Want some additional confirmation that the Obama campaign is nothing more then a “movement” of empty platitudes? Check out the endorsement for him given by Doug Kmiec that is super heavy on those platitudes. In it he is essentially endorsing someone who shares absolutely NONE of his values and does not agree with any of his policies (save one), but in his words, seems to be a honest fella.
How does a Romney guy, who served as co-chair on his PAC somehow, someway, move from Romney to Obama. A move that is beyond a small step but is in fact a giant leap. Hell, its a Evil Knievel rocket launch across the Grand Canyon.
The endorsement is thin on facts, heavy on sentiment. Basically comes down to the fact that he acknowledges the Senator disagrees with him on pretty much every issue but hopes the man “is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”
Good way to pick a President?
Paul Mirengoff from Powerline recalls how Mr. Kmiec wrote a piece for their blog explaining why he was for Romney:
Kmiec went on to identify the issues of particular concern to him as to which Romney had demonstrated a correct understanding of the rule of law, as well as the proper role of judges. He cited the question of the applicability of the writ of habeas corpus to the continuing reality of terrorism, wondering whether military commanders really were going to be hauled into district court to answer those captured in battle. He also identified the issues of child pornography, the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, the misguided efforts of judges to second-guess Congress’ stiff sentences for using and dealing crack cocaine, and the requirement by states of proper identification by those seeking to vote (which Kmiec viewed as raising no legitimate civil rights issue).
Having thus established what purportedly matters to him, from a legal standpoint, in a president, one might have expected Kmiec to consider how any future candidate he would endorse stacks up on these issues. Indeed, intellectual honesty would seem to require no less.
In his endorsement of Obama, though, Kmiec is entirely silent on all of the specific issues that mattered to him less than half a year ago. And for good reason. There is no indication that Obama agrees with him on the rights of terrorist detainees, the sentencing of crack cocaine users and distributors, the hand-gun ban issue, and preventing voting fraud (not to mention the social issues — e.g., the rights of the unborn — Kmiec cites in his endorsement of Obama).
On the more general, and crucial, questions of the rule of law and the proper role of judges, the best Kmiec can offer is: “I am convinced based upon [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.” But why conservatives should vote for a candidate who probably respects conservative views, instead of a candidate who more often than not agrees with them, Kmiec never explains.
Kmiec assures us that Obama “will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.” That’s nice. But why has Kmiec abandoned the standard he applied last October — “mak[ing] nominations in the tradition of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, and before all else, insist[ing] that the women and men to be appointed have a demonstrated record of valuing the rule of law.” Kmiec doesn’t say.
Paul also points out that Mr. Kmiec takes issue with Bush’s Iraq policy. On first glance you would have to surmise that he is trashing all of his beliefs that he holds dear to force a change in a policy he doesn’t agree with. Seems simple enough right? But he backed Romney, who was not going to change the policy so that goes out the window.
Could it be as simple as backing a fellow lawyer?
See author page
My theory is that republicans who support Obama harbor guilt over their own racism. (probably not overt racism) Supporting Obama makes them feel better about themselves.
I’ve been around long enough to see how this happens. In the late 50s and early 60s I attended a private school. The school was progressive for that era, and though there were few Jewish kids in the school, the Jewish kids were voted president of the student counsel, class president etc.
Of course, today the student counsel president is black.
It’s affirmative action by proxy.
I think he is hedging his bet and hoping for a job in the executive branch. If Obama wins, he can say he endorsed Obama and he might get a job. If McCain wins, he can claim that he worked with two Republican presidents. If Clinton wins, which is the most doubtful, then he probably will have to wait till the next election. My take is, he feels that Clinton will not win the presidency otherwise he would have endorsed her since she and Obama basically share the same voting record.
I just was discussing my comment with Mrs. X. She said it was more white guilt then racism. However, when you pick a candidate because of his race, isn’t that just another form of racism?
Pepperdine University…wasn’t that Ken Starr’s school?
Mrs X says that when you want someone to be president of the USA who has a long record of being against everything you stand for, and believe he will change when in office, it shows that you can be really well-educated but incredibly naive.
My take is that this guy either A) hates McCain or 2) Has had a stroke, leaving him impaired.
Curt, you mention that Mitt was planning on continuing the Bush policy. Yet Romney’s foreign policy generally focused more on Iran than Iraq. In fact, for his “issue statements” on his campaign webstie, he declined to give a position on Iraq. I’m not as all fired sure what he would have done, and suspect he left himself wiggle room for the future.
He said he’s for alternative energy, yet he teamed up with Kennedy to block the Cape Cod wind farm for fears that fears that it would damage tourism, and devalue properties within sight of the wind farm. Then, of course, there’s the MA universal health care Mitt penned into existence.
In that vein, maybe that “Evil Knievel rocket launch across the Grand Canyon” (very funny, BTW) is really more like a stone throw across the LA river. Not such a stretch for endorsement after all. In fact, if anything else, it should make you wonder what else he knew of Romney’s actual positions that the GOP public did not via primary season.
Jus’ one girl’s opinion.
I have read nothing from Mitt that indicated he would run from Iraq like Obama is calling for. Last July:
Nope, don’t think his policy is as abhorrent as the DNC position. So yes, he was superior to Obama or Hillary. And yes, I would have cast a reluctant vote for Mitt over the DNC selections at the time. But he was always more “nuanced” on his responses on Iraq (as RiehlWorldView put it.)
An example of that nuanced statement is his May 15th debate answer
Note he was somewhat vague on specifics to back up his opinion that Iraq was a center for the battle against the jihad movement. He also never actually answered the direct question “do you foresee any circumstance under which you would pull out of Iraq…” I would have been content with an emphatic “NO”.
Also, while I don’t suggest we should have a permanent base in Iraq, nor do I think that should be off the table either until events and Iraq’s requests of the future are considered. They may just desire a US base there for security back up. Hard to predict.
Then there was that “consult the WH legal counsel” bit…