McCain would appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court

From The Washington Post:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.

Those key issues do not include McCain's firmly held nonconservative positions on campaign finance reform and global warming. Rather, conservatives among the second group want two assurances: first, that McCain would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress; second, that he would not emulate Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush in naming liberal Supreme Court justices such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

As I have said before and will say again, McCain's entire career (other than the single fact of his support for the Surge in Iraq) consists of partnering with liberal Democrats to shaft conservative Republicans.

During the next president's term in office two and perhaps three Supreme Court justices will retire and if Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama is the president judicial nominees will be cleared with Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer.

It is as simple as that. No matter what he says on the campaign trail (remember McCain is a proven liar) he will coordinate his efforts as president not with conservative Republicans but with liberal Democrats.

I want all of you conservatives who keep yammering on about "the judges, the judges, the judges. . ." as the reason we must hold our noses and vote Republican regardless of who the nominee is to learn this and learn it well:

If John McCain is the next president his judicial appointments will be modeled on David Hackett Souter, a nominal Republican who consistently votes with the left-wing members of the court like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

As I said, I want you Republicans who care deeply about the makeup of the High Court to learn this well. I want you to stare at the above paragraph until blood pours from your eyes. I want you to take this information down deep into your soul and let it permeate every particle of your being. I want you to understand at the level of primal instinct that a vote for McCain, where the courts are concerned, is exactly the same as a vote for Hillary Clinton.

And then I want you to act on that knowledge by voting for Mitt Romney in the primary in your state. Forget about Mike Huckabee. He is not going to win and he knows it. At this point he is in the race only to draw conservative voters away from Mitt Romney and divide the "anti-McCain" vote. I don't know what McCain has offered him in exchange for his treacherous and deceitful actions (I hope that it is a great deal because a man should not damn his soul for pennies) but whatever the price was Huckabee has been bought.

The next thing I want you to do is to form the unalterable determination in your heart that if McCain is the nominee that you will not vote for him. You will go to the polls and vote for Republicans in the House and Senate races and in all your state and local races but you will leave the top of the ticket blank.

The purpose of this is to send the message that "I am a Republican and I voted for Republicans but since there was no real Republican running for president this time I didn't cast a vote for president".

I know that some of you are thinking that if you want to send a message you should use Western Union, but sometimes that is the only weapon you have available.

If we follow this strategy we have a good chance of bringing in a Republican legislature along with a Democrat White House. If this happens Republicans in congress can gridlock government and prevent any new socialist programs or tax increases from becoming law. They can hold government spending at its current levels just like they did in the first Clinton presidency.

However it will be much harder for a Republican legislature to act in a similar way against a liberal Republican president. Remember how difficult it was to fight Bush on Harriet Meyers and amnesty. Yes we got the job done in the end, but it was made vastly more difficult by the fact that we were having to circumvent "our own guy" in the White House.

It will be far better for the nation to have a bad Democrat in the White House than a bad Republican because at least the Democrats will get the blame. And when the public goes to the polls in the next election to vote for a change of direction they will be voting for a Republican rather than for a Democrat.

Remember, it took Carter to give us Reagan.