Senator Obama responded to McCain's statement about not imposing a litmus test on Supreme Court nominees, Obama offered the most incredulous response possible.
"I agree that we should not impose a litmus test."
This from the man who voted against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in their confirmations purely upon his adherence to a litmus test.
Unbelievably disingenuous. And I wonder if that little moment was caught by anyone...
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (10)
For anyone that thinks Sena... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Dee | October 15, 2008 10:26 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
For anyone that thinks Senator Obama is truly a centrist, you are COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL. He tried his best to come across as mainstream, but he got exposed tonight. On abortion, on education, on taxes... If you vote for this guy, then you get what you deserve.
1. Posted by Dee | October 15, 2008 10:26 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2008 22:26
2. Posted by DoninFla | October 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
The Os lips were moving....
//Need I?
2. Posted by DoninFla | October 15, 2008 10:31 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2008 22:31
3. Posted by macy | October 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
He said - I agree we shouldn't apply a 'strict' litmus test.
Just a, yaknow, regular ol litmus test.
3. Posted by macy | October 15, 2008 10:49 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2008 22:49
4. Posted by Rance | October 15, 2008 10:56 PM | Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Correct me if I'm wrong (did I really need to say that?) but didn't John McCain say, and I paraphrase,
"I don't believe in a Roe v. Wade litmus test. I would base my choices on judicial temperament. And by the way any judge who would uphold Roe v. Wade doesn't have the right temperament."
4. Posted by Rance | October 15, 2008 10:56 PM |
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2008 22:56
5. Posted by Paul Hooson | October 15, 2008 11:29 PM | Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
John Roberts had a long established record as a corporate lawyer for corporate polluters involved in causing substantial environmental damage. This alone was a reasonable basis to reject his nomination as a justice who would side with corporate polluters and not the average citizen's rights to clean water or air.
5. Posted by Paul Hooson | October 15, 2008 11:29 PM |
Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on October 15, 2008 23:29
6. Posted by Justrand
| October 16, 2008 12:00 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Paul Hooson, so you rejected Ruth Ginsburg on the basis of her having been the lawyer for the ACLU...right??
Right??
6. Posted by Justrand
| October 16, 2008 12:00 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2008 00:00
7. Posted by Brian | October 16, 2008 2:48 AM | Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Correct me if I'm wrong (did I really need to say that?) but didn't John McCain say, and I paraphrase,
Yes, that's exactly what he said (paraphrased).
7. Posted by Brian | October 16, 2008 2:48 AM |
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2008 02:48
8. Posted by Brian | October 16, 2008 2:50 AM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
This from the man who voted against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito
Actually, according to McCain, Sen. Government voted against Roberts and Breyer.
8. Posted by Brian | October 16, 2008 2:50 AM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2008 02:50
9. Posted by Sheik Yur Bouty | October 16, 2008 5:28 AM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Yes, Brian. It was a simple mis-statement.
Unless you live in Lee Ward land. Then it was a LIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!
9. Posted by Sheik Yur Bouty | October 16, 2008 5:28 AM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2008 05:28
10. Posted by rodney dill | October 16, 2008 8:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
10. Posted by rodney dill | October 16, 2008 8:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2008 08:12