Video: Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens

posted at 11:20 am on January 5, 2008 by Bryan

Yes, Joe-mentum, he did, consistently from at least 2003 through the last fight over the issue in 2007. There is no denying this and it doesn’t serve the voters or the truth to pretend that it’s not true. Stop insulting our intelligence.

But Lieberman goes farther than just pretending that McCain didn’t support amnesty, as McCain himself pretended on December 30. He says that to say that McCain did support amnesty is a lie.

So, Joe Lieberman is either calling John McCain or the Tucson Citizen a liar. From 2003, I quote:

“McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.”

I count twice in that paragraph that McCain used the word — amnesty — to describe the thing he favored — amnesty. So who’s the liar?

Of course, even if McCain can somehow prove that he didn’t say what the Citizen quoted him as saying, it’s beyond clear that what he pushed via back room deals in 2006 and again in 2007 was an amnesty. They didn’t call it an amnesty, but an amnesty was what it was.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Lieberman for VP again? Oy

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 11:22 AM

If he is willing to shill for McCain, why won’t he caucus with us for a year.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Liebs says McCain did not support amnesty for illegal aliens

Neither did Bush, DUH!

Weight of Glory on January 5, 2008 at 11:26 AM

If he is willing to shill for McCain, why won’t he caucus with us for a year.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Cowardice. Lieberman is no hero of mine, in any way. In the NE, (and in DC I suppose), the social ostracism that comes with being a conservative is strong. I don’t think he can stand that. That’s why I don’t respect him.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Uh huh. Here’s a little association game for you, my dear hawkish Senators.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform is to Amnesty
as
Redeployment From Iraqis to ______________.

a) Surrender
b) Nachos
c) Cheesecake

Lehosh on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM

NH – Reuters / C-SPAN / Zogby 1/4/08

McCain 34%
Romney 30%
Huckabee 10%
Giuliani 9%
Paul 7%
Thompson 2%

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Watching these two operate is like watching life on another planet.

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Lehosh on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Uh, how much time is left?

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 11:37 AM

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in New Hampshire shows John McCain leading Mitt Romney by five percentage points. It’s McCain 31% Romney 26%. The survey was conducted Friday night, the night following the Iowa caucuses.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM

I think the game they play with “amnesty” goes to this summer’s debacle, when the proponents of the shamnesty bill swore up and down that it “wasn’t amnesty” because of all the glitzy hoops illegals had to jump through.

It’s semantics.

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM

It looks like Ron Paul will do well in New Hampsire according to Rasmussen:

Ron Paul earns 14% of the vote and Mike Huckabee gets 11% as the only other candidates in double digits. Rudy Giuliani attracts 8% of the vote, Fred Thompson 5%, some other candidate 2%, and 3% are not sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_republican_primary

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:40 AM

I guess its true that these Senators all seem to stick together and consider themselves above and apart from us “ordinary” folk.

They can lie to us and try to deceive us and they all think we are so stoooopid and gullible we will just eat up whatever they say.

Jeesh, Joe.

Always Right on January 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM

I opposed the Bush/McCain illegal alien bill as much as anyone, but it really wasn’t amnesty. The alien would have to jump through the hoops Bryan mentioned, plus pay a few thousand dollars in fines.

jgapinoy on January 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM

McCain 34%
Romney 30%
Huckabee 10%
Giuliani 9%
Paul 7%
Thompson 2%

What the preceding numbers mean to me is that even the GOP in New Hampshire is really just a bunch of liberals.

TheSitRep on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM

OT: Liveblog from Wyoming?

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Rates right up there with Hillary’s “most innocent” line…

Why doesn’t the MSM nail these folks???

Sigh….

Romeo13 on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Wow! McCain is beginning to look OLD!

edgehead on January 5, 2008 at 11:48 AM

OT: Liveblog from Wyoming?

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Wyoming definately has an unusual caucus system (or I should say an old one). We should know the results about 3pm CST I think. Ron Paul may do well.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Between the Islamic barbarians at the gate and the invasion we face from the south, our nation is doomed to go the way of Rome, Greece and Britain.

But I’m afraid most Americans won’t find out until it’s too late, but when that happens, no one will be an American anyway.

TheSitRep on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Rasmussen also reported that McCain was one of the big winners on Thursday in Iowa. DERRR!

DannoJyd on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Silly children. These two yodas of the Senate know more than you. If they say what happened didn’t happen, then it didn’t happen. Move along now.

Sugar Land on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

71 year old AMNESTY man heads to his last surge. The drive bys think that if they boost the maverick AMNESTY man they will do the most damage to confuse the GOP field.

tarpon on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

71 year old AMNESTY man heads to his last surge. The drive bys think that if they boost the maverick AMNESTY man they will do the most damage to confuse the GOP field.

tarpon on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

If you want to see amnesty, wait until Obama is elected this year.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM

it really wasn’t amnesty. The alien would have to jump through the hoops Bryan mentioned, plus pay a few thousand dollars in fines.

jgapinoy on January 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Hate to tell ya, Hon, but anything that lets them STAY is amnesty – hoops or no. Semantics doesn’t change that. Just because you don’t call it amnesty, doesn’t mean it isn’t amnesty.

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM

71 year old AMNESTY man heads to his last surge. The drive bys think that if they boost the maverick AMNESTY man they will do the most damage to confuse the GOP field.

tarpon on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Well, I know I ain’t confused. Anyone the MSM likes, I won’t vote for.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:04 PM

But I’m afraid most Americans won’t find out until it’s too late, but when that happens, no one will be an American anyway.

TheSitRep on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Seriously, can you blame them? Only a few of us know and like history, and can use it to see the grand sweep of events, and can compare today to other events and failing societies of the past, and can use history as a guide.

That famous quip of Franklin’s after the Const. Convention , ” a republic, if you can keep it,” was said for a reason. He knew how difficult it would be to sustain.

What is a reasonable estimate for for an affluent liberal society to endure?

How long was England great? From the Armada to WWI?

I don’t want to sound defeatist. But I don’t feel like a free man anymore. Maybe my view is tainted by living in big gov, nanny NY. I always listen carefully to the Texas folks here. I’m hoping that the society there is far more sound, and am looking to relocate somewhere in a few more years.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:09 PM

but anything that lets them STAY is amnesty

I’m curious what do you propose the government should about the millions of illegals living in the US?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

We need to pick a Republican who can beat either Clinton or Obama, and right now that looks like McCain. If you don’t want Clinton or Obama, I don’t know what else your going to do.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

and right now that looks like McCain

This is going to be an election of “change” like in 1992. People are gonna go for the young, fresh face like they did in 1992. Remember Bill Clinton beat a WWII veteran.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:17 PM

I’m curious what do you propose the government should about the millions of illegals living in the US?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

They will leave on their own if they don’t have jobs. They won’t have jobs if present employer laws are enforced. It is already happening in states which have taken that step. It also wouldn’t hurt to dry up federal funds to sanctuary cities.

a capella on January 5, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I’m sorry, but whenever I see the screengrabs of these two guys together lately, I feel like I’m seeing a clip from “Cocoon.”

D2Boston on January 5, 2008 at 12:19 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I suggest doing what they did in AZ (which worked). Start enforcing the laws – resulting in the illegals having to go home.

What do YOU suggest?

In all seriousness, whatever the federal government does to legitimize the fact they’re here is a bad idea, as far as I’m concerned. The states should all do what AZ did.

Last time I checked they were breaking the law being here.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:19 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I’m curious…are you in an area overrun with them? I’m in North Carolina, where the legislature wanted to give them instate tuition to college.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM

D2Boston on January 5, 2008 at 12:19 PM

oooh Gawd, that movie was creepy. It was like the ghost of Jacob Marley showing me my future if I’m GOOD. Jeez that always scared the crap outta me.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I’m curious what do you propose the government should about the millions of illegals living in the US?
terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

It is SIMPLE. Enforce ALL existing laws and they will leave.
All law enforcement allowed to enforce all laws.
Look at the states and counties around the country right now doing just that, it works. You’ve been around here long enough to see the posts about this.
.
Illegal Immigrants cost us $19,000.00 ..EACH and every one. That’s per illegal per year. They are a net deficit to our country.

shooter on January 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Guys!! stop buying into the polls! Its a lib pollster for one thing, secondly you are only seeing results from those idiots that answer the phone at dinner time to talk to a pollster.

Don’t you all use caller ID?

McCain is the one telling lies. Theer was absolutely NOTHING in that shamnesty bill compelling illegals to LEAVE or become citizens.

The fees he talks about would only be paid by those desiring citizenship, which 90% of the illegals don’t. These are the BS terms McCain Hides behind to say it wasn’t amnesty.

And frankly, I DON’T WANT THEM TO BE CITIZENS ANYWAY. They don’t deserve it after showing clearly they are willing to ignore our laws.

dogsoldier on January 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Once again I cringe at this word and the confusion. I just re-read a letter I wrote to McCain (and I don’t live in AZ) to explain to him that he wasn’t offering amnesty – what he was offering was WORSE!

If a burglar robs your home and steals your jewelry, the judge could give him ‘amnesty’ by sentencing him to zero jail time and no fine. But he doesn’t get to keep the ill-gotten goods!! The burglar doesn’t get to keep the jewelry!

An illegal alien has broken into our country and stolen residency. If McCain just wanted to give him amnesty (no jail on my dime, and no fine) that would be fine with me, as long as the illegal alien did not get to keep the ill-gotten goods – residency. Just leave, please! Now!!

McCain wants to fine (a modest $3000 or so) the illegal alien, so technically it’s not amnesty. It’s WORSE! McCain wants to REWARD the illegal alien by letting him keep the ill-gotten goods – residency – followed by a path to citizenship!!

It’s not amnesty – it’s much worse!! Would this policy discourage you or encourage you to also try to sneak into our country? That is why we must remove ALL REWARDS!

A pox on McCain and Lieberman (sorry, Joe, I thought I knew you).

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:09 PM

You will be welcomed here with open arms.
There are 3 requirements, however.

Being able to stand the heat
learn to speak Spanish
a large caliber pistol

TheSitRep on January 5, 2008 at 12:32 PM

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM

I live in S. Texas and the majority of the population of my city Hispanic… I’m Hispanic. I can’t tell the any statistics of the number of illegals here though.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:34 PM

These are not the droids you’re looking for.

thirteen28 on January 5, 2008 at 12:35 PM

This is going to be an election of “change” like in 1992. People are gonna go for the young, fresh face like they did in 1992. Remember Bill Clinton beat a WWII veteran.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Change yes, youth maybe not, at least that is not what the polls show, see:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Keep in mind the population is getting OLDER not younger. Obama is a candidate for the youth but he is pulling a lot of dissatisfaction of the Clintons to him. Remember, there are more Baby Boomers voting than youth voting.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM

[JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 11:29 AM]

I respectfully disagree, JiangxiDad, and I have a lot of respect for Lieberman. He continued to argue against the dominant trend in the D-Party when our efforts in Iraq was at it’s nadir. And I give him grudging respect for sticking with the Dem caucus after that.

The bottom line, however, is: no permanent allies; only permanent interests. Lieberman’s interests, most of them, are Socialist Lite Dem interests. Cowardice doesn’t enter into it.

So, I’ll take him as an ally when we agree and fight him when we don’t. That doesn’t mean he’s some hero for me.

As for the McCain’s amnesty thing, I don’t think Lieberman lied. He just doesn’t know McCain has said on previous occasions that he was for amnesty. McCain should know better than to let Lieberman mislead like that. McCain is compounded his lies by letting others unknowingly spread that lie. That’s disgraceful.

Dusty on January 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM

There have been 7 separate amnesties (“path to USA citizenship” granted to illegal aliens who broke the law) passed by Congress since 1986.

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html

Giving amnesty to law-breakers only encourages more illegal behavior.

When the US Congress has a past record of rewarding illegal behavior by providing incentives to cross our borders illegally (or to over-stay Travel Visas illegally), should we really be surprised that illegal immigration increases by the tens of millions?

Let us face it:

the Democrats, RHINOs, and many employers do not want illegal immigration to end.

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM

And John McCain, despite his admirable past war record, is
a RHINO. He is not a conservative at all.

ColtsFan on January 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM

How can some Senators be so right on some things and so woefully misguided on others.

Talk about a mutual reality avoidance complex.

SorryLoserman,, Move on.

normsrevenge on January 5, 2008 at 12:42 PM

I’m curious what do you propose the government should about the millions of illegals living in the US? We have had an additional 6 amnesties since the big ione in 1986. I don’t think you would argue that any of them worked.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Sorry, but they all have to leave (attrition through enforcement – it’s working in AZ and OK just fine, thanks).

You cannot let burglars keep the jewelry (even with a small fine) and not expect more jewel robberies.

Illegal aliens, if they are not stealing, are earning their living by:

1. unreported cash – the IRS frowns on this.
2. Stolen ID and soc. sec. number – a felony (and a real bitc- if you’re the one whose ID is stolen.
3. Made-up (otherwise unused) soc. sec. number – a $250,000 fine!!
4. ITIN under former very loose standards – now tightened up I understand.

Take your pick and then decide how much of an upstanding citizen this person would make.

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM

I don’t think Joe is familiar with every interview McCain has given to his local media, and it’s clear he was referring to last year’s immigration reform bill.

They didn’t call it an amnesty, but an amnesty was what it was.

It wasn’t an amnesty, but emotional people who preferred caricature to rational discussion called it an amnesty.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM

I live in S. Texas and the majority of the population of my city Hispanic… I’m Hispanic. I can’t tell the any statistics of the number of illegals here though.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:34 PM

I truly don’t mean to be rude, terryann, believe me, but can I ask why it’s relevent that you are Hispanic? Your ethnic background means nothing in this discussion unless 1) you are illegal OR 2) you support illegals simply becuase they are also Hispanic?

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Keep in mind the population is getting OLDER not younger.

Yes, the youth vote is probably not going to get out to vote in large numbers. My point is that usually when the theme is about “change” it usually goes to someone a bit younger. I don’t know why that is. I’m not saying it is fair or right. That just seems like to be the trend. I’m frankly tired of hearing all this change talk. Even Romney is getting doing it.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Thanks for the insult Dave, but I do know what words mean, and I choose them carefully. Allowing a criminal to break the law, and authorities agreeing not to go after said criminal is amnesty.

That is not emotion. That is common sense.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM

You are the one that asked me where I was from. I was just answering. And YES I’m here legally. Born and raised in Texas.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM

It wasn’t an amnesty, but emotional people who preferred caricature to rational discussion called it an amnesty.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM

I agree. It’s WORSE. Calm, logical, citizens know it’s a REWARD.

Paying a fine makes it not amnesty. Rewarding an illegal alien with residency and a “pathway to citizenship” is insane policy.

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 12:50 PM

If you want to see amnesty, wait until Obama is elected this year.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Yep. Spot on.

nailinmyeye on January 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Yes, the youth vote is probably not going to get out to vote in large numbers. My point is that usually when the theme is about “change” it usually goes to someone a bit younger. I don’t know why that is. I’m not saying it is fair or right. That just seems like to be the trend. I’m frankly tired of hearing all this change talk. Even Romney is getting doing it.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM

All the Republicans have to distance themselves from Bush because Bush is unpopular. To do that, you talk about change.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Dusty on January 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Sorry. I didn’t say what I truly meant. Lieberman pissed me off because he used his religion to establish a facade of morality and ethics for himself which was belied by his association with a party devoted to the destruction of many things I hold dear. He didn’t leave it until thrown out.

I put him in the category of most reformed and conservative Jews who are in reality uber-liberals. I find their religious cloak infuriating. Huckabee is of a kind.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

you support illegals simply becuase they are also Hispanic?

No, I don’t support illegal activity. But I’m just getting tired of all this complaining of illegal immigration and no one coming up with any viable solutions.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Yep. Spot on.

nailinmyeye on January 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM

We need NOW to be talking about who is the best candidate to go against Obama and Clinton. If we wait until after the nominee is selected were sunk.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I did ask where you were from. I wasn’t questioning that. I was questioning why you felt it necessary to say you were hispanic? I didn’t mention that I was English when I talked about the fact I’m in NC. See my point?

Again no disrespect. Your ethnic background isn’t at issue, unless you make it an issue. When I said “illegals”, I wasn’t talking about hispanics. I was talking about illegals.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM

No, I don’t support illegal activity. But I’m just getting tired of all this complaining of illegal immigration and no one coming up with any viable solutions.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I completely agree. But AZ did come up with a good solution. Enforce the law.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM

What is frustrating the heck out of me is I keep hearing this talk about picking the best “conservative” to run in the fall with everyone having a diferent definition of what that means. Well, the American people don’t go out in the general elecction trying to find the best “conservative”. The American people are looking for the best leader and are presented with two candidates (one from each party). And every election, people gripe about the poor choices they are given. We need NOW to select the best Republican who can beat Hillary or Obama. Now is the time to be talking about this. And no one is.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM

When I said “illegals”, I wasn’t talking about hispanics.

So if you weren’t talking about illegals from Latin America, which ones where you talking about?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM

But AZ did come up with a good solution. Enforce the law.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM

And it is more or less supported by most everyone here, including McCain.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM

STFU McKennedy you liar.

Mojack420 on January 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM

I always listen carefully to the Texas folks here. I’m hoping that the society there is far more sound, and am looking to relocate somewhere in a few more years.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:09 PM

I’m from the DFW metroplex area. Would love to see you come our way. I have enjoyed your commentary here at HA a great deal.

Texas is still a good place to live but it is definitly not the same as it was even 30 years ago. We have had an invasion from the south by illegals plus the invasion from the north by liberal Yankees who bring their failed liberal mindset with them. They fouled their own nest so they come down here because things are better but then they try to re-make our area to be just like the Democrat hellhole they left. Very frustrating. Worth the fight against them but still very frustrating. The Nanny State mentality is gaining on us. Most of the big cities are liberal but there is still sanity in rural Texas areas and most of the suburbs. In my opinion though, anyway you look at it, its still better here than the Northeast or California.

maxine on January 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM

We need NOW to be talking about who is the best candidate to go against Obama and Clinton. If we wait until after the nominee is selected were sunk.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Completely agree. I can lament all I want about how none of the candidates are my “perfect” conservative candidate – how McCain supported “amnesty,” or how Romney is a flip-flopper, or that Fred “doesn’t want it enough.”

But, the fact of the matter is that we have these ones to choose from – and I’ll take any of them over Clinton or Obama.

I am largely basing my decision about who to vote for, at this point, on who can beat the dems.

nailinmyeye on January 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM

maxine on January 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM

:)

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM

If you think I distinguish between illegals based on ethnic background, I’m sorry you misunderstood me. I do not.

I don’t care WHERE they come from. If they are here illegally, I’m for them going home.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM

And Liebs is the moral paragon from the other side of the aisle.

Valiant on January 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM

And it is more or less supported by most everyone here, including McCain.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM

I know many here agree. But don’t talk to me about McCain supporting that. That is CRAP. He supports letting them stay, slapping the ones who want citizenship on the hand, and giving all a pass.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Published reports that Fred Thompson soon will withdraw from the Republican presidential contest and endorse Sen. John McCain have been traced in part to Mitt Romney’s campaign, trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson.

From: Bob Novak 2/5/08

Ex-tex on January 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM

We need NOW to be talking about who is the best candidate to go against Obama and Clinton. If we wait until after the nominee is selected were sunk.

bnelson44 on January 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM

You are absolutely right. When the 2 nominees are decided the press will have 6-9 months to focus on each.
When I watched Fred’s 17 minute video I became even more convinced that he is the one who can best withstand the pressure.

I think his thoughtful and personable way of communicating would be the best counterpoint to Hillary’s harshness and Obama’s inexperience.

Mitt can’t keep his foot outta his mouth.

Ex-tex on January 5, 2008 at 1:16 PM

There are 3 main issues before the GOP right now. The WOT, Immigration and stopping the dems from exploding the size of government.

On Government nanny expansion
Mitt and Huck and Guliani are Nanny staters, McCain isnt

On Immigration
No difference between Mitt, Huck and McCain or Guiliani

On the WOT
McCain and Guiliani are tough. Mitt and Huck are not

So on the 3 top issues Mitt and Huck fail all three. Guiliani fails 2 and McCain only fails one.

So Id take the hit on Immigration just to keep the other two strong

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Dave, it’s not necessarily an issue of emotion, the amnesty question. A lot of the legislators who supported CIR chose to redefine the word amnesty as meaning only those laws which allow citizenship without penalty. So CIR, in their view, wasn’t amnesty because of blah, blah, blah.

In the opinion of the opponents to CIR, amnesty was any law which enabled an illegal immigrant to gain citizenship, and especially any law that allowed legalization to those residents ahead of the admission of immigration applicants who have been waiting for years.

In this view, the definition of amnesty is purely logical, and legislators like McCain and Lieberman and Graham who emotionally cried and screamed that this wasn’t an amnesty, and that the opponents of CIR were all racists and nativists fit your definition much better. Illogical and emotional.

So when I said it was semantics, I meant on their part. I know what amnesty is; it has a definition.

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM

As Bryan pointed out right at the beginning, McCain used to openly support another amnesty, and used the word amnesty. It was only after this issue exploded into acrimony that he decided that he was not in favor of amnesty, and that laws allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens were not amnesty.

(Hey, Bryan, do I get points for not calling you Allah? Excellent; put those on my account. Yeah, I know I’m still overdrawn, but I’m working on it.)

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM

On what basis do you flunk Mitt on immigration and the GWOT?

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM

So on the 3 top issues Mitt and Huck fail all three. Guiliani fails 2 and McCain only fails one.

So Id take the hit on Immigration just to keep the other two strong

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Looks like Thompson/Hunter would be your pick on issues, independent of viability??

fred5678 on January 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM

At worst, mixed. He gets a thumbs up on GWOT on my scorecard.

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Thompson rumors might have started in the Romney campaign,

Saturday, January 05, 2008
On The Trail…
Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 10:31 AM
Townhall

Ex-tex on January 5, 2008 at 1:30 PM

And speaking of scorecards, wtf is wrong with New Hampshire that Fred gets zero support?

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:30 PM

On what basis do you flunk Mitt on immigration and the GWOT?

Jaibones on January 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM

I still remember his “If terrorists attack the US I will consult my lawyers” answer in one debate”

Mitt has been far tougher on Immigration lately but from what I remember he hasnt always been very strongly against the issue and has back some form of amnesty before.

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Yes Im more of a Fred or Duncan backer

From jaibones link Mitt on Immigration

Proposed Z visa allows illegal aliens to stay in America.
FactCheck: Took no action against 4 Mass. sanctuary cities.
FactCheck: MA state cops never enforced immigration laws
Employers have no means of knowing who’s legal & who’s not

For WOT

Let lawyers decide if authorization needed to attack Iran
After surge, move to support phase, based in Kuwait.
FactCheck: Saddam didn’t refuse UN inspectors prior to war.

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Thanks for the insult Dave, but I do know what words mean, and I choose them carefully. Allowing a criminal to break the law, and authorities agreeing not to go after said criminal is amnesty.

Let’s dispense with the empty semantic arguments. I have a dictionary too.

There are two real issues in the illegal immigration debate that are obfuscated by hard-liners.

The first issue is one of security, which I agree with completely. In a world where terrorists want to murder us wholesale, we cannot have an open border that allows infiltration by would-be killers. Similar, and entirely valid, security arguments apply to drug traffickers who either directly or indirectly contribute to violent crime and other serious social problems.

The second issue is where we part company, and that is in regard to migrant workers who come here for economic reasons. In aggregate, these people raise our standard of living by providing services we want and need at an affordable price. The overwhelming majority of them have no ill intention toward anyone, and are grateful to be able to help their families by helping us. What I do not understand is what motivates the febrile and overwrought animosity toward these people. The whole point of a guest worker program is to bring them within the law, so we know who they are, who they work for, when they enter and leave, and can tax them. Yes, OK, they broke the law by crossing our border. That is because our economy happily accepts them and we mutually profit from their labor here, but our immigration laws do not reflect that reality.

The objectives of the immigration reform bill were entirely sensible:

1) Improve physical security of the border.
2) Bring the 12M workers who are here an important component of our economy within the law and the tax system.
3) By providing incentives for migrant workers who want to work here to do so legally, and disincentives for undocumented ones, allow the border enforcement to concentrate on securing the border against terrorists and drug smugglers instead of the people who mow our lawns, mop our floors, and wash our dishes.

Conservative economic theory tells us that you can fight against the market, but the market will always win in the end. There is no economic reason not to avail ourselves of a ready pool of inexpensive unskilled labor, freely offered, and doing so would help address the very important issue of preventing others with ill-intentions infiltrate our borders.

There is no rational economic OR security argument for preventing Latin Americans who want to work here legally in menial, unskilled jobs from doing so.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

BTW McCain on WOT

Iran & Syria must not get nukes; they’ll exterminate Israel.
Iran is state sponsor of terrorism; no more evidence needed.
Congressional consultation before attacking Iran’s nukes.
Sanctions to prevent Iranian nukes; but don’t count on UN.
Follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell.
Prefers not to take troops out of Afghanistan.
McCain Principle: Committing troops means completing mission.
The War on Terror is the overriding and transcendent issue.
The War on Terror is a fight between good and evil.
The War on Terror a war we must fight.
Avoiding the War on Terror has cost us dearly.
Bush promised enemies would soon hear from us and they did.
Our adversaries express a hatred for all good in humanity.
Iran is sponsor of terrorism; US strike if they get nukes. (May 2007)
Palestine: Against declaration of statehood. (Feb 1999

William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

am looking to relocate somewhere in a few more years.

JiangxiDad on January 5, 2008 at 12:09 PM

When you’re ready, let me know. We’d love to help.

RushBaby on January 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I had to listen months ago how it’s not amnesty to allow criminals that sneak into, or overstayed their visa to this country to simply stay and be rewarded for breaking the law.

These two aged statesmen insult the American people and disclose their lack of honesty with this sort of Clintonian logic.

Hening on January 5, 2008 at 1:49 PM

I’m curious what do you propose the government should about the millions of illegals living in the US?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Deport them, cut off their taxpayer benefits (directly or indirectly), punitively punish the employers who hire them, repeal tax-exempt status for all churches and religions who harbor Illegal Aliens, cut off funds to sanctuary cities and states. After that? Show them the door!!! Yeah….that’ll work

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 1:49 PM

McCain does indeed look oooooolllllddd….very oooooooollllllddd. And the two of these OPEN BORDERS ZEALOTS are talking heads for La Raza.

And The Huckster, one of the other OPEN BORDERS ZEALOTS, is the only one that gets to talk about God, isn’t that right? Isn’t The Huckster the only “Man of God” in this campaign? That’s what Iowans said….

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Wyoming update: 5 for Romney, 1 for Hunter, 1 undeclared.

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Yes, OK, they broke the law by crossing our border.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

This is the only part I’m gonna answer to, Dave.
They broke the law, and get a pass for it. Citizens don’t get that. I believe in the rule of law AND I’m not cutting folks slack that come in illegally and proceed to take from the tax payer without paying taxes themselves. Sorry, but the rest of it is just rhetoric to me.

You’re making that “jobs Americans won’t do” argument on deaf ears. Because the premise is pure, unadulterated bullshite.

We can agree on the security aspects. But don’t you dare tell me I’m making a purely emotional argument, when I’m not.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM

WE already have nine “guest worker” programs in the U.S. WE don’t need another one. WE only need 2 million AG workers annually….why do WE need 28 million more????

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Deport them, cut off their taxpayer benefits (directly or indirectly), punitively punish the employers who hire them, repeal tax-exempt status for all churches and religions who harbor Illegal Aliens, cut off funds to sanctuary cities and states. After that? Show them the door!!! Yeah….that’ll work

…and the reason we should invest such tremendous resources and effort to derail our economy and lower our standard of living is…?

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM

This is not an emotional issue. It’s a Legal or Illegal issue…..period.

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM

There is no rational economic OR security argument for preventing Latin Americans who want to work here legally in menial, unskilled jobs from doing so.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:38 PM

And what part of “illegal” are you missing?

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much”. Business owner with illegals on the payroll, perhaps?

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM

If you legalize them then they are not illegal more.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM

If you legalize them then they are not illegal more.

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I. Am. Quite. Literally. Speechless.

wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Business owner with illegals on the payroll, perhaps?

Why do you make it personal?

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM

…and the reason we should invest such tremendous resources and effort to derail our economy and lower our standard of living is…?

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Our economy will NOT be derailed, OUR standard of living will NOT be lowered! In California, we have a $10 billion structured budget deficit due to benefits that go to Illegal Aliens and their offspring. Take your OPEN BORDERS ZEALOTRY to some other country….please. Don’t insult our intelligence.

DfDeportation on January 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM

and lower our standard of living

And btw…that is pure fantasy as well. Our standards were just fine before the major influx. It would be fine without. Wishful thinking on your part.

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM

terryannonline on January 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM

LOL. It’s not like I called him a name or anything. Sensitive much?

tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3