My colleague Stephen Bainbridge asks, about Pepperdine constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec, "Seriously, how do you flip from Romney to Obama?" Bainbridge can't see a good answer to that. More:
When he was still on board the Romney campaign, Kmiec wrote that:
Mitt Romney is pledged to name to the Supreme Court individuals with the intellectual qualities and philosophy of judicial restraint of Justice Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.
In Barack Obama’s brief stint in the Senate, he had the opportunity to vote on both Roberts and Alito’s nominations. He voted no on both. How do you go from supporting a candidate pledged to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito to backing one who voted against them?
Finally, in the same NRO column, Kmiec explained why he favored Romney over Giuliani by noting that “we cannot afford a president who is only faking his attachment to conservative legal principle.” But Obama has no such attachment, real or faked!
Moreover, it is perfectly consistent to believe that Supreme Court justices are very, very important; but that other issues (like war and peace) are even more important.
Kmiec's endorsement is pretty shocking, but lets not attempt to say he is being irrational or disingenuous here.
Ah, so now you are going to tell us what 'war and peace' issues that Romney is closer to Obama on as opposed to McCain? Or would that require too much consistency?
They couldn't be more wrong.
I bet he can read, and he just doesn't like Kmiec's rationale.
A. Romney > McCain
B. Obama > McCain
In arguing in favor of "A," I would have said (indeed, I did say) that Romney's commitment to appointing "strict constructionist" judges appeared much stronger than McCain's, and that this was one important reason to support him.
But it was hardly the only important reason.
If we were voting for the post of Federal Judicial Appointment Czar, well, yes, Bainbridge would have a point.
It's just amazing how rabid conservatives have become. Kmiec has been a loyal party player, head of the OLC for Ronald Reagan, a pro bono consultant to many "conserative" causes, and long-time voice for the conservative movement.
But when he deviates from the party line just once, he's a scoundrel.
Let's get real: Bainbridge and others are accusing him of lying. Fine, if that's your accusation, stop being a cowardly punk and just make it.
And then prove it.
What issues do Romney and Obama agree on that they disagree with McCain on?
Obama is not an idiot.
McCain *is* an idiot.
If your preference is not, a la John Derbyshire, "my party, right or wrong," but rather, "non-idiots over idiots," then Obama is a superior choice to McCain.
Really, people, I don't see what's hard about this one.
I think the general theme is WTF?
As in, how did he get from there to here?
Seems like a reasonable question. And if Kmiec's writing on the subject does not satisfy in terms of logic, his own history, and/or the contradiction between the likelihood of his action getting what he wants and the likelihood of his action getting what he claims he does not want, then some will seek other possible explanations.
Me, I figure he just found out Hillary didn't get his FBI file. Free at last, free at last....
Why?
He has issued a statement, a couple of clarifying statements, and given several interviews further re-stating his position. His position is quite clear - if you believe him.
People are doubting his word.
What has he done to deserve these accusations of dishonest or hidden motive?
Oh, that's right: He departed from the party line.
This whole incident is just a reminder of what thoughtless hacks people have become.
No? Law professor and conservative blogger Tom Smith did: "With all due respect to Professor Kmeic, I view this as a fairly transparent effort to cosy up to the person the Professor has calculated will be the next POTUS." That's a very common accusation.
Again, why is there any confusion? Has Kmiec not spilled enough virtual ink answering questions?
If you take him at his word, his explanation makes perfect sense. If you do not take him at his word (i.e., you think he's lying), then his explanation makes no sense.
It's really that simple.
I agree, though, it's hard to square support for Obama with Romney's campaign rhetoric.
His empty endorsement of Obama brings to mind his over-the-top praise for rigidly left-wing law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.
Kmiec is making himself the good housebroken conservative that liberals can point to when they wish to claim that "even many conservatives admit [fill in the blank]" and to denigrate conservatives in general as extreme.
Kmiec is trying to ingratiate himself with his colleagues in liberal academia...
You couldn't be more wrong I think Kmiec had too much integrity to change is values to conform to academic collegues.
I think he's trying to impress a chick. Chick's dig Obama supporters.
Finally, a clear, concise and emimently plausible explanation we can all buy into. Could be another Sunstein/Power situation.
And with whom are you trying to ingratiate yourself, Hans, by making stuff up without any basis whatsoever?
Or are you trying to pick up conservative chicks?
Kazinski--"I think he's trying to impress a chick. Chick's dig Obama supporters."
You're on to something, my friend.
Though the chick theory sounds good, too.
There is a person, who gave a host of reasons that he liked a canidate, and then he switched to another, that by all rational analysis of those reasons is much, much worse in the sense of not adhering to those reasons when another that matched them much more closely was available.
Either one of the following is true:
1. The reasons he stated then aren't nearly as important as the ones he's relying on now, and he just kinda forgot to mention them.
2. He's flighty enough that his core principles change faster than election cycles can keep up with them.
3. Reasons and/or principles for him are mere words: merely something you fill in the blank to make a decision you already came to look like the product of reason.
And all the "Amazingly enough, some voters go beyond the single issue in determining their preference for candidate." excuses in the world won't help. The man STATED his reasons. They are on record. He ignored them... and if you think there are more important reasons, then why didn't he think them worthy of even one comment before he changed his mind?
Oh, and I love all the reasons being attributed to his decision that NOT EVEN HE mentioned, before OR after. Reaching, much? Why?
I don't think there's anything odd in preferring Obama, who also seems like an intelligent person who will seriously consider what the professional military and intelligence leaders think, to Mr "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran".
I'll admit I think Bush's general hawkishness, and especially his eagerness to invade Iraq were mistakes. But the real tragedy has been his monumental incompetence. I don't see why it's so unbelievable that Kmiec prefers a competent hawk (Romney) to a competent dove (Obama) to an incompetent hawk (McCain).
Hasn't a large part of the right-wing blogosphere been saying the war on terror is the most important issue facing the president ever since 9/11? Why is it so hard to believe Kmiec agrees?
The suggestion that this is some scheme to cozy up to Obama seems ludicrous. Does anyone seriously think Obama will appoint someone with Kmeic's opinions on abortion to an important domestic position?
But from what I have read, the Professor is a person of principle and a distinguished public servant of the law as head of the OLC in two administrations.
He must have been horrified by some of the goings-on in the OLC under the G.W. Bush administration particularly in relation to the so-called "war on terror".
Professor Kmiec would have appreciated that Obama appointments will probably tend to the "living constitution" of William Brennan JR rather than to the Scalia verion of "originalism" - but the pendulum is bound to swing back and forth over the next hundred years or so until what I regard as the judicial heretics have passed on and the USA rejoins the common law consensus.
Obama is a constitutional lawyer with a more than respectable Harvard Degree and his colleagues at Chicago (quite a conservative school) speak well of him. His judicial appointments are likely to be moderates rather than fruitcakes. Whatever their philosophies they will do no long term damage to the system during their period of office, nor bring the law into disrepute which is more than can be said for GW Bush appointments such as that of John Yoo to the OLC.
I grew up during the Diplock -Denning rivalry in the UK and now they are both no longer with us, it is sometimes hard to remember what all the controversy 30 years ago was about - their starkly contrasting opinions have been assimilated into the rich tapestry that is judicial precedent.
I am for closed borders, limited gun control, low taxes; but I am against remaining in Iraq, think that gays should be allowed to marry, and think that credit card companies and student loan provider should be heavily regulated.
For whom should I vote?
Also, I might value some issues on a 5 (gun control), and others on a 3 (student lender regulation). What if Candiate X candidate is a 5 on student loan regulation but only a 2 on gun control; and Candidate Y is a 3 on gun control and a 2 on student lender regulation. What should I do?
Let's say I care about appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court. What proof is there that McCain will do this? None - and in fact, there is a lot of reason that he won't value this at all.
So I can logically say, "I'm for Romney because of judicial appointment issues," and then later say, "I am for Obama because of social justice and immigration issues."
Or maybe it's more important to have a president hot on social justice and immigration issues rather than a president who is lukewarm on judicial appointment issues.
Again, this is complicated stuff if you have a brain and actually sit down and think things out.
If you only see "liberal" or "conservative," or "Republican" or "Democrat," then, of course, things become much easier.
Obama also strikes me as very intelligent and competent. I could easily see having preferences that go Romney > Obama > McCain. My own prefernce is probably pretty close, although I think I might have had a hard time actually pulling the trigger for Romney, since he's so cravenly and transparently phony. Still, better a competent phony than an incompetent genuine human being.
Cold Warrior argues (in essence) that Kmiec apparently prefers Romney to Obama, but Obama to McCain. Apparently this is, in fact, Kmiec's position - but it's odd, to say the least.
Clearly there are some issues of great import to Kmiec where Romney and Obama share the same view, but McCain holds a different view. What might these be? In his endorsement first of Romney and then Obama Kmiec has brought up many issues - judges, Iraq, executive power, judicial philosophy, torture, and others. Almost without exception, these issues are ones where Romney and McCain share the same view, but Obama holds a different view.
Kmiec's stated rationale makes almost no sense. In fact, the best explanation appears to be the one given by Anderson above: Kmiec is basing his endorsements primarily on his perceptions of the intelligence of the candidates. That's logical enough, I suppose. It's not why he said he was endorsing Obama, but that's okay. There's just one little problem.
He supported McCain in 2000. More, when asked about this by the WSJ in light of his Obama endorsement he said:
So he thinks McCain is great, and was the best choice in 2000, but is disqualified now because of his pro-war attitude. That explains the Obama endorsement, but it doesn't explain it coming from someone who endorsed Romney, who is at least as pro-war as McCain.
There's no easy explanations, and just "taking Kmiec at his word" doesn't even begin to help, because he's going out of his way to make it clear that the logical explanations for his endorsement of Obama don't apply.
As someone pointed out on the other thread, this is in some ways analogous to Joe Liberman's McCain endorsement. Republicans cheered; Democrats called him a traitor.
Change the name, change the endorsement, and we have Kmiec and Obama.
I think the relevant difference may be that we were not then *at* war, let alone a quagmire of a war in Iraq and a negligently prosecuted war in Afghanistan. (If wars had dockets, I would expect the White House to get a show-cause letter from the Afghanistan Circuit Clerk any day now.)
I do suspect that McCain's casual pursuit of anti-Catholic hucksters like Hagee has done him no good in Kmiec's eyes.
Another relevant difference: Prof. Kmiec is not a Senator who holds various committee postings by virtue of his supposed allegiance to the Democratic Party.
That said, I understand that others trust differently, and many in the legal community have a difficult time recognizing that leadership potential is not necessarily related to scholastic achievement or eloquence.
I don't mean to imply that Democrats are particularly virtuous, but the situations aren't the same. McCain toyed with treason (to use the overblown metaphor), but decided against it. Whereas Lieberman is actually supporting the Republican candidate.
I mean, besides the fact that, according to McCain, that never actually happened. I was just flirting, Officer!
Romney was a demagogue.
Obama is a demagogue.
McCain is not a demagogue.
Ergo, Kmiec prefers demagogues (with similar political views counting as a 'plus factor').
If it were not for Lieberman's "supposed allegiance" to the Democratic Party, the leadership of the Senate and its committees would be Republican, would it not? I am sure that the Republicans would be happy to give Lieberman any committee posting he wants in exchange for his switching.
Whether it happened or not is less relevant than the perception that it happened--and the reaction of the various partisans when it was rumored to be happening.
I should also note that Joseph Lieberman's own website lists him as an "Independent Democrat" who caucuses with the Democrats. Of course, were he a former Senator, no one would care. Just ask Lincoln Chafee, who endorsed Obama even though McCain campaigned for Chafee's re-election in 2006.
I don't think you read either Kmiec's or my comment closely enough. Kmiec is quite clear - that IS the difference. He thought McCain was the best candidate in 2000, given the information he had, and the global environment as it appeared.
In the new post 9/11 environment, he thinks having an enthusiastic pro-war candidate like McCain as president is awful, and is so important it overrides everything else. And fair enough too.
...but he supported Romney.
(Your suggestion that he is motivated by a dislike of McCain is interesting, but contradicts Kmiec's own statement that he has nothing against McCain. Or should we just ignore what he says, and read whatever we want into his actions?)
Yep, absolutely.
"Finally, in the same NRO column, Kmiec explained why he favored Romney over Giuliani by noting that “we cannot afford a president who is only faking his attachment to conservative legal principle.” But Obama has no such attachment, real or faked!"
Yep, absolutely.
I can't help but be bemused at some of the comments in the other thread on Kmiec and B. Hussein O. (lighten up, it's intended humorously), the ones that moralize about some of the less charitable comments about Kmiec. Firstly, this is presidential politics in America, not an election for a city council seat. Secondly, I look forward to similar moralizings about other higher profile commentors who receive abuse (not). Thirdly, literally none of those commentators, unless I missed one, who decry some of the less charitable language used against Kmiec bother to tell us why - in coherent and cogent terms - they approve of or respect Kmiec's statement.
Iow, they forward the same type of non-explanation "explanation" as Kmiec.
"Intellectual and party treachery" may or may not be the applicable term to describe Kmiec's statement; I don't pretend to know. However, barring a far more cogent and coherent statement from Kmiec I do know one thing: it may be the appropriate term or description.
Of course there are easy explanations.
All you have to do is say the situation is 'complex', wave your hands around as if that actually explains anything, then accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being stupid or a partisan.
That is an easy explanation. A careful reader can see how many folks on this thread followed this easy-bake recipe.
I think this is just foolishness by a bunch of whiny conservatives who want to find fault with Kmiec, when it is obvious that he values certain qualities in Obama, more than his policy positions.
If you ever met Erwin, you would know why so many right-of-center law professors and students (not just Prof. Kmiec) like him so much. Whatever one thinks of his politics (and despite agreeing with him a lot, I find him too doctrinaire a liberal myself), he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet.
2. Why do people care so much about what Prof. Kmiec thinks, anyway? He's obviously a smart guy and an accomplished lawyer, but he's not a legislator or a war strategist, nor does he have any particular expertise in any of the things that presidents do (with the possible exception of picking judges). I respect his opinion, but don't understand why people are getting worked up about this.
I have made a similar point to my suburban neighbors expressing astonishment over my Obama bumper sticker. They just don't get it.
There's nothing inherently insane about the expression Romney > Obama > McCain if you consider Romney's entire professional life and political career before he began whoring for national votes. Was anyone really buying John Edwards' sudden conversion from a Tarheel to a liberal from the Scranton/Brattleboro axis?
Ref WTF.
I don't know if I believe him in his statements of fact, nor of anything else. I don't know that I disbelieve him.
My point is that some here think his explanations--irrespective of their truthfulness--don't explain.
You could leave it there.
Or you could ask yourself why they don't--presuming you don't think his explanations explain.
Reasons?
He's lying.
He's a bad writer.
He hasn't though this through.
That's two out of three which don't require believing he lies, and I think you could probably come up with a few more which don't, as well.
If you think his explanations explain, then you don't have anything to worry about.
I like my idea best, though.
* Both are slick and smooth.
* Both are religious cultists.
* Both are young(-ish) and cool.
* Both are "outsiders" pushing for "change".
* Both are attractive (is Kmiec single?).
* Both are socially liberal.
* Both have almost no experience and no record.
* Both will say whatever it takes to get elected.
* Both ran cult of personality campaigns.
And on it goes.
Please keep us up to date with your theories, though.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.