John Fund Must Respond.
Media Hit Job or Stupendous Campaign Bungle?
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (98) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The blogosphere is abuzz today with a quote from this John Fund piece, in which McCain allegedly says that he would not nominate someone like Sam Alito who wears their conservatism on their sleeve. If McCain actually said this, it could be a race-changing gaffe, as it would hit McCain where he is already most vulnerable with conservatives: unease about his potential judicial nominations.
According to National Review's Byron York, McCain has personally responded with what appears to be a pretty flat denial of having said anything like what he is quoted as saying. I thought there was perhaps a little wiggle room in the previous statement issued by the McCain campaign, but McCain's personal denial is pretty flat. Now, here is the thing: I'm a Romney supporter, and I deeply distrust McCain on judges. But when it comes to this story, and given Fund's history, I believe John McCain. The question, however, is whether voters tomorrow will also believe him, and whether this report, if untrue, will unjustly sink McCain's campaign.
The ball now is in John Fund's court. Fairness and his credibility demand that he come forward now - not after Florida, not after Super Tuesday, and either substantiate or repudiate his story, lest the damage be irreparable.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Kennedy-Obama Anti-Clinton Endorsement Dance — Comments (19) »
John Fund Must Respond. 98 Comments (0 topical, 98 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's, er, skullduggery of a different type.
Just google around.
...I heard about that long ago. And yeah, it's no good, no good at all (if true). But I don't think really goes to his journalistic credibility.
Whatever, even if not, I think Fund's really pushing it this time. McCain was rock solid on Alito, and has consistently praised him and named him as a model since then. Fund's piece has all the markings of a last minute, conveniently unsubstantiatable hit job just in time for FL.
Man, this really frosts my toast.
Care to let me in on the secret? I can't find anything.
Anyhow, this is the worst kind of attack. It seems McCain has been subject to a lot of people attacking him for things he supposedly said in private. Santorum too, who's rumormongering has really, really surprised me and left me cold.
Even if I wasn't already predisposed to support McCain based on national security issues this would make me want to support him.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
...read the list of results carefully. It's hard to miss.
Ahh, found it. I thought he had a different middle initial.
Anyhow, it sounds like he didn't really do anything. But whatever. This story is still BS.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
For the record I believe John Fund on this, because it fits the history of John "gang of 14" McCain on this issue. His leading this effort to prevent the GOP from doing away with judicial fillibusters shows me he really doesn't give a rip about these issues. And since his main goal is always to apease the dems, I could see him looking for a less controversial pick; read moderate/liberal.
But my main concern here is the supposed outrage on this site about this story give John McCain's latest mud slinging against Romney. He lauched a dishonest, dirty attack on Romney on Saturday over the issue of Iraq. It was a lie and pure gutter politics. The same stuff he claims to dislike so much when he's sticking up for John Kerry and the like.
This is simply an example of someone getting what he deserves.
regarding Mitt Romney suggesting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq while others suggested a surge.
See here: Romney Embraces Private Iraq 'Timetables'
And here: Romney advocates non-public Iraq benchmarks.
Those stories are from April of last year, when Romney was taking a calculated risk to distance himself from President Bush. It came back to haunt him, and now he denies it.
Although I detest McCain, I do also stand for truth in advertising and Romneys statements to the timetable were true only if they were kept between the US and Iraq. They were not open timetables which would negate any argument that you support. (Never thought that I would be able to post here again)...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
1.) McCain's claims about Romney were, as Mark Kilmer (and Byron York of NRO) have both pointed out, very much fair game.
2.) Even if they weren't, employing tu quoque fallacy is a sad way to go through life.
EVEN IF McCain's statements about Romney were not true, which, obviously, as has been pointed out in previous replies, were a fair, if not certain interpretation of what he said, then you'd basically be giving him a blank check to do so, because Romney "deserves" it because of his constant flip-flops.
And even then, this would be worse, because people expect one candidate to attack another, and to try and twist what they say. They don't expect a supposedly neutral journalist to make up stuff they supposedly said to someone else and then leave them to defend it one day before voting ends in a critical primary.
Nobody ever "deserves" to have lies told about them.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
McCain accused Romney of supporting a timetable for defeat just as Senator Clinton did/does. That claim is on it's face absurd and a lie.
And if you want people who also agree it's a lie here you go:
Brit Hume
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Bill Kristol
I think their conservative standing is without question. Also you should read the full quote from Romney where he discusses vetoing any withdrawl timeline. And in his statement that is sighted he used the term benchmarks that the Iraqi Gov and the POTUS should have to measure success. Hardly in line with Hillary.
that approves of Henry Waxman's diatribes agaisnt Iraq, and you'll find this.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
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."
Well, Mr. Fund - who are these "conservatives"? And where was this said? And in what context? Those would be pretty good places to start.
Long-short - Fund better have this in McCain's voice on tape and/or he'd better have someone not involved with any other campaigns (COUGHromneyCOUGH) to back this up or I think he has to recant.
If however he does have McCain on tape saying these things given the firmness of his first-person denials to York, well that's a horse of a different color.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
As I said above, the part of this passage that actually purports to quote McCain only begins with "he wore his conservatism." Even before McCain's denial this afternoon, that jumped out at me as a quote that could have easily been ripped out of context and used here in attack fashion.
One of two things has just happened - either John Fund has committed the journalistic equivalent of an "own goal" or John McCain has just lied his keister off to Byron York. Both of which are "awful" for different reasons and can can neither both be right or wrong, really.
FTR, even though I cannot stand the guy I'm going with Johnny Mac on this one until and unless Fund comes across with something a whole lot more solid than "well, I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another..."
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
That was brutal of you, dude.
And now I can't get the flipping song out of my head!
Gotta fire up Lateralus when I get to the car - that usually works wonders in blowing old-80's songs out.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I prefer the original myself, but hey: horses for courses. Aenima was pretty good.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
either John Fund has committed the journalistic equivalent of an "own goal" or John McCain has just lied his keister off to Byron York.
Actually McCain avoided making a flat out denial to York, despite numerous opportunities to do so.
Byron York asked McCain specifically about John Fund's claim in the Wall Street Journal that McCain said he might have passed over appointing Alito as too overtly conservative. York gave McCain plenty of opportunities to issue a flat denial where he could have said "I never said that Alito was too overtly conservative for me to appoint." But McCain did not make such a denial.
In McCain's responses to Byron York in National Review he says he would appoint someone like Alito. However he never flat out denies the Fund report about McCain recently stating a different position. The closest McCain is willing to come to a denial is "why would I say anything derogatory about somebody like that?"
McCain's double talk is clearly a "non-denial denial". The Clintonspeak is meant to give an impression of being an absolute denial, but is worded such that the "non-denial denial" wouldn't technically be untrue even if a tape surfaced confirming the accusation. Clinton's denials of an "affair" with Flowers or "sex with that woman" are still technically true today with appropriate parsing. I guess it's not surprising McCain has adopted Clinton as a role model for truth telling, given his recent emulation of other sleazy Clinton campaign tactics.
I agree that John Fund should give more specifics about the the statement he attributed to McCain. But on the bottom line of who do you trust more in a factual dispute between John Fund and John McCain, I'll place a much higher probability that Fund has it right. Doubly so when Mr. "Straight Talk" McCain's supposed denials are carefully worded to avoid a flat out denial.
Update just as I was about to click the submit button:
I see NRO has quotes of more McCain responses to the WSJ report. Again McCain refuses to to deny the report. The closest thing he can come to a denial is "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that."
The Clintonization of McCain continues. Remember whenever a Clinton crony had to testify under oath, they'd keep coming back to "I don't recall saying ..." or "I don't recall doing ...", but they would studiously avoid testifying "I did not say/do that."
John Fund is not backing down from his story one bit. He's standing by it completely.
He did say that some people have interpreted McCain as saying that he would not nominate someone like Sam Alito but what John actually wrote was that McCain might not nominate someone like Sam Alito because he "wears his conservatism on his sleeve."
Good interview.
Mark Levin also mentioned that McCain doesn't remember saying that economics is something that he needs to learn more about.
So, we can't say that McCain lied in his response to Tim Russert's question during that Republican debate. But we can say that McCain might have "forgotten" that he made those statements.
does not already hate McCain, because it is clear that Levin will go out of his way to say anything bad or potentially bad about the senator.
You really shouldn't quote him as a credible source on any matter related to McCain.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Levin is an attorney who understands McCain's record. Levin mentioned that McCain and Graham killed the judicial nomination of Jim Haynes. Basically, they stalled and stalled and stalled the Haynes nomination until Haynes withdrew his nomination.
You say that McCain voted for Roberts and Alito? I can say that McCain voted for the former ACLU General Council Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Ted Kennedy staffer Stephen Breyer.
to anything Levin says
Nor should you
He is a very silly, very hysterical man with a voice that should never be anywhere near a microphone
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
There are a lot of things McCain should be called on, but the sourcing in the Fund piece is unclear. I hope we get this clarified soon.
The Fund quote (and maybe I should put quote in quotes), doesn't sound like McCain at all.
Here's what McCain said about the nomination on the Senate floor almost exactly two years ago:
"Mr. President, as we all know, elections have consequences. When President Bush ran for reelection, he stated plainly and often that, if given the opportunity, he would nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court. True to his promise, the President nominated John Roberts to become the 18th Chief Justice of the United States. Just as true, he nominated Samuel Alito to serve as an Associate Justice of the Court.
I was pleased that the President nominated Judge Alito -- as were many other members of this body. Though very favorably disposed, I reserved final judgment on his nomination out of respect for both the confirmation process and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I do not take the Senate's advice and consent role lightly, and I did not want to encourage a rush to judgment without the benefit of public hearings.
Those hearings have occurred, and since then I have announced that I will vote to confirm Judge Alito. Through 18 hours and over 700 questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the judge demonstrated that he will be an intelligent, fair, and open-minded Justice who respects the judiciary's important but limited role of interpreting the law. I believe that he is worthy of not only my own support, but that of other members of this body. And, certainly, this nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."
As you can see, his floor statement is very, very different -- diametrically opposed, 180 degrees away, etc. -- from what Fund claims McCain said. I don't buy it.
... got a link? Not saying it's wrong, but since it's a quote I feel compelled to ask.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
and appears almost to be paraphrased. I am a huge fan of John Fund, and the WSJ Editorial Page has been a staple of my daily reading since the Bob Bartley Era. He is a journalist of the highest integrity and professionalism.
I'm inclined to give John Fund the benefit of the doubt, but in the interest of best journalistic practices he should source the quote with time, place, and manner in which it was allegedly spoken by McCain.
Odd that the WSJ Editorial Page seems to not question why Romney's current rhetoric on illegal immigration is so out of line with their position, and that of many economic conservatives, on that issue. Many economic conservatives claim the economy would collapse without the influx of lower-wage illegal immigrant labor that Romney wants to get rid of through the government enforcing employment laws on all American businesses.
because even if Fund isn't able to back up his quotes, this might just reverse unfair damage done by given McCain's recent lies about Romney and given that McCain said about the same thing as Romney a year ago, only going FURTHER (Both both Romney and McCain's quotes don't go near as far as what McCain aledges about Romney's statements, which is why McCain is lying here.)
I know, two wrongs don't make a right. But McCain and his fans shouldn't throw stones in glass houses, either.
that John Fund isn't a candidate in this race. Voters have learned to take what one candidate says about another candidate with a grain of salt. As media for one of the most trusted news sources in the country, Fund's word here carries more weight, and lends legitimacy to everyone who says, "McCain said he wouldn't appoint Alito."
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
... is to look at the record in the Senate. Did John McCain not vote for both Roberts and Alito, and did John McCain not support Alito vigorously on the floor of the Senate?
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
what did McCain do behind the scenes to encourage or discourage support? How did McCain respond to the Meyers announcement? What comments about appellate court judges has McCain made? How did he vote on Estrada, and others?
The fact that McCain went along with almost unanimous Republican support (and some democratic support) does not truly provide street cred for McCain on judges.
He's voted for every single Bush nomination that's come up for a vote. Pure and simple.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
How about the ones who didn't? Did he try to use his cross-over influence to get votes on people who were fillibustered.
I don't know the answers to these questions. I tend to think that McCain is probably OK on judges, I just think more of the insider discussion information would be helpful to determine what his intensity for good judges is, and how it compares to his intensity on other issues.
My questions were not rhetorical. This information would make his candidacy more . . . tolerable to me.
Good grief, you want someone to tell you with any degree of certainty how someone behaved on nominations that never came up for a vote?
I guess you mine as well go join Fund's un-sourced rumor mill. Because that's all you'll get.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
if one exists, of McCain going pedal to the metal for a judicial nominee.
If you define going "pedel to the metal for a judicial nominee" being will to bypass a Democrat filibuster of a judicial nominee, McCain went on record as opposing this tactic (known as the nuclear option).
So, basically, McCain has taken the position that as long as 41 Democrats oppose a nominee, that nominee will not be voted on.
Even in the case of Sam Alito, McCain never said, "If the Democrats insist on filibustering Judge Alito, I will suppport the Republican Senate leadership and vote for the nuclear option" or anything similar to that.
On the issue of the nuclear option, McCain was to the Left of Arlen Specter, who never announced one way or the other on how he would vote on the nuclear option. McCain announced on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that he would vote with the Democrats on the nuclear option if the Republican Senate leadership forced a vote on it.
So, while I have my doubts as to who is being accurate (McCain or Fund), McCain certainly "fits the part" of someone who likes to "triangulate" between the Republicans and the Democrats on many issues.
Think of it this way. In the most recent Republican debate, McCain was asked about his statement saying that he didn't have much knowledge about economics. McCain's response was to (in the infamous words of Bill Clinton) "deny, deny, deny."
This statement is false: "So, basically, McCain has taken the position that as long as 41 Democrats oppose a nominee, that nominee will not be voted on." Under the Gang of 14, the number is 7, not 41. Prior to the Gang of 14, the number was 41.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
You forgot about the "extraordinary circumstances" part of the Gang of 14 deal. But more importantly, you forgot that McCain announced that he opposes the nuclear option to bypass judicial filiubsters.
So, my statement about 41 Democrats maintaining a veto over judicial nominations is correct.
For more information on the Fund vs McCain issue tune in to the Mark Levin radio show (it comes on at 7pm here in Denver) or consider looking at my post Indications that John Fund might be telling the truth about McCain.
I just put it up.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
... with "that's come up for a vote". Because at least one person is pretty convinced that McCain and Graham worked pretty hard to see to it that Jim Haynes never got to the floor for a vote.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
is used by McCain supporters on a regular basis to assert that McCain will nominate strict constructionists to the bench
So, could someone provide a listing of the Republican senators who have voted against a Bush nominee on the floor of the Senate and the nominee's name (btw--Linc Chafee doesn't count)
Also, please provide a list of Clinton circuit court and SCOTUS nominees whom Sen. McCain voted against on the Senate floor.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I can't stand McCain and would never trust him on anything.
However, I always want truth.
Waiting to hear from Fund... Wondering where reality is...
try this
Also, while I too would like Fund to be specific, I find Fund's accusation to be well within McCain's established past behavior. In fact, one of the things that really concerns me about both Huckabee and McCain is the area of illegal-immigration. Regardless of where any of you are on that issue, if they can be so unwilling to even listen to conservatives until the past few months (SEE here and here) ...then both of them suddenly do 180s on this issue... why in the world will they continue to listen to convervatives once they've secured the nomination? (I'd really like an honest answer.)
Sorry if this seems like a threadjack. But my point is that McCain has a history of leaning towards wanting to not offend the liberal elites and allowing this to shape policy, at the direct expense of conservative policies.
Maybe we should explore why the Alito seems so believable. Maybe that is the REAL problem here!
It does not "seem" like a threadjack, it "IS" a thread-jack.
I wish you Tancredo people would figure something out: NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT IMMIGRATION. PERIOD.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
For the record, I'm NOT an immigration-only-issue-Tancrado-guy. That isn't in top-5 issues list.
You fail to see my point.
My point is that I see McCain swinging right just to impress conservatives in the primaries on a number of issues... the Bush Tax cuts, and his revisionism about that vote being another one... the gang of 14 had some real problems as well. At the same time, McCain has a documented history of trying to get the approval of liberal elites and the liberal news media on a number of issues... including judges ("gang of 14")... Therefore, isn't this the reason why that Fund quote is so believable. And, again, maybe the fact that it is so believable is more of a problem that the quote itself?
...here. McCain has been a wholehearted supporter of both Roberts and Alito.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
something McCain would say. Whether Alito "wears conservatism on his sleeve" or not, McCain wouldn't nominate a judge that was obviously conservative. He would not put someone up that he feels wouldn't require a huge fight. I mean, McCain's moderate anyway, not conservative. He's all about working with his "friends."
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
You consistently post about what is in Senator McCain's head, what his motives "really" are, and about what he will "really" do. Do you have some special looking glass no one else is privy to?
As far as I can tell, your standard of evidence works thus:
1) Does it reflect poorly on McCain?
2) Then it is true.
3) Otherwise, Kennedy! Feingold!
Really, I know everyone is always talking about what everyone else is always thinking, but maybe once or twice you can post something that isn't solely your intuition talking?
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
Hope you are doing well. I'm not really sure why you've decided to single me out but that's fine. I don't think your charge against me is true; in fact, I think it's a little strange but if it makes you feel better to take me on personally, that's fine, that doesn't make your accusation true. I think it's the moderators jobs to tell me if I'm somehow out of line, otherwise, I don't think there's anything wrong with me posting my opinion; even on McCain and what I believe his motives are. There sure seem to be a lot of posts that do this.
Lets talk about the issues. I'm not sure which one you're worked up about since this is such a general attack.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
And look at the other comment right above what you wrote. There are references and records available in abundance. Yet you reply with a speculation that directly contradicts that evidence, which you present in a declarative way as if it some kind of verifiable fact. The you finish off with an ad hominem: "He's all about working with his 'friends.'"
It's just not substantive. General attack? Indeed. That is my point.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
Fact - McCain speaks all of the time about working with his "friends" the Democrats. This is a constant part of his stump speech. I heard it yesterday in a live townhall with Lieberman and Martinez.
You did notice he's actualy campaigning with one of his friends Senator Lieberman
Fact - McCain has passed several (horrible) bills with said friends
Fact - McCain does not appeal as much to conservatives but he does appeal to moderates and independents. He IS a moderate republican
Fact - McCain considered running as the VP for the democratic nominee
Fact - McCain was part, if not the leader, of the gang of 14 - with his friends the Dems, essentially supporting the denial of an up and down vote
Fact - Campaign finance reform - also sponsored with a Dem
That is NOT a conservative record. He is a moderate republican. He considers the dems his friends. He considers the Clinton friends.
Another fact - I was actually sort of defending McCain in my post. My point was that McCain was probably saying this because he thought it would be a bad idea to nominate someone who has an obvious conservative bent and would therefore be difficult to pass by his friends the Dems.
Not sure if I addressed all of your criticisms. I'm still not really sure what your point is.
A better point is why are you singling me out and is that appropriate. Why are you trying to make this personal? Also, this is in essence a threadjack. Maybe you are just being overly defensive for some reason.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
Most of those facts are beyond dispute and you know that quite well. If you object to one or another, point it out and let David defend it. But demanding sources for them all is nothing but an attempt to bury serious discussion with unnecessary procedure.
Here's a fact for you. According to Jim G. at the NRO blog Campaign Spot, McCain did not deny saying the quote Fund attributes to him. Rather he said he did not recall it. My darn iPhone doesn't have cut and paste so I can't post the link... So are you just going to dismiss that on procedural grounds too?
Other than my assertion that he is a moderate Republican, which one of these things I listed do you question? These are as factual as the sun shines in the East.
I could source that he is a moderate Republican but that is obviously going to be subjective, unless I can find a place where McCain admitted it. Even then, is it really in question.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
"Fact - McCain has passed several (horrible) bills with said friends"
It's not a fact but you're opinion.
"Fact - McCain considered running as the VP for the democratic nominee"
Where is your proof of this...?
Try this.
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
He then realized how bad this made him sound, and reversed on it in a few hours.
I asked if you had sources. If they're facts, that shouldn't be a problem, should it?
Doing that kind of research is what makes that sort of list more credible to someone on the fence, you know.
McCain is on record various time saying he regards Alito as a model.
McCain fought to get him confirmed.
LOL!!! You think some of these are "facts"?
Fact - McCain does not appeal as much to conservatives but he does appeal to moderates and independents. He IS a moderate republican
The "fact" is that McCain has 90+% approval ratings among Republicans. So unless you are going to argue that 90+% of Republicans are moderates (which is, by any reasonable definition, impossible), then obviously, this is just wrong.
Fact - McCain considered running as the VP for the democratic nominee
Absolutely not a fact at all. There is absolutely zero proof of this, only scant evidence to support it, and a mega ton of evidence to oppose this assertion. Try again.
I'll do a "fact" your style: If you are actually concerned just because he's friends with Democrats, you have the mental age of a 5 year old. If you don't have any friends who disagree with you, I wouldn't trust you to run a 7-11.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Most "conservative" Republicans do NOT support McCain! Yes, the fact that he tends to compromise with the most liberal Democrats IS an issue (yes, I'm over 5). I highly doubt your 90% Republican approval (show me the facts). My guess is that he is supported by about 60% of the Republicans and only because they do not understand his leftist leanings. They still seems to be in awe of his military background and his POW status rather than his actual leanings (and hit votes). I suspect that it would be highly unlikely that he wins the nomination, much less the presidency.
My guess, you are getting your statistics internally or at random, RandomGuy.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Where do you get this 90+% Republican approval? His national favorable ratings among likely Republican primary voters has been nowhere near that. They've been more in the 35-55% range.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
denied saying something that he actually did say. Take for example his denial that he ever supported amnesty, or his denial that he ever said he was weak on economic issues. In both cases prior transcripts/recordings revealed he had done just that (in the first case, he specifically used the term "amnesty").
Having said that, I do not think that such a statement cannot be reconciled with his strong support of Alito during the confirmation process, or even his genuine desire to elect true conservative justices. I think McCain's problem, really, is that he often shies away from fighting the tough fight with the Democrats. So my guess is that the quote is genuine, but that he said it in this context: that he would want someone who believes what Alito believes, but he wouldn't nominate someone like him "who wears his conservatism on his sleeve" because doing so would provoke a bitter nomination fight.
True. McCain has "forgotten" what he said before.
He "forgot" the state the statements read back to him by Tim Russert in that recent debate where McCain said that economics isn't something he knows much about.
McCain also forgot that in 2001 he denounced the Bush tax cuts as being tilted towards the wealthy whereas today he explains that he opposed them because spending restraint wasn't part of the tax package.
So, perhaps McCain just forgot that he told people that he wouldn't appoint someone like Alito because he wears conservatism on his sleeve.
No one will ever accuse McCain of wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.
First off, I'm anti-McCain, as anyone who has read my posts knows. But having said that, I believe that he did, in fact, say something like this, but it's being partially taken out of context.
The conversation probably went something like:
Conservatives who need reassuring: What can we expect from you in terms of judges.
McCain: Guys like Roberts and Alito. But guys who will be easier to confirm than Alito because they haven't made so many statements.
That, to me, is a perfectly believable conversation, and quite a reasonable one. And it's certainly one that could have been taken out of context into what Fund reported.
If you read the Corner today, you'll see that K-Lo also said:
"For what it's worth, I've been told the same thing John F. reported — that at a private meeting McCain said he would appoint justices like Roberts, but not like Alito — who wears his conservatism on his sleeve."
So it was out there to multiple people. The ultimate source of this will be tracked down.
I don't know when. If someone catches it (I will have daughter duty, so I can't) I would appreciate it if they would post here with an update.
Also, here is a summary of a conference call McCain held on the issue today.
and said he had multiple sources. In fairness, he said it is possible that McCain's response to Byron York and Jim Geraghty that he did not recall making that statement may be true.
I also want to point out that supporting your president's candidate and nominating your own are two different things. McCain's defense that he busted his hump for Alito, while definitely true, does not alone refute the suggestion that he would not nominate an Alito.
I think you've got to give him the benefit of the doubt. One half of a sentence is nowhere near enough to determine the meaning of the full sentence.
Even though I think we would get much more squishy judicial nominations from McCain that some of our other candidates I believe that he is actually pleased that Roberts and Alito were both confirmed. I believe he may not like possible nominations to wear their conservatism on their sleeve, but that doesn't convince me that he would oppose a nominee like Alito.
OK, I didn't hear the audio, but K-Lo in the Corner is reporting that Fund stood by his story.
"John Fund was on Mark Levin’s show and said that he stands by his story, that he had multiple sources. John emphasized to Mark that his sources told him that McCain said that he might not appoint an Alito, not that he would not. But, again, sticks by the story."
Jim Geraghty in The Campaign Spot reported on a blogger conference call in which McCain backed away a tiny bit from his denial.
"I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that. I'm not saying someone didn't tell him that."
"I don't recall" is a lot weaker than "I definitely didn't say that". So in my mind he realizes that it's something he might have said. So I'll stand by my speculation that he, in fact, did say something like that, and is now backpedaling, rather than trying to explain the context.
I was listening to Levin's show and Fund stands by his story... he seemed adamant about it too and he said he had conversations with the McCain Campaign about it and has two sources to back it up...
View my blog at http://preacherskid.blogdrive.com/
That is a weak denial right there. If his memory is really that bad he has a entire staff that could refresh his memory.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
John Fund's original claim could only have been justified if he personally heard McCain make the alleged quote--and even then he should have given the context and explained exactly what was meant by the unusual phrase about wearing conservatism on the sleeve. It's irresponsible journalism to base a claim of this nature on anonymous (and possibly second-hand) sources and leave people to infer the worst. And it seems that even after going on Levin, Fund still hasn't stated who his sources are; he just says he has them. This isn't Watergate, or the kind of situation where a journalist might be justified in citing a "high-ranking administration official."
It was nice to see Byron York do some real journalism on this and talk to McCain; and rather refreshing after the tabloid circus that certain writers brought to the Corner today.
McCain said in 2005 that he wouldn't nominate "unacceptables." He said that before a president nominates someone for the federal courts, he should ask Senators if he's acceptable or unacceptable. So, given that he supports the concept of 41 Senators filibustering judicial nominees (even if he has never filibustered a liberal Clinton nominee himself), he's basically saying that the Democrats will be able to veto judicial nominations, even if they are in the minority.
Prove it.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Just check out the links I put on my latest diary. They include a transcript of McCain's interview with Chris Matthews and the reaction to that interview by National Right to Life.
It's there.
Just in case you want links, you can click here for more detailed information.
National Right to Life was not pleased with McCain at all.
Here's his quote, at least as reported in The Corner.
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."
He's not saying he heard it, but that conservatives have, so all he has to do is have sources in those conservatives. And he's claiming he has "multiple sources". It will be interesting to see if any of those come forward.
The quote you've given is directly from Fund's article in the WSJ today. And I'm saying that's irresponsible journalism. Suppose I were to come to you and say, "McCain has told conservatives that he might raise taxes if necessary for the war on terror." You'd then reasonably ask me: What conservatives? When? What were his precise words? What does he mean by "necessary"? And then suppose I say: "Sorry, can't tell you. But trust me, I have my sources. Multiple sources." That would make me lose any claim to credibility. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm lying. But what reason do you have to believe me?
Readers of Fund's article today should be asking about his claim about McCain: What conservatives? When? What were his exact words? What prompted the comment? Those are precisely the questions a professional journalist should anticipate and answer in advance. That's how you make your reporting creditable. There might be exceptional circumstances, like Watergate, where it's justified to keep the reader in the dark and essentially say: "Trust me; I'll prove this in the end." This isn't one of them. Fund's claim was unverifiable and utterly context-free. It never deserved the attention it got.
Amen to that.
I wonder how people would like it if John Fund wrote an article in which Mitt Romney "admitted to some conservatives that he only flip-flopped on abortion, gay rights, and guns, because he wanted to run for President and didn't think he could win without it."
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I don't know how people would "like it", but I do know how reasonable people would react. They'd look at both sides and make a determination on whose credibility they believed more. And since there would have been no reason for Romney to actually say something like this, it would be pretty nonsensical.
But you have to admit that McCain very well might have said something like this. It would have been totally in character. What he would have been saying was essentially "look, I'm going to nominate guys we won't have to fight to get confirmed. They'll still be conservatives, but I know how the game is played".
That's absolutely what I believe the gist of what he said was. And you know what? As much as I mislike McCain that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say. And something that might actually reassure some of his colleagues in the Senate. And now that we have him reverting to a non-denial denial ("I don't recall") it makes it even more likely.
But in any case, if this truly is multiple-sourced, it will become public over the next couple of days.
That's the only way this works. If you can point to cases in the past where he just made stuff up... whatever sounded good at the time... lets see them. He's been doing this long enough there should be a long trail of lies to uncover.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Credibility has been long lost with those in the MSM. You can believe this article or not, but please, do not bring up credibility about any journalist or article that appears in the MSM. You're battling your own demons.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
And Fund is not Jason Blair. You really see no difference there? The MSM is all the same, and less credible than your average person on the street? It seems like it would be pretty difficult to stay current on events with that kind of outlook.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that Fund is more reasonable than others...but, the WSJ is more libertarian than conservative and most journalists are independent, not bound by their editors. I actually agree with Fund most of the time, but that does not make be a believer in MSM opinions.
You have to take the MSM opionions, mix with blogger reactions, and then form your own opinion regarding the probable facts.
And to your question regarding the MSM vs the average person on the street...yes, I will take the street person over the MSM assuming that they were exposed to the same event - In a HeartBeat!!.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
who are a lot less reliable than Fund, whom I would take over Chris Matthews any day of the year and twice on Sundays.
I shouldn't have to rely on Fund's credibility in a situation like this. Only in a rare case should a journalist ask readers to trust his word. The proper job of a journalist is to report verifiable facts. Fund made an unverifiable claim based on an unidentified source. In fact it's even worse than that, because his article reads in such a way that one might suppose Fund was actually at the meeting in which McCain made the alleged comment. But it now appears, from Fund's remarks on the Levin show, that he was just reporting this second-hand.
Here's what the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists says:
"Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"...given Fund's history..."
I must have missed something. Was John Fund involved in some journalistic skullduggery before? Please explain (or provide a link) if possible.
I too tend to believe McCain. Did you notice that Fund's piece didn't actually QUOTE McCain as saying he wouldn't nominate judges like Alito? The quote only picked up with the words "wears his conservatism on his sleeve." The rest may well have been a nefarious inference/spin on Fund's part.