Anger over Gang of 14 follows McCain bid

NY Times:

Back in 2005, Senator John McCain of Arizona and fellow members of the so-called Gang of 14 were hailed as heroes in some quarters when they fashioned an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.

Now Mr. McCain’s central role in that effort, which cleared the way for confirmation of some conservative jurists, is cited as one reason for lingering distrust of him among many conservatives. The power to appoint federal judges is seen as one of the most crucial presidential roles by many on the right, and some continue to believe the agreement undermined the Republican leadership at the precise moment the party was about to eliminate the ability to use procedural tactics to block judges.

James C. Dobson, an influential conservative leader, noted Mr. McCain’s role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 in his announcement that he could not support the lawmaker as the Republican nominee under any circumstances. Other conservatives still resent it as well.

“When people hear he was part of the Gang of 14, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said Phil Burress, president of the Citizens for Community Values, based in Ohio.

Even some colleagues now backing Mr. McCain consider the judicial agreement a sore subject. “We had the votes to put both parties on the spot that whoever is president, Republican or Democrat, has a right to appoint and we have the right to vote up or down,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a former Judiciary Committee chairman.

Mr. McCain and his allies say they remain proud of the deal they cut because it avoided a potential constitutional crisis in the Senate and led to the confirmation of two Supreme Court justices named by President Bush, as well as several federal appeals court judges. They say there is no certainty that Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who was then the Senate majority leader, had the votes to win approval of his rules change, which was dubbed the nuclear option because of the chaos it was predicted to cause.

With the possibility of a Democratic White House and Congress in the future, Mr. McCain said protecting the right of the minority party to force the majority to produce 60 votes to confirm an objectionable judge might not seem like such a bad idea.

“Find me a Republican senator who now supports 51 votes for the confirmation of a judge,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. McCain’s recent clash with The New York Times over his reported ties to a lobbyist appeared to have bolstered the senator, at least temporarily, with some in the conservative wing. But the question of judicial appointments is a matter of fundamental concern to conservatives who see the courts as a counterbalance to the shifting politics of Congress and the executive branch.

...

The NY Times is projecting views on conservatives since it has none in charge. What conservatives were trying to do is stop Democrats from thwarting democracy with their illegal blocking of President Bush's appointments. McCain's betrayal was a turning point of support for Republicans and was one reason why they lost the 2006 election. It was a huge mistake. From personal experience I can tell you that is when I quit writing checks to the GOP.

The NY Times seems to be dedicated to finding way to suppress the GOP turnout this fall by rehashing old stories like this. Picking at GOP scabs is just as likely to have the opposite effect as the attack on McCain last week demonstrated. However, on the flip side it should be noted that Obama failed to reach across the aisle and join with the Gang of 14 which makes his "post-partisan" BS ring as hollow as much of his other soaring rhetoric. Funny how that fact got left out of the article.