McCain, the Club for Growth, and Judges

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey has a hard hitting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about Senator McCain. Of course I agree with Pat, but I really can’t blame McCain for not wanting to be a Daniel going into the lions’ den.

In concluding his piece, Pat writes

While Sen. McCain’s economic record is clearly mixed, a careful study demonstrates that even his pro-growth positions tend to be tainted by a heavy anti-growth undercurrent. This evidence, and the virulence of his rhetoric, suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently pro-growth economic policies from a McCain administration.

The whole piece outlines McCain’s big government ways and BCRA predilections.

Now, here’s where I want to chime in. McCain has dedicated his last few years to regulating political speech. Were he to become President, you’d think he would want to appoint judges who would uphold his legacy of campaign finance reform. It seems to me that a judge who would find room in the Bill of Rights to regulate political speech as Mr. McCain has advocated would more likely than not also have a propensity to find abortion rights in the Bill of Rights.

In John McCain’s zeal to uphold his legacy of restricting the first amendment, I believe we’d get some truly horrible judicial nominees — ones who are willing to uphold Roe v. Wade and other bad ruling, just so Sen. McCain could protect his campaign finance reform legacy.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

2 Comments

  • Couple questions for you Erik.

    Given then the deficit last year was 450 Billion dollars, the GAO has projected that this number will increase dramatically over the next 10-15 years, and the GAO stated that growing out of this problem wasn’t possible what tax policy would you propose?

    And from the op-ed “Over the years, Sen. McCain has supported a number of other big-government bills, including an amendment that would authorize the government to set prices on prescription drugs under Medicare”

    Did he vote to SET prices or vote to let the government use its significant buying power to negotiate lower prices, as any other buy would?

    As for the McCain-Feingold law money wasn’t being used to buy speech it was, and is, being used to buy access and bribe law makers to pass laws favoring the briber. Whether it’s in brown envelopes or checks to a PAC these money channels should be modified or ended.

    “These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don’t think that’s right.” He thus anointed himself the arbiter of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is “right” and which should be permitted in American political debate.”

    Well he and the 500 odd other members of congress, oh and of course the judiciary to which these laws can and have been appealed to. So the above statement is basically a hit job.

    While I like the club for growth I wish they would focus on real economic issues facing our nation and cut back on the hyperbole.

  • FAP:
    Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Here you go:

    (1) Actually, the deficit is going down. In fact, it fell more sharply than expected and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (that’s the one that tracks the deficit) projects that by 2012 we’ll have a surplus.

    (2) McCain did not vote to *set* the price, but to negotiate. But, that word mischaracterizes the situation. Between private parties, either side can walk away. Under the medicare prescription drug price negotiations, the pharmaceutical companies cannot walk away. They have to agree with the government.

    (3) Actually, money was being used to buy speech. It was being used to buy speech time from individuals via groups and BCRA prohibits that political speech within sixty days of an election from an broadcast. The Supreme Court has called that into question and the matter is now being litigated.