Senator McCain will vote "no" on Kagan -- Is he serious?

Just yesterday, Senator McCain announced his intention to vote "no" on General Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.  Clearly, that is his prerogative.  What I find far more amusing are his stated reasons for his vote.  Does he think we are that stupid?

The Senator began with a very serious -- and promising -- charge: "In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide 'advice and consent' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included 'integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.' On that test, Elena Kagan fails." These are all good reasons for voting down a judicial nominee.  The better question is how Senator McCain reached the conclusion that Kagan failed on any of these metrics.  What exactly persuaded him that she was not fit to join the Supreme Court?

Turns out, she failed McCain's fuzzy test on one piece of evidence alone: her approach to military recruitment while dean at Harvard law.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

White House Strategy on Kagan Working to Perfection

In an article that should make the White House political team cheer, Politico's Manu Raju and Glenn Thrush are reporting on how the Kagan so far sailed smoothly with nary a storm in sight.  The nominee does not have much of a paper trail, has not said anything that is controversial, and has taken few (if any) strong positions.  The White House nominated someone that the left can live with and that the right can tolerate.  Moreover, a confluence of other issues--in particular the economy, the oil spill, jobs--have overshadowed this nomination.  Though it may be too early for the White House to have the victory parade, they can't be faulted if the private celebrations have already started.

The real question is whether the Kagan nomination  has provided the perfect recipe for future administrations faced with a Supreme Court vacancy (and maybe Roberts and Alito before her?):  find a candidate who does not have a paper trail but has great academic credentials; preferable if candidate is moderate (or perceived as moderate); assure that candidate has never uttered anything controversial to anyone; assure that candidate has been silent about his/her views on controversial issues; nominate; wait a few months; swear-in.

Do we now have a set pattern (and expectations) for Supreme Court nominations?