Jim Geraghty mulls the flap over Senator John McCain’s alleged statement expressing doubt as to hwther he would have nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:
One other… odd thing about the Fund column — and I don’t want this to be interpreted as questioning Fund’s reporting, because he’s a pro and I trust him. But if a potential GOP presidential nominee said that he was kind of iffy on Alito, one of the few true clear-cut victories for conservatism in recent years, wouldn’t you think that by the time McCain finished the following sentence, everyone in the audience would have already typed into their Blackberries, “U WON’T BELIEVE WHAT McC JUST SAID” and begun preparing their furious denunciations? Wouldn’t the conservatives who heard it be knocking people over in order to get in front of a camera to rip McCain for saying that? Or was this some odd crowd of conservatives who thought Alito was crassly vocal in his conservatism?
Flip side — if you look at McCain’s statements yesterday, you’ll notice he and his campaign are careful to not come out and say, “Fund and/or his sources are damn liars.” This is a stunningly damaging quote, with little detail on where and when it was said, stuck in the middle of a story about how McCain can warm his relationship with the right, coming the day before the primary that could make McCain the clear frontrunner and the guy in the driver’s seat for Super Tuesday. If Fund’s quote is wrong, isn’t there a strange lack of outrage from McCain?
UPDATE: A couple readers think this is setting up a Catch-22, where I’m finding McCain’s response strangely muted, while over in the Corner some posters talk about McCain’s temper. All I’m saying is that McCain either said it or he didn’t; if he didn’t say it — or if there was some sort of wildly different context to the quote — then somebody lied to John Fund, and somebody made sure a really damaging lie hit the news world 24 hours before the Florida primary. An act like that should generate some outrage.
If “somebody lied to John Fund,” who benefits? Obviously, Mitt Romney. Perhaps the whole thing is the latest dirty trick from the Romney campaign.
Dear Professor Bainbridge: Perhaps it isn’t. Your anti-Romney bias is showing here:
1. Fund claims more than one source told him the McCain-Alito tale. Here’s a link:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/29/audio-john-fund-stands-by-mccainalito-report/
and another:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDM5ZTcxZDkzNmU5YjQ4YjBhZTgxZDkyNGNlNjI1ZGQ=
If Fund is telling the truth and has multiple sources, it can only mean he’s the victim of a conspiracy. Who benefits? Could be Mitt Romney. Could also be Mike Huckabee taking lessons from Dick Morris, knowing that there are plenty of anti-Romney people who will take their daily exercise by jumping to conclusions, and bawling Down with Mitt, the dog basher.
2. It could also be that McCain is sort of telling the truth. As you have proven, McC has made many statements whooping for Alito. But it could be that he is beginning to have doubts. Possibly Alito has written an opinion that McC doesn’t care for. So, in the heat of a campaign, he blurts out his reservations, regrets it almost immediately, and promptly yells for his squid squad to start ejecting ink. Are you telling me that McC has never shot from the hip in his life? Certainly this explanation is as plausible as Mitt-as-Mormon-conspirator-against-the-war-hero-McC.
Given that you have roared for the primacy of not having 5-4 Supreme Court decisions on social policy, I should think this would make you vote early and often in the primary. To be sure, in the fall election, your vote will be swamped, but better early than never.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster