Replies

I don't think I'll ever forgive McCain for his horrid, anti-constitutional McCain-Feingold, but I overlooked it when he became the nominee out of self-preservation for a vestige of what conservatism might be in him.

...regarding appointing judges he probably would've done a better job. McCain's record supporting conservative judges in the senate is solid...

I agree that McCain's nominees for justices would have been slightly better than Obama's, and this is where the danger lies. A radical leftist nominee by Obama will raise sharply polarized opposition, from most R's and from many "conservative" D's. At best, this will result in gridlock, much as the Democrats have done to many judicial nominees of Bush over the past 8 years. A McCain nominee, on the other hand, would have been a compromise to appease a Dem majority in both houses - only slightly better than Obama's, but just as deadly to conservatism. His "moderate" choice would have sailed through confirmation hearings.

I'd rather a confirmed enemy, than a cowardly "friend."

John McCain's Campaign Finance Reform was carefully crafted to meet all of the requirements of previous Supreme Court decisions. It was a fairly mechanical bill which revised previous limits and sought to limit "soft money" donations to parties. It was standard stuff, it tightened some limits and raised others on things that had been regulated for a hundred years, since the reforms of the early twentieth century.

Senators Snow and Jeffords added an amendment that prevented unions and corporations from "electioneering" with ads that mentioned a name close to an election. That was a bit dubious but unions and corporations were state created entities with special priveleges and the regulations were well within Constitutional limits.

At the last minute Senator Wellstone cobbled together another amendment that extended the prohibition to "non-profits" ie. the NRA. This is the infamous "Wellstone Amendment". Everyone thought that it was unconstitutional, including John McCain. He fought against it and voted against it. Twenty four Republicans voted for the Wellstone Amendment but one of the was not John McCain.

The vote was close but it passed due to the support from MITCH MCCONNELL AND TRENT LOTT AND PHIL GRAMM. Like the true southern gentlemen that they are, they openly collaborated with the Democrats to get the final few votes to put it over the top. In trying to preserve their thiefdoms they were looking for a poison pill for the Supreme Court to find unconstitutional and strike down the bill.

Unfortunately for them the bill was made severable (if one part were held unconstitutional the others would remain standing). President Bush signed the bill expecting that the Supreme Court would excise the offending section. That was what he said when he signed it. AND THEN THE COURT FOUND THE BASICS OF THE CFR (INCLUDING THE WELLSTONE AMENDMENT) CONSTITUTIONAL.

Everyone was shocked, including McCain. The dirt-for-brains goober conserbatibes had breached the First Amendment by trying to be too cute by half. It was McConnell and Lott who slid the knife into the backs of the American people. They gambled with our constitutional rights....and lost.

A radical leftist nominee by Obama will raise sharply polarized opposition, from most R's and from many "conservative" D's. At best, this will result in gridlock, much as the Democrats have done to many judicial nominees of Bush over the past 8 years.

You are forgetting that Obama doesn't have much congressional opposition. You are forgetting that he doesn't need Republicans to pass any of his legislation or to confirm judges in the Senate. He's got all the votes he needs.

Now, before everyone starts jumping on what I posted, get this clear: I DON'T LIKE MCCAIN, in fact I can't stand the man. So do not pile me with complaints about RINOs or GOP moderates, or their supporters. And this is not about 'friends' or 'enemies,' it's about who judges cases.