the GOP heading into the minority.

It is also to set up the completely false choice that the GOP had to take the Gang's deal or not get those three nominees (and, implicitly, the Chief Justice and Justice Alito). Had the constitutional option been deployed, all of the nominees and the SCOTUS nominees would have been confirmed. If Harry Reid had thrown a fit, we'd have spent the fall campaign debating the Democrats' fitness for high office, not the Republicans'.

Judicial nominations matter. They matter the most in the category of domestic politics. Senator Schumer knows this. Senator McConnell knows it. Most observers of American politics know it.

Does John McCain know it? I think he is far too able a man not to.

What Senator McCain needs to do --urgently, right now-- is to come clean and admit he screwed up with the Gang of 14, and in a huge way, a way that he now sincerely regrets.

His motives in the spring of 2005 hardly matter. In fact, they don't matter at all.

What matters is that his insistence today that the Gang of 14 was a good thing telegraphs --how loud can a telegraph be?-- that Senator McCain still doesn't get it, or worse, that he gets it but cannot allow himself to be candid on this monumental error and is thus committed to compounding it.

To put it as bluntly as possible: No candidate who thinks the Gang of 14 was a good thing for the Constitution, the judiciary, or the GOP is going to win the GOP's nomination. The courts matter too much to too many people to permit indifference or ignorance to them or about them in a presidential candidate.

"Judges are the most important," Senator Schumer said. Outside of the war --and judges are very much not outside of the war-- Schumer is absolutely right. And Senator McConnell is absolutely right to make up-or-down votes the sine non qua of GOP cooperation in the upper chamber's business.

If Senator McCain continues to give speeches in which he declares the opposite of Senator Schumer's and Senator McConnell's views to be true, he will not only be contrasting his views with those of Senator Schumer and his priorities with those of the new GOP leader, he will also be telling the GOP base in "straight talk," the message of which cannot be missed, that they are wrong, he is right, and they'd better just get the hell over it.



View in ascending order View in descending order
gf writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 9:09 PM
No McCain - not ever
The only way McCain has any chance of beating Hillary Clinton or Al Gore is to run as the Democrat that he is in the Democratic primary. I'll never support him as a Republican.
Rose writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 8:10 PM
Jimbo dreams of a Socialist White House
Jimbo writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 2:23 AM
idiotic
John McCain will win the nomination, or someone very close to his predilictions...

.... The smart money, you so often refer to, will be on McCain. Plain and simple. And you'll support him when the time comes. You heard it here again.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I did not vote for Gerald Ford, I did not vote for Robert Dole, I did not vote for Kay Bailey Hutchison this year, or her last term, either.

McCain isn't better than any Dim who could get elected. That stinks, with Bill, Algore, Hanoi John, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Hillary, and a whole slew of others of their ilk and kind - but it is so true.

John McCain is on a stabbing frenzy like nothing the human race has ever seen yet, and the broken record of the GOP, "Et Tu, Brute?" for McCain is being pumped out on a 1,000 Hp engine, and you think we'll buy it in '08.

It'll take more than a Barney the Purple Dinosaur singing to get this party back together and McCain ain't got what it takes.

Neither do any of the RINOS and "moderates".

I will sit there and stab your fingers with a fork if you come near MY life raft, after you get through sinking the Ship!

I have hundreds of names I'll be proud to write in - a thousand.

Maybe I'll put them all in a hat and have a drawing for myself on Voting Day, '08.
Joe writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 4:14 PM
Steeners Holidays
I hear you on priorities for the holidays. That is the most important thing right now. Of course with my favorite teams looking wobbly at this point, it frees up attention on the 2008 races.
Matt, Esq. writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 11:23 AM
One thing..
... about all the inward focus of republicans on this blogs and others- I've noticed now that the lefties are picking up on our refrains - where we see the need for reform and change,(pork, scandals), lefties are doing what they always do- focus on the past, point out all the "hypocrisy" etc.

We need someone to step up and get conservatives on the same page, pronto. And it won't be Mel #@!#ing Martinez.
Steeners writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 11:06 AM
Joe
Too early right now Joe. We need to get through the holiday season; enjoy family, eat way tooooo much wierd food, spend way tooooo much money on gifts; all of that good stuff, then we can get serious about the candidates for the 08 cycle... Romney is interesting, Senator Kyle is interesting....

Happy Thanksgiving all......
Joe writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 10:17 AM
Steeners?
So who do you suggest?
Steeners writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 10:02 AM
Jimbo & McCain
Absolutely wrong on McCain Jimbo. The MSM is pushing McCain while carrying the water for him; you must be ifluenced by the old media. Go to Powerline and read the comment section on "McCain for President", hundreds of commenters voicing their dissapproval of McCain and stating their case quite well. Over at CaptainsQuarters, Ed has put up several McCain posts with the same or similiar results. Every Conservative blog site gets very negative comments regarding McCain with every McCain post. McCain-Feingold, the gang of fourteen, and McCains consistant criticism of the white house during a time of war seem to be the hottest topics.

John McCain is popular with Democrats & Independents; McCain is not very popular with Republicans and most certainly is not popular with Conservatives. McCain-Feingold turned out to be a complete slap in the face to our constitution. The gang of fourteen turned out to be a complete slap in the face to the Republican grassroots effort, as well as the entire Republican base.
Joe writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 9:43 AM
Write Ins?
Nice of you Ruby to suggest a write in ticket of Oliver North and Michael Reagan. I like Oliver North, but he is not running and probably could not get elected beyond congressman. Michael Reagan is a solid conservative commentator who I like--but he's not a politician. You don't have any suggestions Ruby, you just consider everyone running on the GOP side "dross." My point, I will take them over Gore or Clinton.

Jimbo--Hugh gave conditional support to Lott too(just not as enthusiastically as he did for Miers). It was Dean Barnett who questioned that move. Hugh is consistant on supporting GOP positions.

We are not going to have a Sharia party here anytime soon (that is for France to deal with in 2012 and 2016), but we do have a serious threat. I agree with Jimmy the Saint we are not taking is as seriously as we should be. There is no perfect candidate out there, or rather, they never seem to get nominated. I want the best candidate from the GOP who can win, who is fiscally conservative, and will take the war to our enemies.
Jimmy the Saint writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 4:20 AM
So what?
The big question isn't 2008, it's who the Sharia Party runs in 2012 or 2016. The GOP has said that Islamism is an existential threat to the country, but they won't really commit to fight it. The Dems have staked everything on it not being a threat. Both are dead wrong. Time to start thinking about name changes, folks.
Jimbo writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 2:36 AM
ruby:
Ruby,

Hugh can't apologize for his defense of Meier's nomination because he's a party man. And, if the shoe fits as it does for McCain, his ego won't allow it. His party-focus position has its merits and demerits. It is leading to a resurgence in the Republican party in California, but it has led to the same inanities he is now complaining about: Meiers was OK simply because the Pres nominated her, but Lott is not because the party leadership nominated him. I wish for a little consistency.
Jimbo writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 2:23 AM
idiotic
John McCain will win the nomination, or someone very close to his predilictions...or a Dem will be in office. Inside baseball may be interesting to those with the time and energy, but often insiders can't see the clear writing on the wall. If you don't see who the front-runner is, you're completely blind. This race is McCain's to lose. McCain has positioned himself as the front-runner, with MSM leading the charge. We'll see who exactly still has the louder voice. The smart money, you so often refer to, will be on McCain. Plain and simple. And you'll support him when the time comes. You heard it here again.
Joe writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 2:20 AM
Rose--are you really Hugh Hewitt?
With all that McCain love, I am really starting to think you are Hugh Hewitt.
Rose writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 1:58 AM
You support McCain and accuse ME???
"Come on, admit it, that is what you want Rose. You really are a Democrat. Better to have a scorned woman in charge!"

There you are, supporting OPEN BORDERS, ILLEGAL ALIEN DRIVERS LICENSES and ENTITELMENTS AND BURNING FLAGS AND AMNESTY, McCain Feingold, THE McCAIN ANTI-TORTURE BILL, and THE GANG OF 14 - and YOU accuse ME of being a DEMOCRAT???

SHOW US HOW HILLARY IS WORSE THAN McCAIN!!!

The Arizona GOP CENSURED HIM UNANIMOUSLY!

Democrats crossed over in Arizona to vote for McCain or he would have lost his last election!

I guess we see who is determined to have a Socialist in office, one way or another.
Rose writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 1:50 AM
You can't blackmail us w/ "Lesser"
"You're right of course, much better to prove your conservative credentials in slaming any Republican who doesn't meet your standards and get a good Democrat like Hillary in charge."

I can see it's pointless to talk to you about INTEGRITY.

I have to answer to God for who I vote for - or who I "settle" for - and one thing I have learned is how stupid it is to settle for LESS, just because you don't see The Best on the horizon, yet.

That is Panic, and Respect of Persons, and Fear of Man. THAT is DISASTER and what you fear shall come upon you.

I'm reaching for something higher, and I won't be satisfied with LESS, and I won't be sopped with LESS, either.

We used to have a real good saying, "CAIN'T NEVER COULD!"

You'll never GET higher if you don't REACH for it.

There will never be another "Reagan" if we are willing to settle for "McCain's"!

I won't stand before God with a blessing from me on McCain.

God has a lot of warnings for those WHO TOLERATE WRONG - He doesn't care WHY you do.

And He also has some bad stuff in store for those who are LUKE WARM - He said, I WOULD THAT YE WERE HOT OR COLD, BUT YE ARE LUKEWARM and I WILL SPIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH!

I don't intend to be SPIT OUT!
ESPECIALLY NOT for the likes of JOHN STINKIN' McCAIN!

You settle if you want to - that isn't for ME!

And I ain't willing to pay the Piper for it, either!
Rose writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 1:39 AM
NO WAY I AM SITTING OUT!
"What I know is a loser strategy is saying, if you nominated McCain or Guiliani I am sitting out. Really now. If McCain or Guiliani was runing against Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, you really would not vote for McCain or Guiliani in the general election? "

You should WISH I would sit out, that way the overall numbers against a McCain or Giuliani or Newt would be lower.

I will vote - but I'll prolly do a write-in - like for John Bolton and Oliver North!

I dont' know what shape Jeremiah Denton is in or if he is alive - I'm assuming he is fed up and quit - and I don't blame him.

Maybe I'll write in Tom Tancredo and Ted Sampley.

Ted Sampley and David Roever!

Oliver North and Ann Coulter I really like THAT - but the COUNT will go UP, no DOWN!

And GOP leadership will have to read those WRITE-IN NAMES.
NAMES NOT MICKEY MOUSE OR PAT PAULSON OR PAT BUCHANAN.

Oliver North and Michael Reagan.

John Hagee and Jentezen Franklin.

Tom McClintock and John Bolton.

Nobody will be allowed to think I am DISINTERESTED, just because I am DISGUSTED.
Rose writes: Monday, November, 20, 2006 1:31 AM
You are twisting everything...
When you try to put the blame on Conservatives for refusing to support McCain and the like AS WE CLEARLY WARN YOU AHEAD OF TIME. Plenty of the party leadership knew how we felt about Ford, and as it happens, I supported Bush Sr, BUT NOT DOLE.

When we tell you that we will NOT get onthe bandwagon for some scumbag, and you get him nominated inthe primary anyway - then when he loses the General election - THEN it is OUR fault for not going along with you?

Tough!

You have two years to find a candidate that EVERYONE will support - but you won't do that!

YOU are the one set on a course to elect a DIM - and that is fine with me. Have it your own way.

I march to the beat of a Different Drummer, and if I go alone, that is fine.

If you don't like Carter and Clinton, then stop driving the base away with choices that you know we won't swallow.

I'm not even going to TRY to save you from yourself! I don't even WANT to!

I want you to live with the consequences of your own actions.

It is on your own head.

We won't be patting you on the knee while the ship is sinking, telling you that "Mommy knows you were trying your best. Oh, what a cute drill you have, dear, were you the one drilling holes in the hull of the ship, dear? Oh, look what a fine bunch of holes you drilled! THAT is wonderful, honey! I'll take a picture and put it on the refrigerator for you, and I promise I will NEVER take it down!"
Joe writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 11:00 PM
I am not twisting anything
You have some suggestions for POTUS--make them. I am listening. I notice you hate McCain (just like Hugh), Guiliani, Newt. Let me guess, you hate Romney because he is not a "real" Christian. Who do you want to run? Pat Buchanan or Roy Moore?

You didn't bail out Ford and you ended up with Carter.

You didn't bail out Dole and you ended up with Clinton. You showed him.

Obviously you are going for the trifecta. You're right of course, much better to prove your conservative credentials in slaming any Republican who doesn't meet your standards and get a good Democrat like Hillary in charge.

Come on, admit it, that is what you want Rose. You really are a Democrat. Better to have a scorned woman in charge!
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 10:22 PM
Hey Joe:
When we remove the DROSS, we'll see him.

And Reagan always qualifies.

You cannot twist stuff to smear everyone else - you have a to be a big boy and know the difference between when things just don't work out and when bad boys are trying to stomp everyone else down on their way up.

Obviously, you don't.

You just hang with your trashy friends and see if you think we'll bail your smart self out or not.

Just Remember Robert Dole!

We didn't bail out Gerald Ford, or Richard Nixon, or Robert Dole. And we sure won't bail out these new RINOS, either.
Joe writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 9:45 PM
I agree with the goal.
". . . not adopt a small government reform platform with a muscular, pro-American foreign policy."

I am just not sure you can ever get there with a third party. You would need a candidate who could strip voters from the Dems and the Republicans.
lostinwilderness writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 7:42 PM
Republicans can get the hell over it
McCain told voters to get over it when he sponsored his First Amendment abomination. Republicans have been telling the voters get the hell over it since Bush was elected. After this election they re-elected the same pork addicted leaders who drove them over the cliff after Newt resigned. Now their strategy to regain power is to attack Nancy Pelosi, not adopt a small government reform platform with a muscular, pro-American foreign policy.

Republican representatives don't give a damn about Americans or freedom. They've completed their transformation into Democrats and have to be defeated by a third party who represents the libertarian mainstream of America.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/
Joe writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 5:17 PM
Rose--who do you suggest?
What I am saying is if you are conservative you had better get involved in the primaries and get your candiates out there. By the way, I never ever said Frist. That would be insane.

I am more concerned out candidates reaching into the cookie jar than who happened to get divorced and remarried. I am not saying personal virtue does not matter, but from what I know I do not care about Newt, McCain, or Guiliani's personal lives. Leaving their wives for younger women--sounds like you are a little bitter about that topic. If it is a disqualifier that a guy got a divorce and left his wife for a younger woman, then Ronald Reagan does not qualify either.

I want a decent candidate who is 1) committed on the war on terror and fighting it competently, 2) who is fiscally conservative, and 3) who will appoint justices that follow the constitution as written rather than make it up as they go along. Romney seems like a good guy. If Romney can get the job done and get elected, great. I will vote for him, but the candidate nominated had better be able to carry the general election. For example, I am not sure Brownback can get the job done and I do not have any evidence suggesting he would be a better wartime leader than McCain or Guiliani. If you got any suggestions I am listening.

What I know is a loser strategy is saying, if you nominated McCain or Guiliani I am sitting out. Really now. If McCain or Guiliani was runing against Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, you really would not vote for McCain or Guiliani in the general election?
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 4:22 PM
Back to B-Rob
"Giuliani and Gingrich? Er, yeah . . .
When two of the leading candidates for your party's nomination are thrice married adulterers who left their wives for younger women, you have lost any possible chance to take the "moral high ground" against anyone. Way to go after that Latino and suburban female vote, cons! "

THE NAIL!

And BTW, I hear that McCain did that at least once, too! That he is on HIS second marriage of the same type as these other two corkers.

Really competing for the DIM VOTES, aren't they.
and they'll need all the DIM CEMETARIES and DIM ILLEGAL ALIENS they can scrape from under the rocks, for sure.
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 4:17 PM
Back atcha, again, Joe:
"I do not want to go there. There is too much at stake to entrust the Dems with commander and chief (barring them cloning Harry Truman or JFK). Remember we are still at war with al Qaeda. If you guys think giving up the 2008 election is a good idea, I strongly disagree."


If you really believe that, then don't shut down half the base by nominating some scumbucket like McCain or Newt or Giuliani or Frist!

Because if YOU nominate someone that EVERY Conservative THREAD is yelling at you is a NON-STARTER - because you prefer to believe MSM POLLING DATA, then YOU are the one who tosses the 2008 elections to the Dims.

We are immoveable on this issue - NO! H#LL NO! TO MCCAIN AND KIND!

I haven't been to a conservative site yet that has a STRONG SHOWING in STRENGTH OF NUMBERS for McCain or for Giuliani, or for Newt - the best most of their supporters cans say about them is "I don't like them, but nobody else can beat them" - and that won't cut it, not in 2008.

You have two years to find a good candidate or a great candidate.

You know what is first to rise to the top when you are smelting sliver - the DROSS rises tothe surface, first, and IT HAS TO BE SCRAPED AWAY, OFF the KETTLE, before you get good silver or gold.

You don't have a base in the GOP strong enough to win an election with DROSS.

And the DEMOCRATS ain't going to help you in the National, like they did McCain in Arizona.

UNLESS McCain comes out of his glass see-through closet, first.

And if uniting with the DIMS is your goal, then McCain is the right cvandidate for you!
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 4:02 PM
AND AGAIN JOE SAID:

"The solution is to expand legal immigration and enforce laws to stop illegal workers. Immigration is a good thing--its illegal immigration that makes no sense. "

You get one or two folks on any given Conservative thread agreeing with you on this - and 98% of them are LIBERALS - NOT LIBERTARIANS.

That translates to NO WIN at the ELECTION, regardless of your favorite pollsters.

In fact, your POV, and that of MCCain and Newt on the issue of border security does nothing so well as make most Americans bloody angry.

You are telling us we have an obligation to allow ourselves to be robbed blind, assaulted and raped and murdered, and our children destroyed, both by the govt and by the illegal aliens.

I live just a couple hours from the border and I am thrilled to see most Americans agree with me - including most "minority ethnic groups" who are here legally, whether born or "immigrated".

You are wrong - practical application of what you recommend is NO BOUNDARIES AT ALL - just legalize everyone as they come in NO MATTER WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE.

If you run your household that way, it is a shambles and you have NOTHING of value - your company either stoled or destroyed it all, and ate you out of house and home.

You are so wrong I don't have civilized words to tell you how wrong you are.

And since this nation is at the tipping/swamping point, and you have eyeballs in your head and you persist in this, I don't have civilized words to even tell you what I think of your blinkin' ideas.

Everyone has the FREEDOM of Speech, but folks like McCain and Newt and Giuliani prove that EVERYTHING that comes rolling out of the mouth of a human being IS NOT MADE VALID just because "you have a right".

If you want your man to have a seat at the table, you tell him to bring some responsibility and accountability, and some fiduciary awareness with him.

Your man is going down - but not nearly as hard as he deserves to.
enemaofthestatusquo writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Gang Rape of the electorate
The Media pundits have proclaimed McCain, Guliani, & Romney the favorites for the GOP Presidential nomination. Heaven help us, the fix is in.
plunge writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 2:22 PM
As usual
Hugh's account of the judicial nomination process can only work via revisionist history, leaving out any mention of all the procedural checks and balances that existed giving the legislature checks on judicial appointments long before the filibuster stage. When Democrats were in the majority, Republicans used these implements, such as the "blue slip" to nix judges before they got an "up or down" vote. When Republicans took power, they dismantled all of these minority checks.

Hugh of course makes no mention of any of this. And that's important, because his picture of supposed the uniqueness and outrage of Democrats trying to block judges they don't like can only work if he conveniently ignores all the things conservatives did to block Democratic choices as judges.

If a Democrat takes the White House, I'd say that chances are very very good that Hugh will completely forget about the supposed outrage of filibustering judicial nominees just as he's forgotten about the long history of legislative checks on the judicial nomination process.
Joe writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 12:09 PM
Conservatives = Losertarians
Try not to follow the example of the Libertarian (aka Losertarian) Party. Immigration does not need new fences--just enforcing current laws and imposing fines on employers who hire illegals. As much as a threat you perceive Latino illegals, at least our country is not flooded with truly hostile Arabs and Muslims like Europe is.

This type of reform can happen if people demand it from their current politicians. Republicans and Dems want Hispanic voters to come into their parties--so they ignore the issue. Dems think most will join their party (which may be true in the short term) and Republicans are beholden to business interests that benefit from cheap labor.

The solution is to expand legal immigration and enforce laws to stop illegal workers. Immigration is a good thing--its illegal immigration that makes no sense.
Angry Dumbo writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 11:29 AM
Agreed
Steeners nailed it.

"Majority rule was flushed down the toilet by one of the most self-serving & foolish political moves ever made."

I say no to filibusters. I say no to vetoes. Let the democrats rule. We remain a public divided.

Republican leadership does not exist. We need more Republican housecleaning (losses) in 08. Then maybe with a President Hillary Clinton, Republicans can talk about finding some honest principled conservatives to lead our party.
Steeners writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 9:41 AM
McCain is politically dead
I have worked hard with grassroot efforts here in my community for the past 20 years. My husband and I have made thousands of calls, written thousands of emails, walked many miles putting up signs and talking with neighbors, donated more hard earned money than I'm willing to admit. The day finally came when my party held power in all three houses. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers had worked so hard for this result, finally we could get some good hard work done and clean up this mess the Dems made with activest judges.

Imagine how dissapointed I was to have John McCain come along and destroy what we had worked so hard for by creating the "gang of fourteen" thus rendering the Dems and the Pubs equal at 7-7. Majority rule was flushed down the toilet by one of the most self-serving & foolish political moves ever made. The Dems were in full "obstructionist" mode and were busy embarrassing themselves by exposing their willingness to shut down government when McCain, Graham, Warner, and friends come along and rescue their sorry butts. I can only imagine how excited leading Dems must have been with this development. Senator Reid must have been spinning in his chair with joy while pounding his own chest with glee about how absolutely dumb Republicans could be to have allowed this maverick fool to pull such a stunt on his own electorial base.

John McCain is politically dead in my home, along with Graham, Warner and the other fools that decided to stick my hard work right up my **@#ss.

Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 3:39 AM
Ruby writes:
"We cannot listen to who we think is electable or not electable but make sure, as best we can, that the most conservative person wins the nomination. So far? Unless Newt has some money and power to give him a good shot in the primaries, we have a sorry lot running. There's not one yet, I would trust to be our next President."

Newt isn't conservative, either - he is for open borders - yes a fence, but full citizenship (not "amnesty" - really!) for "anyone who is already here" means a full stampede - the fence is worthless THEN.

I saw him on Hannity and Colmes in full agreement with Colmes. Smirking with Alan at Sean, over how it is a done deal, get over it, no way we'll send the illegals home!

Newt isn't going to get my vote, either.

A man who guards his house must include the front door. And if Newt isn't for guarding America as carefully as he does his own home - he isn't fit for office - he is trying to assume responsiblity for MY home and family - just a couple hours by road from the border - just less than 1/2 mile from where an elderly grandmother in her 80's was brutally raped and murdered and her home burned down around her a couple of years ago, by an illegal alien.

Newt really doesn't care. I know he SAYS he does, but his proposed methodology isn't reflected in his home security of his own household. It isn't real.

I hold him in no higher esteem than McCain.I am not personally, locally acquainted with any Conservatives in my area who will vote for them or for Giuliani.

And we usually vote the way most of Texas votes.
If these guys ain't winning us, they ain't winning.
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 3:29 AM
Joe Writes About McCain
"It is still early in the process. Right now McCain has the best shot at winning. But if you want scary, think of the judicial appointments a Demcratic adminsistration will make. "

Too bad for you - McCain Feingold and the Anti-Torture Bill, and the Gang of 14 means NO DIM is WORSE than McCain - not even Hillary or Hanoi John.

You cling to McCain, and you sink the GOP.

Go ahead, tie him around your neck like a millstone. DARE us to throw the GOP overbroad.

If YOU put us in a position of NOT being able to win WHAT we are fighting for, over WHO YOU WANT TO FIGHT FOR, regardless of his lack of character, then we are NOT going to put you in a position to win WHO you want.
Rose writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 3:21 AM
McCain Won't Do - PERIOD.
"If Senator McCain continues to give speeches in which he declares the opposite of Senator Schumer's and Senator McConnell's views to be true, he will not only be contrasting his views with those of Senator Schumer and his priorities with those of the new GOP leader, he will also be telling the GOP base in "straight talk," the message of which cannot be missed, that they are wrong, he is right, and they'd better just get the hell over it."

McCain doesn't NEED to straighten up - he is sending the message that is essentially WHAT HE IS.

I hope and pray the GOP straightens up IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, EITHER - but it won't bother me to see them sink their own ship if they find it essential to their cause to tie their ship to McCain AND KIND, who seems to dominate the party, these days.

McCain is the PROOF that whoever implied that a RINO is a "LESSER OF TWO EVILS" compared to a Dim is a lying you know what.

I wasn't stupid enough to vote for Perot in the 90's. But neither was I stupid enough to vote for Robert Dole, either. I voted 4th party that time.

It will be a pleasure to do a write-in for President in '08, if McCain, Newt, or Giuliani, or KIND, are nominated ON EITHER SLOT for the GOP ticket.

Maybe something like John Bolton and Oliver North.

Those of you who are so determined to vote in these RINOS that you do end up with the Bill Clintons - listen - nobody can save you from yourself. And if we helped you vote in your favorite scumbuckets, it would not save you, either.

We may sink with you in the process, but we don't have to do it while making you feel like "you did the best you could" when you know that is a bald-faced lie, as well.

You did nothing of the kind, you went to disaster like a moth to flames and NOBODY could pull you off course!
laborlawyer writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 3:08 AM
Fundamental dishonesty.....
.....lies at the heart of Hewitt's jihad on judges. Hewitt regularly makes it appear that Republicans have not attempted to block Democratic court nominees. The historical record, however, belies his assertions.

For example, let's talk about the Keisler nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hewitt pretends that there is no historical undercurrent to the dispute over whether President Bush should be entitled to an additional judge to serve on this Court, following the confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh and Janice Rogers Brown. However, those with institutional memories know that the history of this dispute did not begin in 2001. As has been summarized by Senator Leahy:

"The last of two Clinton nominees to the D.C. Circuit was confirmed in 1997, after being stalled through the 1996 session when not a single circuit nominee was confirmed. When the Republican Senate majority stalled the nomination of Merrick Garland to the D.C. Circuit beyond the 1996 election, even Senator Hatch became frustrated and in March 1997 he proclaimed that the way that Republicans were opposing judicial nominees was “playing politics with judges,” was “unfair” and that he was “sick of it.” Regrettably, he did not follow through. That was the last nominee of President Clinton’s that Senator Hatch and the Republican Senate were willing to consider to this important Circuit. Two highly qualified nominees, Elena Kagan, now Dean of the Harvard Law School, and Allen Snyder, who had served as a clerk to Justice Rehnquist and was an experienced and respected litigator, were left without consideration for years. No questions were raised about their qualifications, as there have been for so many of President Bush’s nominations. The fact is that for the rest of President Clinton’s second term, Senate Republicans would not consider another nominee to the D.C. Circuit. They were just blocked, pocket filibustered with impunity."

Hewitt generally responds to these types of assertions by attacking Leahy as some sort of "radical". I urge anyone interested in what's really happened to research for themselves what happened to the Kagan and Snyder nominations.

I was personally involved in the nomination of Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Berzon had been a colleague of mine in the labor bar and was immensely qualified. Nevertheless she was denied an up-or-down vote for more than two years, and a cloture vote was required to get her and Richard Paez, another appointee to the Ninth Circuit, up-or-down votes (Paez had been held up more than four years). Several current Republican senators voted against cloture (i.e., to continue the filibuster), including conservative heroes such as Sam Brownback, Larry Craig and James Imhofe.

So the next time you hear Hugh wax poetic about the "fundamental right to an up-or-down vote", think about what the Republicans did to Clinton's judicial nominees. The next time you read about how Brownback was one of the prime supporters of the "nuclear option", remember that he voted in support of judicial filibusters under President Clinton. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some reform of the judicial nomination process to keep BOTH SIDES from playing politics; just remember that this isn't some issue the Democrats created out of whole cloth.
Take Back the Government writes: Sunday, November, 19, 2006 12:49 AM
The GOP NEEDS a Governor - NOT a Senator
Reagan was never a Congressman or Senator. He was a GOVERNOR of California. It helped with his image as an OUTSIDER. Bush was NEVER a Congressman or Senator, but rather a Governor of Texas; that too helped with his image as an OUTSIDER. Clinton was never a Congressman or a Senator; he was the Governor of Arkansas. It helped Clinton to paint himself as an OUTSIDER as well. Governors always get better mileage with this political advantage. The INSIDERS in the GOP, Congressmen and Senators, are perceived as part of the present impasse. We have to leave the Washington DC "lawyer freakshow" to find REAL AWARE PRINCIPLED leadership - someone out of the insulated, soundproof "DC Bubble", which breeds deaf, dumb, and blind politicians, many of whom never go back to their districts or states and become de facto citizens of Washington DC and partakers of what DC has really become - NOTHING MORE THAN A GIGANTIC WELFARE STATE FOR LAWYERS!!! Is it any wonder the place is so corrupt??? THAT MEANS OF COURSE THAT MCCAIN IS A GUARANTEED LOSER IN 2008. We need to find a charismatic, well-seasoned, popular Governor who REALLY IS A CONSERVATIVE and not a dyed-in-the-wool RINO like Bush has revealed himself to be after 6 years of hoodwinking the Hell out of us!!!
SR-71 writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 11:37 PM
Clinton without the intern
McCain loves the TV cameras too much. Hugh has said something along the lines of: McCain is a fine American, a poor senator, and a lousy Republican. McCain is foolish if he thinks the media and the Dems really like him. They only encourage him because he has been a spoiler.

I will never vote to give another man (or woman) the public therapy that they crave so much.

DeWine and Chafee gone in 2006. Graham gone in 2008. Big tents are good, but they need to have and outside as well as an inside.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 9:34 PM
Ok, who does the GOP need?
So who should be the GOP standard bearer? Newt, Brownback, Romney, Guiliani, someone else? Should the GOP go with someone like Reagan, or more to the center, or more to the right?

I doubt you could get elected someone more conservative than Reagan. Reagan was a principaled conservative, who could communicate, who was tough when he needed to be, and who could get things done.

Got anyone in mind?
Peter V. Bella writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 6:45 PM
The Problem with McCain
The problem with John Mccain is his duplicity. He wants to have evrything both ways. He wants to be a Conservative and he wants to get elected President- read be popular. His willingness to compromise with the Democrats on odorous legislation makes him morally corrupt. The GOP had a platform. He deviated so far from it that he is more of an Idependent than a Republican or Conservative. In his current political manifestation he cannot be trusted.

The GOP needs candidates and elected officials who will focus on the American way- self reliance, self determination, free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, common sense tax reform and elimination, and the values, traditions, and culture that made this country great. We need Newt Gingrich and need him badly.

All real polls have indicated over the past several years that more and more people are Conservative in nature, especially on economics. Most people beleive in individual rights and responsibilities versus group or government rights and responsibilities. Most people beleive that they and not the government should be responsible for their financial future. Most people beleive that entitlements should be eliminated or reduced.

These are the kinds of people we need in the GOP, not the McCains or his ilk.
jmmejzz writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 6:28 PM
McCain
Lenin had a wonderfully correct phrase to describe Western sychophants: "usefull idiots". The G-14 were usefull idiots for the hard left in the Senate. Instead of challanging the idea of filibustering judges, the G-14 effectively practiced a stealth filibuster as a gatekeeper to the courts. By "allowing" a only a tease of conservatives to be voted upon, they have not only minimized conservative influence on the judiciary but also removed it as a campaign issue. Ideology should not have been a prerequisite of confirmation, G-14 solidified it. McCain is a dinner party Republican, GOP is strongest when it challanges not when it acquiesces.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 4:54 PM
This is plain stupid
I am no fan of the Gang of 14, but its impact was limited. At worse it have cost a handful decent judges to the Court of Appeals and District Courts. But only a few, and it resulted tin the rest of Bush's Judges getting approved. Most importantly, Bush nominated adn got confirmed two very good justices to the two spots made available on SCOTUS.

Who do you think would be a good judge or justice, Roy Moore? Thanks but no thanks. Could you imagine Harriet Miers being a SCOTUS justice? That would have been a car wreck. We need more Alitos and Roberts. More William Pryors.

I agree if it's in the Democrats interest they will immediately argue an up or down vote if there is a Dem president making the picks. If Trent Lott shows his worth by pulling some arcane Senate rule out of his . . . memory that blocks such a plan and holds up such an appointment, well then I will conceed he was the right choice as whip.

I do not want to go there. There is too much at stake to entrust the Dems with commander and chief (barring them cloning Harry Truman or JFK). Remember we are still at war with al Qaeda. If you guys think giving up the 2008 election is a good idea, I strongly disagree.
BD writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 2:40 PM
unfortunately, I agree with hackamore
Prior to W. being the President making the nominations, the Dems & their friends among the pressies were hostile to the filibuster.

They'll turn on a dime and be hostile to it again the moment it can be used against people they want confirmed.

When that happens, the fact that the Republicans came right up to the edge and then backed off will be considered "close enough" precedent for the Dems to get rid of it themselves. Not only won't the Dems catch anywhere near the flack the Republicans did when they were considering it, they'll get applauded for restoring majority rule: "After all, the President won the election; he should be entitled to a vote on his nominees."

They won't worry about the effect it'll have on them when they're in the minority again.

Like Bob, supra (a perfect example if I've ever read one) they're so arrogant they don't think they'll ever be in the minority again.
Juandimensional writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:59 PM
Beaten to the Punch
I now see that NYConservative has made my point, and more briefly.
Juandimensional writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:55 PM
Looking Over the Edge of the Abyss
Hugh might as well come out and say what he means now: He would rather the Republicans lose to Hillary than cast his support for John McCain. McCain is the best hope Republicans have of retaining the presidency. Why? Because he is not tainted with the hyper-piety and moral atrophy that the Republican Party has come to (often correctly) symbolize.

You should all know now that Hugh is dead wrong about the Gang of 14. If the Republicans had loosed the "Nuclear Option" as it was so ably labeled by Trent Lott, it would have been another nail in the pork-barrel, child predating, bribe-taking Republican Party. I say this as a Republican of ten years. People no longer trust the party enough to care that we won't be able to get far-right judges confirmed. There's enough corruption and hypocrisy evident that it will take us years to regain the public's trust. We've become the party of corruption because we've tolerated the Tom Delay's and Mark Foley's and Jack Abramoff's and Ralph Reed's for far too long.

We are looking over the edge of an abyss, where Hillary leads the country and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid run the House and Senate. And when Hillary nominates Donna Shalala for the Supreme court, thank John McCain that it'll take more than 51 votes to confirm her.








hackamore writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:53 PM
NYconservative
Do you really believe the Dems wouldn't end filibuster on nominations, in a heartbeat, if they thought it necessary to get their judges confirmed? Do you believe that because the Republicans didn't, they wouldn't?

Pasadena Phil writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:50 PM
"We" are conservatives, not Republicans
In 1992, "we" dumped Bush41, elected Clinton and followed through with a Contract with America in 1994 where the conservative agenda made the most progress. It is absolutely not essential nor important that "we" elect a Republican president in 2008 if "we" end up regaining a majority in Congress. "We" could have a Republican majority as well strengthened with a more conservative Democratic contingent. This past election was carried narrowly by Democrats who ran as conservatives. They probably are frauds at worst or will "go native" in the face of adversity. If the best the GOP can do is present McCain, Guilliani or Frist, I am perfectly willing to accept Hillary (I won't vote for her)just so "we" have somebody to beat up. We cannot do that if "we" don't win the House and in order to do that, we need another Contract with America available for anyone to sign, even Democrats and independents, backed up by conservative money that can be siphoned off from both major parties (think Religous Right, NRA, etc..) and directed to any candidate who "gets it". It would be unprecendented in history and because there are many more conservatives in America than liberals, it would form a big bloc of voters that are not loyal to any party and would represent a large base to run from as a third party candidate. It may be a stretch to anticipate "Joementum" on a national scale, but voters across the board feel disenfranchised. It is worth a try but conservatives have to stop this "cut and run" attitude from conservative principles while accepting one kick in the face after another from the GOP. Neither party wants "us" and our numbers are substantial enough to find a much better way. We don't need Gingrich to run per se but it would be great if he took the lead in guiding the process. Democrat or Republican, reregister as an unaffiliated independent and let's see what happens. It felt great watching the circulation of the major papers decline, I can only imagine how it would feel if registered voters started stampeding away from both parties. Oooooh baby!!
hackamore writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:47 PM
Don't forget Lindsay Graham,
the other Gang of 14 traitor who appears to have presidential aspirations. If he's on the ticket as the VP, I won't vote Republican even if McCain *isn't the presidential nominee.
lamplighter writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:08 PM
the treasonous 14
Virginians must remember that rino john warner was among those who chose to thwart the Constitution, he also proudly stood for compromise and treason against the Republic by doing so. The 14 stood in the way of 86 senators who should have had the ability of voting for the qualified members Bush appointed, instead they trashed the Constitution, an action normally done by the socialist party side of the aisle. McCain is a "manchurian candidate" who should never see the oval office except on bus tours. Warner has to be removed in 2008, maybe George Allen will challenge him in the primary. This Virginia voter sure hope he does.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 12:23 PM
Conservative Candidates and mea culpas
First I would not ask McCain to give a mea culpa on the "Gang of 14," I would get him to give it on McCain-Feingold. It would go a long way with me if McCain acknowledged that was a mistake. It curbs 1st Amendment freedoms on political speach and how SCOTUS endorsed that is beyond me. That legislation also made it more difficult for an outsider to get seriously considered.

Second--we haven't had a conservative candidate since Reagan. While I have problems with some things McCain has done--he is more a fiscal conservative that most of the candidates being bandied about. President Bush has led the GOP to be the party of big big government. Hugh has not said a peep about that.

If Newt wants to run, great. I doubt he can win a national election but let's see. Ultimately I want a candidate who will fight the GWOT competently and position us to be in economic good shape for dealing with China. China is potentially a military threat, but it is even more an economic one. We can benefit and prosper from China's rise if it is handled correctly--but I do not see that with the status quo GOP and most definitely not with the Dems.

I want a conservative to win, but they have to be able to win the general election. A principal stand only to lose the general election is a loser strategy.

The cultural war fights should be left to the states to sort out. If you want to see all of it get decided by SCOTUS, well then let the Dems take the presidency.
NYconservative writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 12:15 PM
Gang of 14
Gang of 14 deserves credit --

LETS ALL KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE NOW IN THE SENATE MINORITY. If we lose the Presidency in 2008 we'll probably loose a few more senate seats as well. If (heaven forbid) that should come to pass, I for one would be thankful that the Republicans could use the fact that judges can still be fillibustered to do to Democratic nominees what the Dems have been doing to conservative judges.

While I disagree with McCain on many issues, in this instance he may turn out to have been farsighted in averting a rule change that could have come back to bite us on the backside!
Tomb-Z writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 12:02 PM
Waiter
Spell check!
jbwbubba writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 11:06 AM
GOP would have lost PR war on judges
I disagreed with 'Gang of 14' and wish they had changed the rule to prevent the filibuster of judges. However, don't think this would have played well for Republicans. The spin from the MSM at the time was that the Republicans were changing traditions of the Senate and trying to grab power. No distinction was made between judges and legislation.
Pasadena Phil writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 11:02 AM
More on McCain
If the GOP really wants to win in 2008, start paying attention to Newt Gingrich. He is the only experienced conservative politician who has pulled it off for real and he is making a lot of sense right now. The other thing is for us conservatives to stop talking of the GOP as "us". If we were to suddenly start electing conservative Democrats, we might find ourselves applying hard pressure to both parties. Conservatism is not dead and I am tired of hearing both parties making that claim. If the GOP continues to treat us like a crazy aunt, they will learn the hard way why we were critical to their success when they are kissing up to us conservative independent voters.
Pasadena Phil writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 10:52 AM
McCain and 2008
It is not enough that McCain just cannot win in 2008. We need to nip his candidacy in the bud before the MSM can play the "momentum" game and he starts to attract serious money. Conservatives put immigration back on the front burner in the teeth of GOP opposition and we should do this again with McCain, Guilliani and Frist. I would include Allen but he has already self-destructed. (I never understood why Allen was so highly touted in the first place). We need to find a conservative candidate fast and not waste time on the yet another fraud.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 10:48 AM
Agree in part
Ruby is right on running the best candidates, but in the end electability is always the issue. If a candidate cannot win the general he should not be the nominee. I like Newt and I frankly don't think he is that different from McCain or Guiliani.

ruby writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 10:38 AM
Discernment is key
When Hugh can support a totally unqualified and closet liberal like Harriet Meiers, I think of him as another GOP cheerleader.
Thank God for all the true conservative out there who actually took the time to find out about that woman and fight the President on this! Has Hugh ever apologized?
We cannot listen to who we think is electable or not electable but make sure, as best we can, that the most conservative person wins the nomination. So far? Unless Newt has some money and power to give him a good shot in the primaries, we have a sorry lot running. There's not one yet, I would trust to be our next President.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 10:17 AM
Get ready for President Clinton
Because that is where the GOP is heading. Hugh wants to blame everything on the Gang of 14, yet we got Roberts and Alito (and thank God not Miers). I was no big fan of the Gang of 14, but could you imagine if the filibuster rules were abolished, and the Dems took control anyway (including the Presidency)?

The GOP lost control of congress over corruption/poorly handled scandals (ultimately) followed closely by an Iraq occupation that has not been explained or handled well by the President, not judicial appointments and filibuster rules. The Dems won because the GOP let them win. If the President got every judicial nomination he wanted it would not have made a big difference and would not have saved the GOP control of House and Senate.

Stop eating your own. If the GOP has a better candidates than McCain, run them. Rudy is a good leader, but if far more liberal than McCain on social issues. Romney is a good candiate--but it's a big ? whether he can prevail over the Dems candidate. Brownback is appealing to the moral Christian right but almost certainly cannot win. This will shake out in the primaries.

It is still early in the process. Right now McCain has the best shot at winning. But if you want scary, think of the judicial appointments a Demcratic adminsistration will make.
Angry Dumbo writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 8:27 AM
Dole anyone?
Great post Hugh. On the short list of why McCain will not get my primary support in 08 is his participation in the Gang of 14. He can speak before the Federalist Society, heck so did Arlen Specter.

In 06 Democrats called themselves conservatives and got elected. This trick might fool the MSM but Republicans have a longer memory. We remember the Keating Five, Campaign Finance, and the al Qaeda bill of rights. McCain can call himself a tomatoe, but he isn't a conservative.
Bob writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 8:00 AM
My, my, my: McConnell talks big...
Almost like he still can run the joint.

Bwahahahahaaaa...

Listen up: you GoOPers are so toast, there is scarcely enough butter to go around. As opposed to the GOP-created national debt, where there is far too much to go around and even this "too much" is growing day by day...

The Gang of 14 is kaput with the loss of Chafee and DeWine (who wasn't a moderate anyway). For the first time since 2002, there is some expectation of maturity out of the Senate. McConnell talks big with little power to back up his words. What's he going to do: filibuster the fact that his nominees can't get out of committee?

Listen, with McConnell and Lott leading the minority in the Senate, and Boehner and Blunt in the House, you folks are screwed, blued, and tattooed. You are telling the American electorate (and especially all of those independents that broke against you this month) that you are incapable of change, learning from your mistakes, or even confession and repentance - non-sectarian, of course - for making them. You have no alternative to your present ideology except a hard move to the theocratic right (since you have absolutely no credibility at all on economic, domestic, or foreign policy), and at best no more that about 25% of the population wants to go there, and a significant minority of that want to take it to South Carolina (the "new promised land" of sorts).

Early prediction for the GoOper '08 presidential nominee: Brownback or Santorum. Both would lose even to Hillary.

John Cole put it well, the GOP is well on its way to becoming a Southern Regional Party. Instead of the GOP, we can call it the SRP, pronounced "syrup." The "Sticky Party," like the "Sticky Bandits."

To avoid that fate, you have to become (oh, what's that word? Ah, yes!) "moderates."

And your party splits in two, or even three; just like the conservatives Democrats in 1860.
Poker Guy writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 7:33 AM
McCain
Underneath the often personable exterior lies a monumental ego (not unusual for politicians), and McCain will NOT retract his position on the Go14. Nor, hopefully, will he ever become POTUS. One of the things about his personae that makes me uncomfortable is the "I am all-wise and all-knowing" image he tries to convey. Another that makes for nervous reflection is the willingness to jump into bed with the likes of Kennedy (don't get this image in your head) in order to garner press for questionable legislation. This is a scary man, and one who bears watching.
Joseph writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 7:31 AM
McCain
I just hope that in two years I'm not hearing that we have to support McCain to keep that devil Hillary (or whoever the dems run) from nominating judges. If McCain is the nominee, I'll NOT vote for him. I'm tired of having to hold my nose when I vote for republican candidates, and I won't do it any more.
markadams99 writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 4:06 AM
McCain
Terrific piece. The issue is not whether you like the President's nominee, but how you get consent from the people for that nominee's acceptance or rejection. The consent comes from the nomination by a President elected on an explicit platform of what type of judge he'll nominate and from the advice and consent of the Senate given through a simple majority. McCain was instrumental in thwarting that principle when the GOP was in a position to enforce it. In effect he thwarted both the Constitution and the outcome of a Presidential election. It would be immoral for the GOP to nominate him to run for President.
Joe writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 1:05 AM
More Hugh Nonsense
"The courts matter too much to too many people to permit indifference or ignorance to them or about them in a presidential candidate." Hugh Hewitt

Hugh supported Harriet Miers for SCOTUS. Hugh kept supporting her even after the President gave up.

John McCain is not the problem. All of the GOP candidates who went "south" were picked by the good old boy network.



truthbetold writes: Saturday, November, 18, 2006 12:53 AM
McCain
He is dead for the Gang of 14 and McCain-Feingold. Newsmax.com is asking for a vote between McCain and Guilani and I won't vote because neither one of them is going to get the nomination if I have anything to say about it.
Farmer's Wife writes: Friday, November, 17, 2006 11:37 PM
McCain...
won't fly!
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 1 Hours 1 Minutes 45 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 26 Minutes 21 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 30 Minutes 46 Seconds Ago
Last updated 1 Hours 37 Minutes 21 Seconds Ago
Last updated 2 Hours 1 Minutes 4 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Jo--for the utterly pedantic Libs...
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
Lonny and Pat
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Lonny
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By Patriotic Liberal
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Both Sides Now?
 Re: ACORN and "Journalistic Standards"
  By DanNV
Careful
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By MellorSJ2
Rainey may be wrong
 Re: ACORN and "Journalistic Standards"
  By Kermudjin
Examining Dreadnuts view on movies...
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Patriotic Liberal
Jo
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Careful with that axe, Eugene
I have to go
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
They'll ignore it
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Stoic Patriot
Flunck 12:15 PM...I rest my case...
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By clarityseeker
Timeline for Eugene 4
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
Timeline for Eugene 3
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
Timeline for Eugene 2
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
Christmas is a secular holiday
 Re: Christmas Outlawed
  By Lonny
Timeline for Eugene 1
 Re: Here Comes the Judge?
  By Jo
dreadnut
 Re: Twenty lessons your teenage daughter will learn from the Twilight movies
  By Lonny
To Jo about Phil Jones
 Re: Weather Channel Founder & 30,000 Other Scientists Want to Sue Al Gore for Global Warming Fraud
  By Adam

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll