John McCain last night:
Schieffer: But even if it was someone even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?
McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
First, he'd consider anyone "in their qualifications." Then he says that support for Roe v. Wade would be a qualification that would cause him to reject a candidate. But then he says there's no litmus test.
What did that mean? Just random incoherence? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing?
Almost surely random incoherence. McCain first wanted to reach out to swing voters, who want judges who will consider each case on its merits, and not bring ideology to the bench. So he gave that answer. Then he remembered that he's not carrying his base, and decided to pander to them for a while. They want to hear that he'll appoint judges who will reject Roe. They've developed a whole system of dogwhistles he could use so that he wouldn't seem to be contradicting himself ("strict constructionist" is fairly standard). But McCain couldn't remember the codewords, so he just stated that accepting Roe v. Wade would disqualify any judge from being a nominee. This is clearly a litmus test, but to show that he's a maverick, he then had to go back to insisting that he would apply no litmus test.
And yet he finds it offensive when people call him erratic.
- Log in to post comments
Much as I hate to admit it, I think I understand what he was saying...
It's like me saying this: When it comes to electing my Kansas state officials, I'm not entirely a single-issue voter on the question of evolution. However it's a pretty sure thing that a candidate I would support, because of their stand on a whole range of issues, would always be in favor of teaching evolution. That's just the grouping of attributes that seem to come together.
McCain wouldn't use Roe v Wade as a litmus, per se, but the judges he wants (ie, strict contructionists who see no right to privacy in the Constitution or anything else that isn't there verbatim) are the kind that wouldn't support it anyway.
Damn I hate defending that man...
My reading of McCain's comment is that he is treating someone's view of Roe v. Wade as a qualifying or disqualifying factor, which makes it a litmus test. You are arguing that evolution acceptance is correlated with many other good things, but is not a necessary qualification.