McCain's advisors on judges

One of the frequent and, I think, reasonable criticisms of John McCain is that he has not yet demonstrated a commitment to putting originalist judges on federal benches. In fact, with the Gang of Fourteen deal and his unfortunate comments about Justice Alito, McCain gave conservatives real reason to doubt his judgment on judicial picks.

I, for one, feel a little better now that McCain has announced the membership of his Judicial Advisory Committee. Chaired by Ted Olson and Sam Brownback, the Committee also includes pro-life and/or originalist stalwarts Gerry Bradley, Steven Calabresi, Rick Garnett, Robert George, Fred Thompson, and Eugene Volokh.

But wait! Is that Lindsey Graham I see in there? The Lindsey Graham who abetted McCain's abandonment of qualified, competent Bush nominees and undermined deployment of the Constitutional Option?

Let us hope the Committee makes its decisions by majority vote.

McCain's Health Care Proposal

Today on NRO, John McCain sets out his health care proposal. To my inexpert eye, the proposal seems to incorporate the best learning on this subject from the last several years. (I am curious to know what our resident economists think.)

The centerpiece of the proposal is individualized tax credits, which would supplement the credits currently granted to employers who insure their employees. A taxpayer who chooses the individual credit would be free to choose an insurer, to whom the credit would be paid on the taxpayers behalf. The system is designed to increase competition, with its attendant increase in quality and decrease in cost, while also increasing access.

Tax credits, which directly reduce tax liability, are more valuable than tax deductions, which reduce taxable income and thus only indirectly reduce tax liability. However, neither a credit nor a deduction is much use to someone who pays no taxes. Many of the poorest Americans have no tax liability. It is not clear how McCain's tax credit might benefit them. On the other hand, the poorest Americans are often eligible for Medicaid, and have their basic health care needs covered through that federal welfare program.

Kudos to McCain for a promising proposal. The man looks more conservative by the week.

10 Reasons to vote for McCain

Provided by Moveon.org...

GOP donors missing

According to Jonathan Martin the donors who supported the Romney and Thompson campaigns are not lining up to write checks for the campaign campaign. Martin also notices this:

The absence of K Street types who backed other candidates during the primary is especially puzzling given the hard truth that McCain is likely the GOP's only real chance at victory. Re-taking the House and Senate almost certainly won't happen, so why wouldn't donors want to get on the good side of the one Republican who has a shot to be running a branch of government next January?

Puzzling indeed. Perhaps they would rather have a Dem than McCain. Team McCain should snip this graph and trumpet it to the world. "K street lobbyists oppose McCain!" In a day and age where the lobbying profession is at an all time low in public opinion polls, this could be a silver lining in the otherwise discouraging news about fund raising.

Hypocrisy charge leveled against McCain

McCain can be called a lot of things, but I think hypocrite is not one of them. Nevertheless, a reporter from National Journal is trying to stir up a hypocrisy controversy that does not exist. We all know that McCain has been the leading critic of pork-barrel spending in Congress. We also all know that while the Dems are tearing themselves apart, he is on his bio-tour reintroducing himself to the American people.

Today National Journal's Hotline Blog smells a hypocrite:

John McCain has railed against earmarks in Washington and on the campaign trail, but tomorrow his week-long bio tour heads to Jacksonville's Naval Air Station Cecil Field, a big-time beneficiary of pork. Between 2001 and 2005, Cecil Field received almost $10M in earmarked funds, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Here's the skinny:

$1M in 2005 for operation and maintenance

$1.2M in 2004 for operation and maintenance

$2.5M in 2003 for operation and maintenance

$2M in 2002 for operation and maintenance

$3M in 2001 for operation and maintenance

$215K in 2001 for an economic development initiative

One assumes that Cecil Field is somehow a part of John McCain's bio, and that -- not the fact that it has been a federal earmark recipient -- is the reason for stopping there. And given McCain's age, Cecil Field would likely not have been receiving federal earmarks at the time because the practice had yet to infect Congress.

Even if Cecil Field has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's past, he did not earmark these funds. Finally, there is hardly a military installation in this country that has not received federal earmarks. Should the would-be Commander in Chief not visit any of these facilities that house those who he wishes to command?

Can McCain reject this endorsement?

The Hills' Heidi Montag is endorsing John McCain for President. If you have never heard of MTV's The Hills or Heidi Montag, consider yourself one of the lucky ones.

No word yet on whether Team McCain can engineer a total coup by securing the support of Montag's boyfriend (ex?) super cool guy Spencer Pratt.

McCain: The Anti-Republican?

I will not dispute the growing conventional wisdom that John McCain's very good standing in the polls has a lot to do with his reputed "maverickness." As Vaughn Ververs points out, the fact that voters cannot saddle John McCain with the Republican Party's baggage is making all the difference in an election year in which a generic Democrat is preferred to a generic Republican 50 percent to 37 percent. If I am a betting Dem, I like those odds.

But McCain defies the odds.

All the years he has spent being a perpetual pain in the ass to his fellow Republicans are finally paying off. His apostasy on taxes, on immigration, on the 1st Amendment...these are becoming the stuff of legends. And for that apostasy the media will repay him handsomely.

But there is an irony here that is being overlooked. John McCain's contrarian stands -- with the exception of his steadfastness on the issue of federal spending -- have all come at the expense of traditional conservatives, not today's Republican Party. The media would have us believe that traditional conservatives and today's GOP are on in the same. They are not.

Since the 1994 Republican Revolution, the Party has been sliding slowly leftward. Over the course of the last 13 years, the Party has ceased to be what it once was. It has abandoned the principles that made it great. The revolutionaries that came to Washington to change it became part of it -- and they liked it.

And as the Party has moved leftward on issues like immigration, taxes and the 1st Amendment, it has become more in line with McCain while being out of step with traditional, mainstream conservatism.

Don't forget, the media's favorite issue to cite as exhibit A of McCain's maverick status is immigration. But on that issue he had the backing of most of the GOP establishment. Remember, the bill only failed because a handful of conservatives hijacked the Senate floor to stall the bill's passage. This stalling bought time and forced the bill to crumble under the weight of its many inadequacies. So McCain was not so much out of step with his Party on the issue as he was with the American people in general.

At a time when the Republican Party promotes bills like this, it is traditional conservatives who deserve the maverick label more than John McCain. McCain is less of a maverick than he is a party unto himself.

McCain/Romney '08?

John McCain and Mitt Romney are palling around together in Utah. The fact that they are able to work together now is a testament to the character of both men after a bruising battle. Many involved in the Romney vs. McCain primary showdown have still not been able to bury the hatchet.

So the question arises: could John McCain pick Romney as his Vice President?

He could do far far worse.

Romney towards the end of his campaign won the hearts of conservatives. He is a brilliant debater, he is a mega-self-financer at a time when the GOP is having their rears served to them on a silver platter from the Dems in the fund raising game, and he adds youth and executive experience -- all things currently lacking from the McCain ticket.

Plus he is taller than everyone in the room. Seriously, the dude is tall. Tall guys win elections.

McCain's economic plan

Jack Kemp promotes the McCain economic plan:



Key quote from Kemp: "[McCain] said that creating a better investment climate, cutting the corporate income tax rate, repealing the amt, making permanent by 15% dividend and capital-gains tax will encourage a stronger demand for the united states dollar here and around the world. that's something that separates him from the bush white house and certainly separates him from the democratic party."

That menu right there is a smart menu of tax cuts. They are not sweeping across the board cuts, but rather targeted, pro-growth cuts that will yield results. I like the menu because it is designed with one thing in mind: to keep America's economy humming along as a global leader. We need them now more than ever as we are falling behind many of our global competitors.

McCain's POW ad

I am continually impressed with the videos being released by the McCain team. The last one was one of the best political ads I have ever seen. This one tells the story of John McCain's heroism as a POW. It is worth watching.



If nothing else, McCain's candidacy should remind Americans of the value of service.

McCain the Reformer

Team McCain has to love this Novak article which pits McCain squarely against the status-quo-protecting old bulls in his party. The more people see McCain as a politician willing to break with his party, the better off he is. On this particular issue, McCain has the added bonus that he is breaking with his party in the direction of conservatives. Two-fer!

Pence on McCain, Conservatism

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, a rising star in the conservative movement, made some comments about the McCain campaign today on Fox News Sunday:



Pence's name has been floated by some as a potential Vice Presidential pick for John McCain. The upsides to such a pick are obvious. Pence has conservative credentials with both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, he is well spoken, articulate and telegenic. Plus he adds a youthful feel to a ticket that is likely to battle Mr. Youthy himself.

The downside to this pick is it makes the ticket legislator-heavy and lacking executive experience.

The sleepy old Senate

There are reasons to dislike McCain, but his crusade against the wasteful and corrupting practice of pork barrel spending -- or earmarking as Washingtonians call it -- is not one of them. But don't tell this to the Old Guard who runs the Senate GOP. Unlike their House counterparts led by John Boehner, Senate GOP leadership is drawing a line in the sand against their Party's nominee. Come hell or high water, they are going to maintain their right to use taxpayer dollars to buy reelection.

The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel explains:

Newly minted presidential nominee John McCain stepped into the Rose Garden this week to receive President Bush's blessing. What the cameras didn't catch were pork-addicted congressional Republicans blowing raspberries from their offices.

With all the talk about how Mr. McCain needs to unify his party, lost has been the question of whether some people will let him. Washington Republicans know he's their best shot at retaining the White House. Yet many remain ambivalent about him -- not because they question his conservatism, but out of resentment that he may get in the way of their earmarks.

This has resulted in a behind-the-scenes brawl, as spend-happy Republicans resist efforts by wiser heads to fall in behind Mr. McCain's anti-earmark message. At best, the spenders risk an embarrassing pummeling by their own nominee that could hurt them in their own re-election campaigns. At worst, they could undercut one of Mr. McCain's more persuasive messages.

Read it all.

Well, is he right or not?

John McCain states the obvious, and even Drudge jumps on him. McCain pointed out that Barack Obama's obsession with the 2003 decision to invade Iraq is a regrettable focus on the past rather than problems and policies of the present and future. The point is valid, and important. But ABC News finds the statement "an interesting claim from the man seeking to be the oldest American ever first elected president — about a candidate 25 years his junior." Drudge apparently agrees, including McCain's age (71) in his headline. Once again, Democrats make policy criticisms and the press gives them a free pass. The leading Republican criticizes his opponent's policy proposal and all the press cares to focus on is the Republican candidate's age.

By the bye, what is true about Obama's obsession with the Iraq War is also true of his policy proposals generally. As Titus has pointed out, Obama's ideas are more of the same liberal ideas that impeded American prosperity, freedom, and strength for long stretches of the Twentieth Century. That Obama dresses these failed ideas up as hopeful does not mitigate his status as the Candidate of the Past.

Hey, look at that. We've got a new nickname for the junior Senator from Illinois. Maybe McCain is more savvy than we know.

Earth to David Brooks

I am stunned. This, from David Brooks' column today:

We’re going to have two extraordinary nominees for president this year. This could be one of the great general election campaigns in American history. The only thing that could ruin it is if the candidates become demagogues and hurl accusations at each other that are an insult to reality and common sense.

Barack Obama and John McCain are lots of things, but to assert that either of them (let alone both) is an extraordinary nominee is to avoid all rational inferences. McCain is an extraordinary patriot. Obama has extraordinary self-regard. But does anyone other than David Brooks think that McCain and Obama represent the best America has to offer in the way of presidential nominees?

And Brooks' second assertion is as laughable as his first. One of the great campaigns in history? really? How much history does Brooks mean to encompass? Brooks' American history cannot include Adams v. Jefferson, Quincy Adams v. Jackson, Lincoln v. Everyone, Truman v. Dewey, Kennedy v. Nixon, Reagan v. Carter, or Bush v. Gore.

Romney vs. Huckabee in 2012

It's way too early to start making predictions but I'm going to do it anyway. Senator McCain certainly has a chance of winning this November, but right now the smart money is on Senator Obama. If Obama does win, who will be the Republican nominee in 2012? A story in the Washington Post today sheds light on this question, pointing out the recent trend in Republican politics of nominating the candidate that came in second in the previous contest.

When you go back more than 30 years to the birth of the modern presidential primary system, in fact, the only Republican to have won his party's nomination for president without having come in second in the previous open primary election was George W. Bush, who sought the presidency for the first time in 2000. But even this is barely an exception to the rule, because the Republican who came in second in the previous open election, in 1996, was Pat Buchanan -- and he ran for president in 2000 as the candidate of the Reform Party.

At this point in the campaign, Romney is considered the runner up to McCain and is well-positioned to win the nomination in four years should McCain lose this November. This explains why Governor Huckabee has stubbornly refused to withdraw from the race. He wants to run again and wants to be seen as the true runner up in this year's contest. Hopefully Republicans will remember that this race was really between McCain and Romney, and that it was Romney who quickly withdrew and graciously backed the eventual nominee.

Hold on to this video

Senator McCain pledged today to oppose new taxes:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So on taxes, are you a “read my lips” candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?

MCCAIN: No new taxes I do not — in fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT. There’s a lot of things that I would think we should to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But under no circumstances would you increase taxes?

MCCAIN: No.

1st amendment and respect for the text

Titus makes an interesting point. That a justice who ignores the First Amendment would also find in the constitution a right to kill the unborn seems like a logical inference. In both instances, the justice would be ignoring the text of the constitution and substituting his or her own (liberal) policy preferences. So there is perhaps reason to believe that a justice who passes McCain's litmus test on McCain-Feingold (which he denies any intention to use, for what it's worth) would also leave originalists and conservatives out to dry on abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues.

So is there an actual correlation between a restrictive view of the First Amendment speech clause and an expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, on which the rights of abortion and sodomy are supposed to rest? Actually, yes.

The five justices who upheld portions of McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. F.E.C.: Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Souter, Stevens. The four who voted against M-F: Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas.

The four justices who dissented in last term's Gonzales v. Carhart decision, in which the Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens. The five who voted to uphold the ban: Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Substitute Rehnquist for Roberts and the correlation becomes clearer. Note that O'Connor voted in the plurality in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, then substitute O'Connor for Alito, and the correlation is clearer still. (And note how important the Alito confirmation was.)

The correlation is not direct, of course. Kennedy wrote the infamous plurality opinion in Casey and the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, creating a right to homosexual sodomy. But Kennedy is surely a special case, being as inconsistent as he is in his jurisprudence.

Big Mac on judges

Bench Memos is ablaze today with a conflagration over John McCain's privately-expressed opinion that Justice Alito was a bad pick for SCOTUS because he "wears his conservatism on his sleeve." The reader bears in mind that McCain is the same Senator who, with Russ Feingold, sponsored the most effective curb on political speech to come out of Congress in decades. So, one reasonable interpretation of "wears his conservatism on his sleeve" might be "thinks that the First Amendment means what it says."

Whatever McCain meant by the statement, the statement is surely troubling. If McCain means that Alito is a judicial activist who substitutes conservative policy preferences for considered legal reasoning then the statement is simply wrong as a factual matter. This calls McCain's veracity into question. This is not to say that McCain lied. Perhaps McCain misrepresented the truth because he wasn't paying attention during the Alito confirmation hearings. (Was he asleep, bored, playing video games? I was 2000 miles from the Capitol yet I watched with intense interest.)

If McCain intended to equate originalism with conservatism, then we have a real problem on our hands, as Wendy Long explains.

McCain Misleads on Taxes ... Again

McCain has been misleading voters about the reason for his opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. At the time, he said it was because they favored the rich. Now he says it was because he wanted additional spending cuts.

Now, McCain is misleading voters about his opposition to making these tax cuts permanent. At the time, he said it was because extending them would increase the deficit. But today, on Meet the Press, McCain said it was because the economy in 2004 "was fine". He said he is now in favor of making them permanent because the economy has become "shaky". Check it out:



The national unemployment rate was HIGHER in June of 2004 (5.6%) when McCain said he opposed making the tax cuts permanent than it is today (5.0%). Also, the national unemployment rate in May of 2003 when he voted against the pro-growth tax cuts was over a full point HIGHER (6.1%) than it is today. In both instances, McCain opposed the tax relief when the economy was more "shaky" than it is now.

Nice try, Senator, but the only reason you are concerned about the economy now and claim to support making tax relief permanent is because your economic record is coming back to haunt you and could cost you the Republican nomination.