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

#2
#2
TennNC said:
Just Asking -- Political Wire

More distortions from McCain's performance at Saddleback. He drew cheers for saying he never would've voted for half of the SC justices, but it turns out he voted for 3 of them.
Click to expand...

This story is in and off itself a distortion.

Huge difference between nominating and voting to confirm the choice of the sitting president.

Until recently, the Senate believed in advise and consent as opposed to making the choice.
 
#3
#3
volinbham said:
This story is in and off itself a distortion.

Huge difference between nominating and voting to confirm the choice of the sitting president.

Until recently, the Senate believed in advise and consent as opposed to making the choice.
Click to expand...


That seems like a pretty weak distinction for someone running for the office.
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
This story is in and off itself a distortion.

Huge difference between nominating and voting to confirm the choice of the sitting president.

Until recently, the Senate believed in advise and consent as opposed to making the choice.
Click to expand...

Oh - so, his job as Senator was to agree to whatever the president wanted? not to represent the best interests of his constituents?
 
#5
#5
TennNC said:
Just Asking -- Political Wire

More distortions from McCain's performance at Saddleback. He drew cheers for saying he never would've voted for half of the SC justices, but it turns out he voted for 3 of them.
Click to expand...

Well, this is another example of pandering that I was talking about. The old McCain (2000) didn't do this stuff and that's why so many people loved him (especially the press). He really needs to start talking to moderates if he's going to win. Right now, McCain has almost 90% of GOP voters. He needs to focus on the middle. If Obama wins the middle (and he is today), he'll probably win the election (which will make you ecstatic, i know).
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
lawgator1 said:
That seems like a pretty weak distinction for someone running for the office.
Click to expand...

TennNC said:
Oh - so, his job as Senator was to agree to whatever the president wanted? not to represent the best interests of his constituents?
Click to expand...

Are you two serious. You don't see a distinction?

Ginsberg was confirmed unanimously. Until this last round of confirmation hearings, the Senate virtually always voted in favor for candidates that made it through confirmation committee.

There has been considerable debate about the role of advise and consent. Voting in favor of someone such as Ginsberg is not equivalent to "doing whatever the president says".
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
Are you two serious. You don't see a distinction?

Ginsberg was confirmed unanimously. Until this last round of confirmation hearings, the Senate virtually always voted in favor for candidates that made it through confirmation committee.

There has been considerable debate about the role of advise and consent. Voting in favor of someone such as Ginsberg is not equivalent to "doing whatever the president says".
Click to expand...

What it tells me is that it wasn't important enough for him to be a maverick on this issue.
 
#8
#8
TennNC said:
Oh - so, his job as Senator was to agree to whatever the president wanted? not to represent the best interests of his constituents?
Click to expand...

Interesting that McCain using nuance (distinguishing between nominating and voting to confirm) is a weakness. :)
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
Are you two serious. You don't see a distinction?

Ginsberg was confirmed unanimously. Until this last round of confirmation hearings, the Senate virtually always voted in favor for candidates that made it through confirmation committee.

There has been considerable debate about the role of advise and consent. Voting in favor of someone such as Ginsberg is not equivalent to "doing whatever the president says".
Click to expand...


You are changing the argument, two-fold in fact.

First, that Ginsburg was confirmed unanimously has nothing to do with his statement that he'd never nominate her, but voted for her. Now it does mean that he can say that she was not a controversial pick and everyone voted to confirm. That's a valid argument. But it is not what you said in the original post.

Second, that there is a lot of scholarly debate over exactly what "advise and consent" means is no answer to the criticism that he cannot say he wouldn't nominate her when he voted to confirm her. The criticism he gets for that is that he seems to be saying she is obviously not worthy of the post and yet he voted for her.

To be honest, I don't think much of this issue. For one thing, I doubt he meant that he thinks his vote for her was bad. It was based on the info he had at the time and everyone voted for her so he can't rellay be singled out in regards to her. For another, it seems to me unlilely that if McCain is president he will go real far right in his nominations. Heck, the fact that he would likely appoint moderates is a criticism he is getting from the right as much as anyone.
 
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
You are changing the argument, two-fold in fact.

First, that Ginsburg was confirmed unanimously has nothing to do with his statement that he'd never nominate her, but voted for her. Now it does mean that he can say that she was not a controversial pick and everyone voted to confirm. That's a valid argument. But it is not what you said in the original post.

Second, that there is a lot of scholarly debate over exactly what "advise and consent" means is no answer to the criticism that he cannot say he wouldn't nominate her when he voted to confirm her. The criticism he gets for that is that he seems to be saying she is obviously not worthy of the post and yet he voted for her.

To be honest, I don't think much of this issue. For one thing, I doubt he meant that he thinks his vote for her was bad. It was based on the info he had at the time and everyone voted for her so he can't rellay be singled out in regards to her. For another, it seems to me unlilely that if McCain is president he will go real far right in his nominations. Heck, the fact that he would likely appoint moderates is a criticism he is getting from the right as much as anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing the argument. The author of the commentary suggests that McCain has flip-flopped on Ginsberg but he has not. The decision to nominate is quite distinct from the decision to vote on confirmation.

It is mixing apples and oranges to conclude that McCain has changed positions.

If he were asked would you vote to confirm her and he said no then he would have contradicted his position.

You continually chastise the use of innuendo, implication and mischaracterization. The original post made this claim:

He drew cheers for saying he never would've voted for half of the SC justices
Click to expand...

The story in the link says:

During his weekend interview with Rev. Rick Warren, Sen. John McCain said that if he were president he would have never nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter or John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court.

McCain wasn't a senator when Stevens was nominated, but why did he nevertheless vote to confirm Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter?

It seems he was for them before he was against them.
Click to expand...

But he was asked about nomination. He never claimed he wouldn't have voted for any of these justices.

It's an attempt to mischaracterize his position. From you prior posts I would assume you have a problem with that.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
I'm not changing the argument. The author of the commentary suggests that McCain has flip-flopped on Ginsberg but he has not. The decision to nominate is quite distinct from the decision to vote on confirmation.

It is mixing apples and oranges to conclude that McCain has changed positions.

If he were asked would you vote to confirm her and he said no then he would have contradicted his position.

You continually chastise the use of innuendo, implication and mischaracterization. The original post made this claim:



The story in the link says:



But he was asked about nomination. He never claimed he wouldn't have voted for any of these justices.

It's an attempt to mischaracterize his position. From you prior posts I would assume you have a problem with that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, he got the facts wrong. If that was your point, fine I agree.

But if your point was that given the correct facts -- that he said he wouldn't nominate versus that he did vote to confirm -- and if your argument is that there is no inconsistency there, then I disagree with you.

I don't think its a big deal, as I say. He's speaking to a church group and lo and behold he suggests he would nominate conservatives to the court. Whatever.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
But if your point was that given the correct facts -- that he said he wouldn't nominate versus that he did vote to confirm -- and if your argument is that there is no inconsistency there, then I disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with the inconsistency. There is missing information. He made no reference to his vote. We don't know his view on senatorial confirmation vs nomination. It is an assumption that his view is inconsistent here but we don't have enough information. They are two different decisions.

Nomination is who you think is best for the job. I can see why he wouldn't think they are the ones he would choose as best for the job.

Confirmation is often viewed (advise and consent debate aside) as is the person qualified and within the realm of acceptable given the role of the Senate vs. the sitting president. In short, it doesn't mean he would choose her or even thinks she's a great choice. It's simply that her disadvantages don't rise to the level of a vote not to confirm. We see this all the time with Senate confirmations.

Could be inconsistent, could be consistent. It's called nuance and apparently it's a good thing!
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
Not sure I agree with the inconsistency. There is missing information. He made no reference to his vote. We don't know his view on senatorial confirmation vs nomination. It is an assumption that his view is inconsistent here but we don't have enough information. They are two different decisions.

Nomination is who you think is best for the job. I can see why he wouldn't think they are the ones he would choose as best for the job.

Confirmation is often viewed (advise and consent debate aside) as is the person qualified and within the realm of acceptable given the role of the Senate vs. the sitting president. In short, it doesn't mean he would choose her or even thinks she's a great choice. It's simply that her disadvantages don't rise to the level of a vote not to confirm. We see this all the time with Senate confirmations.

Could be inconsistent, could be consistent. It's called nuance and apparently it's a good thing!
Click to expand...



The broader point is that it appears that he said what he said, impliedly criticizing her, in order to curry favor with the audience of churchgoers. His actions in voting to confirm her are not consistent with that.

I think it is a valid criticism of him but its a minor one. A presidential candidate who goes into a church and doesn't suggest that he has strong credentials to nominate conservative justices would be unusual.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
The broader point is that it appears that he said what he said, impliedly criticizing her, in order to curry favor with the audience of churchgoers. His actions in voting to confirm her are not consistent with that.

I think it is a valid criticism of him but its a minor one. A presidential candidate who goes into a church and doesn't suggest that he has strong credentials to nominate conservative justices would be unusual.
Click to expand...

I think it's making assumptions about the intent of his comments and comments he did not make.
 
#18
#18
If Obama criticizes Sec of Defense Gates he is being inconsistent since he voted for him.

When Obama criticizes Patreus he is being inconsistent because while he missed the confirmation vote for him, he congratulated him on position and said he supported the choice.

Agree? (I don't - one can criticize someone the voted for without being inconsistent)
 
#19
#19
This is just flat out weak. The Senate's job is to advise and consent; not advise and dissent in case you happen to run for President later.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
GAVol said:
This is just flat out weak. The Senate's job is to advise and consent; not advise and dissent in case you happen to run for President later.
Click to expand...


Come on guys. Anyone with a remotely objective eye can see that he was saying that Ginsburgh is a bad justice and that he would not have nominated her, and that he said it because his audience was people at a politically active church.

That he says all that on the one hand, and in the context of that audience, but then on the other turns out to have voted to confirm her, is noteworthy. Not a big deal. But noteworthy.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Come on guys. Anyone with a remotely objective eye can see that he was saying that Ginsburgh is a bad justice and that he would not have nominated her, and that he said it because his audience was people at a politically active church.

That he says all that on the one hand, and in the context of that audience, but then on the other turns out to have voted to confirm her, is noteworthy. Not a big deal. But noteworthy.
Click to expand...

I stand by the view that a choice of who you would nominate (the one you think is best for the job) is a totally different issue than voting in favor of a presidential nominee. If it weren't we would see a continual string of barely passing confirmation votes. In truth, they are generally strong majorities if the nominee is allowed to be taken to the floor for a vote.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
I stand by the view that a choice of who you would nominate (the one you think is best for the job) is a totally different issue than voting in favor of a presidential nominee. If it weren't we would see a continual string of barely passing confirmation votes. In truth, they are generally strong majorities if the nominee is allowed to be taken to the floor for a vote.
Click to expand...


In the context of what he was saying, that's just plain silly. He was not lecturing the church on the history of the task of advice and consent. He was campaigning and trying to make himself out to be anti-Ginsburgh because he thinks they are and that he voted to confirm her belies his effort to make it appear that he's a staunch conservative.

Did a bunch of other conservatives vote for her, too? Sure. Did she turn out to be a bit left of where they hoped she was? Sure.

Is McCain trading on that in a campaign stop? Absolutely.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
In the context of what he was saying, that's just plain silly. He was not lecturing the church on the history of the task of advice and consent. He was campaigning and trying to make himself out to be anti-Ginsburgh because he thinks they are and that he voted to confirm her belies his effort to make it appear that he's a staunch conservative.

Did a bunch of other conservatives vote for her, too? Sure. Did she turn out to be a bit left of where they hoped she was? Sure.

Is McCain trading on that in a campaign stop? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

McCain isn't a staunch conservative - his McCampaign is b/c he sees it as his best path to the WH.

This is my problem with McCain. When I voted for him 8 years ago, he stood more on his own and was willing to criticize those within his own party. Now he's just like any other politician. He says he's still a maverick, which is becoming more of a joke with every campaign appearance. I really liked him when he called out the greed in both parties, when he was frank about the bigotry of ultra right-wing religious schools, when he stood up for what he believed; I can't find a reason to support him now.
 
#25
#25
GAVol said:
This is just flat out weak. The Senate's job is to advise and consent; not advise and dissent in case you happen to run for President later.
Click to expand...

This is flat out weak. The Senate's job is not to rubber stamp nominations. There have been plenty of instances where Senators stood up to nominations and all but ensured they didn't go through - see Harriet Miers. Wonder why McCain didn't do the same before with RBG? Perhaps b/c he actually is more moderate than he's claiming to be now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top