McCain voted for them before he said he'd never vote for them

[BigPapaVol]

Obama would do more for this country than McCain, so, no.

like what?

Talking about change and bringing about change are two very different things.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Sounds like Hillary on the war. If it was that important, why leave anything to chance?

Why not vote against her? Or why not at least express serious concerns? Why not go on the record similar to what Obama did with Roberts?

again, I only believe that is on the record for future campaigning purposes. He knew as well as everyone else that Roberts' legal record was unassailable.

 

[volinbham]

we're not the only ones making the argument.

I find it interesting that McCain's performance is being parsed consistently across liberal commentators. Clearly that is a sign that he had a good performance.

So far we've seen this line of attack.

We've seen the "easily digestible" soundbyte attack.

We've seen the cheating attack

We've see the "he's W so I'll attack W" attack.

All are signs that Dems are worried about his performance at Saddleback.

 

[BigPapaVol]

and we haven't seen a lot of Obama has a better solution type of response or that Obama came across better.

The non-canned environment is a disaster for the Obama camp and should provide some insight for even his most ardent supporters.

 

[lawgator1]

IMO, folks are making too much of this.

1. McCain votes to confirm Ginsburgh.

2. While campaigning for POTUS, he tells a conservative audience that he assumes (and probably correctly) dislike Ginsburgh, that he would not nominate her.

3. His intention is to signal the audience that he, like they, does not think she's a good Justice and he seeks to reassure them that he will appoint more conservative judges if he is POTUS.


I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that there is some hipocrisy at work there. I think there is some hipocrisy at work there. And I think it is to be expected from someone running for POTUS. I think Obama has done it, too, in other areas.

I don't think less of McCain for it. I figure everyone knows that these guys are saying what they think their respective audiences want to hear and that, in actuality, if elected, McCain will not be as conservative as that audience wanted nor would Obama be as liberal as any of his given audiences might like.

 

[volinbham]

Sounds like Hillary on the war. If it was that important, why leave anything to chance?

Why not vote against her? Or why not at least express serious concerns?

This is a strawman argument. McCain has stated again and again his view on advise consent. He doesn't see it the way you apparently do.

BTW, I agree with McCain's view on advise/consent. Obama has shown he will only support justices that share his ideology. He apparently isn't interested in balance on the court. Roberts replaced Rehnquist - a moderate conservative for a moderate conservative. No change in balance of power. Roberts is likely one of the most qualified justices in history. Yet Obama said no - so much for separation of power, unity, reaching across party lines, being for all instead of just your own.

If Roberts were replacing a liberal, I could see fighting it harder. As is was (and as RBG's case) it was a maintaining of the power balance on the SC. Obama put party above all here.

 

[volinbham]

IMO, folks are making too much of this.

1. McCain votes to confirm Ginsburgh.

2. While campaigning for POTUS, he tells a conservative audience that he assumes (and probably correctly) dislike Ginsburgh, that he would not nominate her.

3. His intention is to signal the audience that he, like they, does not think she's a good Justice and he seeks to reassure them that he will appoint more conservative judges if he is POTUS.


I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that there is some hipocrisy at work there. I think there is some hipocrisy at work there. And I think it is to be expected from someone running for POTUS. I think Obama has done it, too, in other areas.

Do you see hypocrisy in Obama not mentioning Roberts as someone he wouldn't nominate (given he voted not to confirm). Would mentioning Roberts have hurt him?

Let's apply the same standard.

I've stated that neither is a big deal or particularly noteworthy.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Obama put party above all here.

as I've said before, he put the democratic primary above all in making that vote. He was after the hardcore lefty in trying to beat Hillary and every move he made that point had only that in mind.

 

[lawgator1]

Do you see hypocrisy in Obama not mentioning Roberts as someone he wouldn't nominate (given he voted not to confirm). Would mentioning Roberts have hurt him?

Let's apply the same standard.

I've stated that neither is a big deal or particularly noteworthy.

Ok.