Mr. McCain’s harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, the likes of Mr. Dobson would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals.
It’s always possible Mr. McCain would make a bad Supreme Court nomination, just as Ronald Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy, who later affirmed Roe v. Wade. As we recall it, social conservatives at the time promoted Mr. Kennedy because he was Catholic and let it be known that he personally opposed abortion, while they frowned on Judge Laurence Silberman because he supported abortion rights as a personal matter even as he opposed Roe as a matter of law. Justice Kennedy has been a catastrophe for cultural conservatives, while Judge Silberman recently wrote the landmark appellate decision favoring gun rights now being heard by the Supremes.
The conservative coalition has learned a lot about picking judges since 1987, and especially since the nomination of David Souter by another Republican President. As the Harriet Myers interlude proved, another mystery pick by Mr. McCain or any other GOP President is far less likely than it used to be.
Mr. Dobson and other social conservatives may decide they can’t vote for Mr. McCain for any number of reasons. What they can’t do with any credibility is claim that helping to elect a liberal President will further the causes that these conservatives claim to believe most deeply in.
Pragmatism:
I may not get the whole package, but it’s better to get something than setting my movement back decades.
Idealism:
I’ve got to vote my conscience irrelevant of the consequences.
Realism: Both good and bad consequences can come from voting my conscience.
I tried make this argument with my doctrinaire conservative step-father yesterday: he wasn’t having any of it. He kept talking about voting on principles and John McCain didn’t share his principles. American [i]deserves[/i] Hillary or Obama if we can’t produce a conservative Republican alternative.
In my opinion, the critical factors in the presidential election are 1.) Pro-life/Pro-choice, given the potential make-up of the Supreme Court, and 2.) National security, since the Dems have indicated that they will surrender to Al Queda, while McCain will continue the fight. As they should, Congress will dispose of economic and immigration matters. At least that’s what the constitution suggests should happen.
All of which is to say that McCain’s not perfect, but he’s not Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.
“…that helping to elect a liberal President …”
Yawn, such hyperbole is unbecoming. It’s still the primary season — far too early to be treating Mr. Huckabee as some sort of third-party spoiler. If you have to blame someone for the fact that republicans cannot come together in unified support of Mr. McCain, I think perhaps the blame falls squarely on Mr. McCain.
Not Limbaugh, Dobson, Huckabee, or anyone else.
I’m as doctrinaire a conservative as there is, and I will happily vote for either of the Republican candidates, though I have reservations about both, to keep either of the Democratic candidates from office.
This article reflects my opinion. I knew Sarah Hey wouldn’t agree.
As far as Supreme Court Justices go, either Obama or Clinton would be certain to nominate poor candidates. McCain, either by inclination or under pressure, is more likely make good nominations. The key in either case is somehow to get enough conservative votes in the Senate to either stop terrible nominees or confirm good ones. We’re in a mess. If only the Court hadn’t distorted and damaged the Constitution in 1973!
Part of me thinks this: There are on the order of 1.3 million or more abortions in this country every year, according to the Alan Gutmmacher Institute (this is a pro-choice group affiliated with Planned Parenthood, but nearly all pro-life groups will tell you that their numbers are more accurrate than the CDC numbers, which consistently underestimate the number of abortions in this country). On average, every day that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land and abortion is legal throughout the country, 3600 or so more innocent unborn children are put to death. If a Republican is elected President this year, there is a fair chance, though not a certainty, that Roe V. Wade will be overturned within a few years after the next Supreme Court appointment. If a Democrat is elected President this year, there is a substantial likelihood that Roe will not be overturned in our lifetimes.
If McCain were to become the Republican nominee, as appears to be almost certain, there seems to be a strong sentiment that we should punish the Republican party for its choice (as if the party were some monolithic institution that always makes cogent, rational decisions) by staying home and thus, in effect, helping the Democrat’s candidate. But, even if it made sense to do that, why punish the unborn? Therefore we should all vote for the Republican nominee.
Another part of me thinks: God is in charge. Everything is proceeding according to his grand design which he envisioned before the beginning of time. His will cannot ultimately be thwarted, and, even if events appear to be spinning out of control, there is really nothing to worry about as long as we have our faith. It may be that it will please God for this country to utterly collapse. In that case, there is no power on earth that can keep that from happening. Or it may please God that this country will remain strong and become more prosperous. In that case, we can look forward to national comfort and security despite the ineptitute of whomever we may elect as President and members of Congress. Therefore, we should all vote (or stay home) as our consciences dictate.
Rick OP:
…there seems to be a strong sentiment that we should punish the Republican party for its choice … by staying home …
You don’t think that is just primary posturing? In an attempt to get McCain to start speaking reasonably to the conservative base? To get some of our planks front & center in the platform?
I don’t think any of us will stay home… but don’t think for a minute that a sad old crust like McCain could beat Obama anyway. Hillary perhaps — one sad old crust to another….
Marty, I don’t know if it is primary posturing or not. I hope your assessment is accurate. If it moves McCain to the right, that would of course be a good thing.
As for McCain’s chances in November, an awful lot of people counted him totally out of the primary six months ago. Most of us don’t know very much about Obama right now. We know he is young and handsome and a gifted speaker. But where does he really stand on issues? He is a brand new pair of Florsheims.
We’ve known McCain for a long time. He speaks softly and reflectively. We know he is liberal on immigration, supported caps on campaign spending, is strong on national defense, and at least says he is a social conservative. He is an old pair of Hush Puppies.
In November, which pair of shoes will the country be in the mood to put on? I don’t think anyone can say right now.
If only the supreme court had not damaged the constitution in 2000….
If you really want abortion to be reduced, then support a Democratic candidate. The plain fact is that no Republican can overturn Roe, and they know that if they did, local legislatures would have to deal with a country that has had 30 years of legalized abortion. Plainly, young women would organize in a fashion we haven’t seen.
The rates of abortion would decrease with universal health care and greater employment. The State would require much greater taxes to criminalize women if we make abortion murder.
I’m quite happy that social conservatives will stay home if McCain wins the election. And the one person representing Christians doesn’t hate immigrants, talks about caring for children AFTER they are born, and raised taxes for specific social causes.
Thanks John Wilkins — you demonstrate very well why I will never ever vote for a pro-choice democrat. Because you see abortion as an “economic” issue, and not a moral one.
Sorry friend, but you could never pay me enough to kill a baby. What exactly is the price-tag for NOT killing one?
Marty the baptist: Lots of people talk about morality. But if they have to share the wealth to implement change, forget it. “where your treasure is…” Jesus said.
If we wanted to reduce abortion, we could pay for it. As it is, the idealisms you have will stop the minute you have to raise your taxes. How much would YOU share of your wealth to reduce abortion? NOt much, from what I can see. Which makes me wonder how much you yourself would sacrifice for such an issue.
Instead, we can endorse making women into murderers.
Just give me the price-tag John. There are over 1 million abortions a year in this country. Tell me what it will cost to end each one and I guarantee you we can raise the funds. Name your price.
PS:
we can endorse making women into murderers.
I certainly wouldn’t endorse making a woman into a murderer. But it is “her choice” after all, right?
14 marty – if you want to pay for the prisons… its your taxes. Marty – I think about 2-3% of each person’s salary would go a long way at reducing abortions through the health care system. Eliminating? Well, if you want a soviet style system, then it would cost whatever it takes to create a police state.
RE: “14 marty – if you want to pay for the prisons… its your taxes.”
Be happy to, JW — and you said we weren’t “generous” . . . ; > )
Funny, whenever you speak of “sharing the wealth” in order to “reduce abortions” you always mean The State taking someone’s wealth and redistributing it.
Which means . . . an arrogant presumptious notion that the folks who believe abortion to be murder don’t “share their wealth” voluntarily in charitable work.
Not surprising from you, of course. Just noted.
It’s obvious that JW has no interest in reducing abortions, but will say anything if it advances his brand of marxism.
For example: Well, if you want a soviet style system, then it would cost whatever it takes to create a police state.
So making abortion illegal means we’re a soviet-style police state. Heh, good one. It’s a wonder we even bother prosecuting murderers at all isn’t it?
You’re such a drama queen John.
Thank you, John Wilkins, for demonstrating – again – the depths of manipulation in the “reappraiser” formulation of reality. What other form of murder would be justified with the depraved rationales you offer?
16: glad you are happy to, Sarah. Not many are willing to raise their taxes to do the job. For most, tax cuts are a religion.
Marty – you are right: I don’t have a personal interest in reducing abortions. But I do care about accuracy. Abortions are reduced in some contexts and not in others. I don’t sense that you are interested in reduction much, either. Perhaps we have something in common.
Heh — actually, JW, it’s all about allocation, not your favorite solution, which is raising taxes. I think I could manage to shift the budget around . . . and pay for those prisons very nicely.
Of course . . . not much more prison space would be needed, since most women wouldn’t break the law. But hey, it’s your fantasy, JW, not mine.