Now, the only way I could see it happening is if the Dem leadership made a conscious choice to allow Roe to be overturned, in order to use it as a constant and overwhelming electoral issue against Republicans. But they’re not that smart or courageous.

I mostly agree, but if I were an anti-Roe strategist, I’d see two somewhat slender reeds to hang my SC hopes on (compared to no hope at all with Obama):

1) McCain might somehow manage to pull off a second Thomas (after all, based on the last two years, nobody will go broke underestimating the spinelessness or fecklessness of the Congressional Democrats as a whole, though there are some honorable exceptions); or

2) McCain might manage to sneak a stealth anti-Roe vote through. Admittedly, given what we’ve seen of McCain’s nominee-picking abilities, this scenario stretches the imagination, but, as I said, slender reeds.

How would that dynamic play out w/r/t a SC pick? I can’t see him caving to the Senate. More his style would be picking a real conservative who would be hard for the senate to reject, possibly an ex-senator, or maybe someone whose demographic profile would make senate opposition problematic.

Would anti-abortion evangelicals be disappointed if Palin dropped out but McCain picked another anti-abortion hardliner? Would picking a competent woman allow him to expand his current levels of support among undecideds, while continuing to gnaw at the “Hilary Democrat” crew?

Unless McCain thinks he has viable alternatives, he’s not going to abandon her. It seems like a groundswell of discussion to repopulate the shortlist would be necessary.

The only hope in a McCain administration (for someone who supports Roe v. Wade) is that, with (say) 55 Dems in the senate, McCain blinks on SC nominations to get an easily confirmable choice. But that doesn’t fit his personality (nor do Senate Dems have much backbone in this regard).[bold mine-R]

Doesn’t it, though? In the most important choice of his could-be presidency — the choice of a person to replace him should something terrible happen — he chose not Lieberman, who he obviously wanted to pick, nor Bloomberg nor Giuliani nor even (gasp!) Romney, any of whom would at least be somewhat capable of taking over the presidency. Instead, he caved on many of his previously held ideals (experience, judgment, anti-evil-earmarks, anti-ANWR drilling) in an (effective) effort to assuage social cons and an (ineffective) effort to court some Hillary voters.
His actions on that, and in various minutia in recent weeks, show how little backbone he actually has, and how easily he chooses the politically expedient course over a supposedly maverick, “country first” mentality.

Yes, I do, with a caveat.

The caveat first. McCain, whatever one thinks of him (and I’d wager my thoughts are even more negative that Daniel’s, if that is possible), can be somewhat .. unpredictable … on some issues. Judges might be one of them.

With judges, though, the problem that he faces (and which you actually illustrate to some extent) is that it’s going to be tough to find a SC nominee who matches every one of McCain’s somewhat idiosyncratic (albeit appalling) views. But whatever he is, he isn’t “liberal” in any meaningful sense of the word. Appointing a judge likely to uphold McCain-Feingold would mean appointing a judge whose judicial philosophy is at odds with McCain on a whole host of other issues. Is campaign finance reform THAT important to him, that he would give up everything else he cares about? I see no reason to believe that the answer is yes. The fact is that, looking at the broad spectrum of the issues that a SC justice votes on, judges who, on the whole, share McCain’s views tend also to be anti-Roe v Wade.

The only hope in a McCain administration (for someone who supports Roe v. Wade) is that, with (say) 55 Dems in the senate, McCain blinks on SC nominations to get an easily confirmable choice. But that doesn’t fit his personality (nor do Senate Dems have much backbone in this regard).

Despite all of the betrayals of the social conservatives by the GOP, a McCain victory most likely would mean the end of Roe v. Wade…

LMagg, do you seriously believe this? That McCain will choose judges who would overturn Roe? These same judges would overturn McCain-Feingold, the senator’s crowning achievement, and probably a whole host of other secret notions he’s holding back from conservative voters until he gets elected.
As I wrote on my blog some months back, that’s just a leap of faith, faith not grounded in any substantial evidence. Or, as someone in the paleosphere noted a few months back (I have lost the credit on this bit, which I put away for safekeeping because it was so apt),

“(The GOP voters’) grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, or a twentieth try,” observed leftist Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter with Kansas? “The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes.”

Four weeks’ worth of arguments that she is more qualified than Obama will not be forgotten quickly…

Except, Daniel, that this argument was never convincing, and even the people parroting it (Romney especially, but that’s due to his overall fraudulence) never seemed to really believe it. Her “executive” edge over Obama holds true over McCain as well.

But I agree: Save some catastrophe tomorrow night, getting rid of Palin would do more harm than good to McCain. It would alienate the non-thinkers who see in Palin a kindred spirit, as well as the fire-and-brimstone conservatives like Buchanan who see her, in all her ant-intellectual glory, as a renewed flagbearer for the social conservative movement. And it would most certainly not bring back any maverick-lovers who gave up on McCain when he picked her; rather, it will simply reinforce the image he’s already dripping, which is that he’s entirely spontaneous, rudderless and unpredictable.