Phil Byler on December 4, 2007 at 4:20 PM

If you think that someone who lost to George W. Bush last time is electable this time around…sorry, but it isn’t gonna happen. Once you lose a Presidential nomination, coming back for another try is like making yourself into a punchline.

Remember, we said the same thing about Kerry and Gore. You don’t get a realistic second chance at running for President unless you’re tapped to be VP the first time you lose.

We have a need for workers in agriculture, and we have workers who CHOOSE to come here to work and earn a living.

ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 4:18 PM

We have plenty of Americans who can do those jobs if the “employers” pay a competitive free market wage to people who are Americans, rather than pay serf wages and dump all the associated costs, such as for schools, hospitals and jails on the tax payers.

F#ck those anti-American plantation owner serf master Bastardos.

…we’re looking at a soft-border tax-and-spend nominee

What? I thought the President could only serve two terms.

Rightwingsparkle on December 4, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Sparkle I know you like McCain and so do I (just not for president). He has come down on the wrong side of way too many issues and time in a prison cell may make you a hero but it doesn’t make you a military expert. The only choice we have that has been consistently reasonable is Fred Thompson.

I don’t find your 12:10 PM post be persusive. You don’t deal at all with the critically important virtues that I point out for McCain — his clear voice on Iraq and in support of the troops, his superior knowledge about military and national security matters (which matters in terms of the Commander in Chief role of the Presidency), his pro-life position, his staunch opposition to prolifigate federal spending, his war record that showed character, his commitment to nominating judicial conservatives to the federal bench and his ability to beat Hillary. You simply sneer “so you like McCain.” Well, what I reviewed should give anyone a lot to like about McCain. All you do is to continue to spit some more venom about McCain, citing McCain-Fenigold, immigration and bipartisanship, basically saying I must not understand about them. But I do; and what I wrote about them in my 11:58 AM post reflects my judgment that taken in context, they don’t outweigh McCain’s virtues referenced above.

Sorry, but your 12:28 PM post is a non sequitur. That John McCain lost the Republican primary fight to George W. Bush in 2000 does not mean that it has been decided in 2008 that John McCain is not right for the Republicans in 2008. That is what is being contested now.

It is a shameful idea.

The Abraham Lincoln generation fought, suffered and died to end slavery and we are going to disgrace their sacrifices by in effect declaring a serf worker (aka, slavery light) program?

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Understand that slavery was about lack of choice of movement. The problem with slavery is not that they worked. The problem with slavery is that humans can not own other humans, and people should have the right to determine their own fate.

We have a need for workers in agriculture, and we have workers who CHOOSE to come here to work and earn a living. As long as they don’t clog up schools, jails, and take money from our social programs, they are free to work.

Citizenship would be fine if our government didn’t guarantee so many entitlement programs for every citizen. If all they could do as a citizen is vote, that’d be fine. If they take tax dollars, that is not fine. A guest worker program would bridge the gap between needed workers, and workers who need jobs without further stressing our country’s entitlement programs.

Thanks for saying that my 11:58 AM post is well written. The trouble with your response is that your 12:25 PM post stating your continued objection to McCain all comes down to one issue — immigration. I go through the substantive issues of Iraq, the military, national security, abortion, federal spending, judicial nominations as well as the matter of electability against Hillary, and you apparently have nothing to say. One of my points is that everyone needs to look at the larger picture and realize that on some of the most important matters, McCain is the best.

The trouble with claiming that I am not distinguishing between John McCain’s military service and his record in office and as a candidate is that my 11:58 AM post goes through a whole litany of positions taken in office and a candidate and virtues as a candidate, and you don’t deal with any of them.

The trouble with claiming misrepresentation by me as your reference to Cunningham is that what you wrote sure sounded like you were accusing of McCain of “transgressions” like Cunningham. FYI, McCain refers to Cunningham as an example of how Washington D.C. corrupts.

McCain
Huckabee
Rudy
Paul

The GOP list is getting shorter.

Also, the guest worker program is a fantastic idea

It is a shameful idea.

The Abraham Lincoln generation fought, suffered and died to end slavery and we are going to disgrace their sacrifices by in effect declaring a serf worker (aka, slavery light) program?

Also, the guest worker program is a fantastic idea

It is a shameful idea.

The founding fathers generation fought, suffered and died to make us independent from England and we are going to disgrace their sacrifices by in effect declaring dependence on Mexico?

McCain on immigration: I got the message

And it’s too late McCainy, now it’s too late
Though you really are trying to fake it
Something inside you has died and you can’t hide
And you just can’t fake it

It used to be so easy believing you
You were light and breezy
And I knew just what you meant to do
Now you sound so unhappy
And you just look like an old fool
- Carole McKing

Keating: John McCain was not found to have done anything criminal — far from it. The poster who brought up Cunningham seems not to know the difference between a criminal conviction and an accusation that upon investigation does not warrant action.
Phil Byler on December 4, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Way to misrepresent, Phil, but I didn’t bring up Cunningham as someone who behaves as McCain does. How about you try reading my post this time. I brought up Cunningham to show that his honorable military past did not excuse his future bad behavior while holding political office just as McCain’s honorable military past does not excuse his current behavior in public office. You could say the same for any politician who has a military background yet behaves poorly while holding public office (Murtha, for example).

I am sick of people like you and factoid telling me how I need to gloss over McCain’s transgressions simply because he “was a war hero”. As stated before, I will -always- respect McCain’s military service and the hell he went through, but that honorable service does not represent a perpetual license to behave in a manner which harms our nation while holding public office.

LEARN TO SEPARATE McCAIN’S MILITARY PAST FROM HIS CURRENT BEHAVIOR AND JUDGE HIS ACTIONS ACCORDINGLY.

I agree with that, but the 14th amendment didn’t mean that children of non-Americans born in the USA would automatically be US citizens. As soon as we get an understanding of that, we can realize that the laws are on the books to prevent temporary workers (or their children) from being citizens.

ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Thats right. I don’t have a problem with an honestly run guest worker program (which is far from what we have now)that doesn’t hurt American workers, including high tech. workers.

Clarify the Constitution, enforce the law and we’ll be right as rain.

Is it time to take a second look?

I dunno, has he recanted his statement that he thinks McCain-Feingold is more important than the First Amendment, and that he personally would give up free speech to detach the Money/Politics link?

No?

Then can we have a candidate who doesn’t think their personal whim trumps the Constitution please? Or at a minimum one who isn’t on the record with that belief?

Honestly, his comments about McCain_Feingold offend me more than the legislation. A self-absorbed Politician who believes that his opinion trumps the Constitution as justification for bad law?

Heck, if that’s my choice I might as well vote Democrat.

No guest worker program can ever work until there’s a guarantee that its temporary and children born to guest workers can not be citizens, any other program is another stealth amnesty.

Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 1:10 PM

I agree with that, but the 14th amendment didn’t mean that children of non-Americans born in the USA would automatically be US citizens. As soon as we get an understanding of that, we can realize that the laws are on the books to prevent temporary workers (or their children) from being citizens.

But a temporary worker program is appropriate and necessary. Canada has a great program we can use as a model. But for it to mean anything, we have to stop the flow of illegals. Until that happens, we will just keep getting people flouting the law who won’t have to be a ‘temporary worker’ or illegal alien because the government will just make them legal.

We are in agreement speakup.

Also, the guest worker program is a fantastic idea

No guest worker program can ever work until there’s a guarantee that its temporary and children born to guest workers can not be citizens, any other program is another stealth amnesty.

Michael in MI on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I thought I had clicked on the wrong thread when I saw your post (again). Talk about mind games!

Seriously, and this makes for a nice tie-in…..

Huckabee has not made his faith the cornerstone of his campaign the way Kerry (and McCain) made Vietnam one of their key qualifications for the presidency. He states in his ad that he is a “Christian leader” which doesn’t seem too much of a revelation considering the man is an ordained minister. Huckabee hasn’t been out there saying “vote for me because I’m a Christian.” This situation is, actually, more akin to the way JFK had to convince voters how faith fits into who a President Huckabee will be. Romney has much of the same problem which begs the question if it possible for candidates in 2007 can openly express their faith and still be elected. Do candidates have to toe the atheist line that faith has no place where the public might be offended by its very existence?

And this brings us back on topic. I want to support a candidate who clearly believes in a higher power and a strong moral compass. Huckabee seems to fall short when it comes to acting according to one’s convictions as does John McCain. Perhaps it is the problem of being in the Senate for far too long but McCain is one of those career politicians that seem far more interested in getting along with the other 99 elites than doing what is right by the ordinary citizenry. He cuts deals with Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedy, joins the gang of 14, gets nasty when his amnesty plan gets shot down…. etc. All things being equal, I’d rather have a President who declares himself a “Christian leader” than I would a flip-flopping RINO willing to cut deals with the devil in the name of bipartisanship.

We do not need a Tsar, even one who has learned to fear the serfs

That said, I wish him well. I believe he loves his country, but does not like his people

entagor on December 4, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Exactly. McCain has contempt for the electorate and an underlying, seething anger. It was apparent as he attacked Romney on waterboarding, I think irrationally. I can’t trust him.