Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party.
Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush
Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an
open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human
experimentation "Republican." Which is to say, a Democrat.
As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters
will always choose the Democrat. The only question remaining is: Hillary or Obama?
On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a
Can I take a breath now?
He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."
He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.
He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down
He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow
mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.
The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing
McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.
Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona,
in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from
human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he
frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This
is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on
abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.
Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds
we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel
Alito too conservative.
We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually
looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president
isn't even trying.
McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint
"strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts.
But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who
will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.
That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature
legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?
In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was
"antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really?
Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution marriage, that is,
not John McCain is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no
I'm not a lawyer oh wait, yes, I am but Republicans were proposing to amend
the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.
It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require
presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans
other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold support the Constitution.
You might say it's part of our core philosophy.
Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket
with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a
Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew
his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.
But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not
tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe
that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.
McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be
anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing
the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the
presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the
Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark,
"What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")?
But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a
year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the
Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.
Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice
president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually
exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the
president's judges for him.
As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice
president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with
regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible
precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might
realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.
If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans
ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we
did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with
If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the
Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of