Saturday, May 10th, 2008
Double Talk Express
Flip — Senator Eight Houses on Scalito, Jan. 28, 2008:
More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”
Flop — Teflon John McCain, May 7, 2008, bashing Obama for the crime of opposing Scalito and Roberts:
For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator’s measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it — and I quote — should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism — come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama’s standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama’s standard, even Judge Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and they see it only in each other.
But wait, there’s more! Here’s McCain’s rainmaker, Cindy McCain, on the 2008 campaign:
McCAIN: And what you’re going to see is, I believe we’re going to see a great debate, which the American public deserves, more importantly. None of this negative stuff, though. You won’t see it come out of our side at all, because –
CURRY: None of the negative stuff will come out of your side?
McCAIN: My husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all.
Naturally, Ann Curry absolutely refuses to do any follow-up whatsoever. They never do.
Tell us, Cindy, is this what you meant by positive campaigning?
Last month, McCain told conservative bloggers, “I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare…If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.“
As Media Matters astutely notes, this is not the first time that McCain’s left face has decried negative campaigning at the same time that his right face is dealing in lies, distortions and smears. Not by a long shot.
Karl Rove’s protegé has learned well, I see.
