Legal Commentary

McCain on Palin (and Other Issues)

By TChris

John McCain's latest departures from the truth came on a visit to The View. McCain assured Barbara Walters that Sarah Palin would "reform all of Washington." How?

“By doing what she did in Alaska.”

What, exactly?

“First of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.”

But she also put earmarks in, Ms. Walters noted.

“Not as governor she didn’t,” Mr. McCain said.

But as governor, she did.

As the Anchorage Daily News, among others, has reported, in Ms. Palin’s first year as governor, she requested 52 earmarks valued at $256 million, and this year, her office asked the Alaska delegation in Washington to help land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million. Also, Citizens Against Government Waste ranks Alaska as having received the “most pork per capita” of all states this year.

McCain is still praising Palin for selling an airplane, although he's no longer claiming that she sold it on EBay.

Ms. Walters noted that she sold the plane at a loss.

“You wanted her to keep it?” Mr. McCain asked.

“No,” said Ms. Walters, “I wanted her to get her money back.”

McCain apparently plans to make Palin the Reform Czar in his administration:

Mr. McCain said that Ms. Palin “freed Alaska for the first time,” saying she “took government out of the hands of the special interests and the oil companies and the old-boy network and gave it back to the people of Alaska” and “that’s what we have to do in Washington.”

But what exactly will she do?

“The same thing,” Mr. McCain replied. “Break the old-boy network, the special interests that control our agenda in Washington.”

You mean like the lobbyists who advise you, Senator?

McCain on the issues (that is, the reasons to vote against him in addition to his poor judgment on Palin):

On the topic of abortion, Mr. McCain said that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, was “a very bad decision.” He said he would not impose a litmus test on any of his nominations to the Supreme Court “because that’s not fair to the American people.” But, he said, he would nominate justices who would interpret the constitution as it was written and not legislate from the bench.

In other words, more judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 12, 2008 (boomark / email).