Priyan, I don't think you're right.

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

As far as I can tell, it goes into effect at once.

...because he said so on the show. I wasn't guessing. You should watch it.

... but I'd like to attempt to respond to some of you. Of course, you guys are right, he is a conservative -- his voting record shows that. But that doesn't mean he's an extremist. And it doesn't mean he isn't moderate either. Conservativism is believing that you should reduce taxes. Extremism is shattering the national revenue stream. McCain believes in the first one. He doesn't in the second. (Though of course, as I noted in my earlier post, you don't know with his recent shift.)

As Stewart pointed out, McCain has been out in front of a lot of issues that many on the left have not even touched. He pushed for campaign finance reform far harder than the Clinton administration did (with Russ Feingold, of course). He pushed for tougher mileage standards harder than most Democrats did. He spearheaded the torture debate and got it to pass, and it's the law regardless of what Bush says at the signing. It wasn't John Kerry or Hillary Clinton out on those issues, it was McCain.

And right now he's pushing to allow illegal immigrants to get green cards. I don't see John Kerry doing that, either.

So that's why I respect him -- because he picks specific issues that are important and works hard on them.

This doesn't mean I'll vote for him. But I don't think it's fair to label him an extremist just because he's got a conservative voting record.

This is what I wrote on Monday:

I'd pick him not just because I admire his championing some tough measures during his time in the Senate -- including on campaign finance, global warming, torture, corruption and government waste -- and despite my opposition to many of his right-wing views (see Paul Krugman's recent roundup). I'd mostly choose him because unlike many politicians today, McCain looks and sounds honest. Unlike George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore and about 90 other senators, and more like Russ Feingold and the old Howard Dean, McCain doesn't appear doctored, managed, worked upon, and he's not reflexive or knee-jerk. Even if you disagree with his political choices, which span the spectrum and often upset the generally accepted Washington way, they at least carry the virtue of being authentic; they aren't the jaded positions of a party hack or some other kind of political simpleton.

Here:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/03/mccain/index.html

The point is that McCain does not -- or, maybe, used to not -- pick issues to work on and talk about because they're politicall convenient. His embrace of Falwell is depressing because he seemed to be doing something very different.

I also like him because of what he said at Mark Bingham's funeral:

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=997

...I'm not saying there aren't Democrats with better voting records. Of course there are. There are many Democrats whose voting records I appreciate. I appreciated John Kerry's voting record more than John McCain's.

But just because Democrats voted for your issues doesn't mean they fought for them. You didn't see many Democrats going on TV to make a national issue of soft money. You just didn't. They voted, but they didn't fight. I'm still not sure of a single issue John Kerry has championed in the Senate. I didn't vote for him because he'd championed my causes. (I voted for him because he wasn't named George W. Bush.) John McCain has championed -- gone on TV, refused to back down, etc. -- on measures before many Democrats got to them. Are you saying that's not admirable?

You may be right: Maybe I'm seduced by appearances. Maybe I just don't like the cut of John Kerry's jib. Maybe Al Gore really bored me to death. Maybe I simply can't overlook that George W. Bush has never sounded intelligent to me in an unscripted forum. And maybe I've been hoodwinked by McCain's apparent straight-talk into thinking he's actually candid and genuine and reflective, that he decides where to stand on important issues according to a rational mechanism rather than ideology. You could be right. After all, McCain's speaking at Liberty and his voting record do tell another story.

Two things:

1) I wouldn't discount the importance of appearances, as you seem to be doing. They matter in politics just as they matter in life.

2) Would you acknowledge that genuineness is an important thing in politics? Would you acknowledge that you didn't really know where John Kerry stood on the Iraq war because he never had courage enough to give an honest answer, while it was refreshing to hear where Howard Dean stood? Don't you think it's time we had an honest candidate -- and is it wrong to have assumed, or to assume now, that based on appearances, McCain might be such a man?

...and are concerned that I'm drowning. Mock-concern in a debate is nice.

In responding to you, I should have clarified what I meant about his recent swing -- I meant specifically his embrace of religious conservatives, not his voting record. I didn't mean to suggest, as I may have, that he hasn't always been conservative. But he hasn't always been an extremist. He may be becoming one now. And it's the extremism, not the conservatism -- it's Falwell, not the voting record -- that's new, and what I was referring to when I said I was concerned.

Re Kerry: I was being facetious. He did some wonderful things in the 1980s. And today he released a statement in which he took a stand on the war.

He's on vacation. He'll be back next week.

On the questions regarding the plame news, I'll be posting more shortly. Thanks all.