Video: McCain says he hasn’t changed his position on immigration
posted at 11:44 pm on January 19, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Well here ya go folks, carne rojo, rare as it can be. John McCain sponsored McCain-Kennedy, which would have amnestied millions of illegal immigrants without securing the border first. McCain has shifted his immigration stance recently, while lying that he never supported amnesty at all, to acknowledge that the border ought to be secured first.
But somehow, that’s not a change in his position. Ooooook.
The bottom line is that he still supports what McCain-Kennedy would do even though a majority of Americans don’t and even though the base of the party absolutely hated that bill.
Straight talk or arrogance: You make the call.
If the embedded clip doesn’t work for you, try viewing it at this link.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I remember that as well and it is one of the primary reasons that I decided to not even give McCain another look were he to get the nomination. Apparently though, there are a lot of people voting in polls and at the Primaries so far who don’t mind having their President call them bigots for disagreeing with him.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:09 AM
As you should, but if he is chosen we better have a grip on what the real alternatives are.
TheBigOldDog on January 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM
My nemesis, I wasn’t clear. The Spanish statement was meant to be what VinyFoxy would say. It’s not a clear-thinking day today. Since I can’t conquer you, I’ll send Tuco after you, though. Consider yourself warned.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Ok, you answered the part where I asked about Bush but I ask again how about Ronald Reagan?
Or how about Barry Goldwater? Wasn’t he pro-choice? So does that then disqualify him from calling himself as a conservative.
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM
And this distinction means what? Absolutely zippo. They laughed as they were coming up with that crap…and when we shouted our discontent, they collectively called us bigots.
I don’t see any difference between Grahamnesty, McVain, Lott, Kennedy etc.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM
And they are fools who will kill this country as we know it.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Oh don’t worry. I never assume that Fred support equals anything else. Some Fred supporters say they won’t vote, some are already looking to Mitt. I look at people one at a time:)
Yeah, McCain is actively legislated bills that are unconstitutional. His negatives are longer that I wish to type. Hillary, not content with mere free speech restrictions spoke openly about changing the electoral college after 2000. Neither of them appeal to me at all.
What’s your boy going to do? Run to the 5th? His coffers must be running low.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Little or no difference between our nom and the Dems if he’s it.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Nicely said.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM
I answered you about Reagan. Look back.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Honestly, America and the Republican party can do a whole lot worst than John McCain.
I believe that was Wendell Wilkie’s original campaign slogan.
Gerard on January 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM
You’re right, McCain said we “dont know the human heart” & were too lazy to work for $50 an hour…
DwnSouthJukin on January 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Tuco does not work for free.
Tuco does work pretty cheap though.
Tuco on January 20, 2008 at 1:14 AM
For those (like me) “of a certain age”, the Republican Party trying to drum up support for what’s happening here reminds me of a famous bit on a 1970 “Firesign Theatre” album.
A woman is on a quiz show and for a Grand Prize, with a lots of hoopla, they give her a brown paper bag. She excitedly opens it, looks inside and says:
“Why this is nothing but a bag of s**t!”
Then the announcer says, still all revved up,
“But it’s REALLY great s**t, Mrs. Kresky!”
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM
MB4 has done a good job posting some quotes in the past about Barry Goldwater. That has brought to my attention many things I didn’t know about Goldwater, including, as you mention, that he was pro-choice and, I believe, had a lot of contempt for “the religious right”.
I bet many people today would not consider Goldwater a conservative, just on those positions alone, yet he is supposed to be one of the fathers of modern Conservatism. I believe Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh look to him as inspiration on many of their ideological views.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Two peas in one pod.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Perfect!
I’m not buying this sh!t.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM
What a terrible day for America.
Don’t fear…people will come to their senses about Mccain.
Huckabee will win georgia and florida and go on to win the nomination!
HaraldHardrada on January 20, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I should add that Rush has mentioned that Reagan differed from Goldwater in that he was openly religious and openly pro-life and that is where he parted ways with Goldwater. Yet he still considered Goldwater somewhat of a mentor, I believe.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Shouldn’t that be two turds in the same septic tank?
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM
You really must SHARE those drugs you’re on.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Ok, you said Congress didn’t enforce the border during Reagan’s time in office. We have a Democratic congress right now. Do you think they will enforce the border?
If it’s up to Congress to enforce the border. Then why is immigration such a topic priority for you in a presidential candidate when you’re basically saying responsibility falls on Congress.
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Because with this turd, in combination with this toilet bowl congress, amnesty is a SURE thing.
Why is this so hard for you to understand.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:20 AM
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
- Barry Goldwater
Hubert Humphrey talks so fast that listening to him is like trying to look at Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.
- Barry Goldwater
I think any man in business would be foolish to fool around with his secretary. If it’s somebody else’s secretary, fine.
- Barry Goldwater
I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.
- Barry Goldwater
You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater
It’s a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president ……
except me.
- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Because a President can veto legislation and send it back to Congress to “fix”. A pro-Amnesty President, however, will not be using the veto pen, if the American people cannot stop Congress from passing the legislation.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Not quite. The Congress passes legislation, but it is the Executive branch, led by the President, that is responsible for the execution of the law.
If the Chief Executive enforced the laws that are already on the books, then the problem could be solved. There is little need for more legislation honestly.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:22 AM
And terryann…my statement about Reagan was that he agreed to sign the bill on the agreement with Congress that they’d secure the borders. If they’d not agreed to that, he’d not have signed it.
McShamnesty wouldn’t hesitate to sign ANYTHING amnesty-related..
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:22 AM
A little Oval Office help wouldn’t hurt.
billy on January 20, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Dude. Obama just ran an ad on Foxnews.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:23 AM
MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Speak of the devil. Right on cue. Thank you, sir.
I have to admit that after the last open registration, I have lost interest in the discussion here at HotAir. But I do CNTL-F and search for you and a few others to see what you have to say. Keep up the good work.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Damn bought and paid for politicians(Rep.and Dem)finally got some border agent killed. Sacrificed Ramos and Compeon first now this. Enforce the laws we already have!
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1937359920080120?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Dadzilla on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Take the chance. Don’t be afraid.
Rewards might be cheap, but heureuse.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
We did get an inordinate number of gits and trolls, didn’t we? Not all, mind…but MANY.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Memo to South Carolina and the Republican party: Stop allowing open primaries where jellos (independents) and demcocrats can vote in your primaries.
SouthernGent on January 19, 2008 at 11:55 PM
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. That is the main problem with the whole primary/caucus process. It allows people from another party to tell you who your candidate will be. By the way I am not a card carrying member of either parties, I can’t stand either party and would love to see a viable 3rd party some day. It’s time to find your escape route people, this once great country is going to hell in a handbasket right before our eyes.
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM
That’s a lot like saying, “Thank God he came to his senses and decided to shoot himself in the head with a .38 instead of a .44 magnum.”
deepdiver on January 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM
I have to admit, that I was gonna screw with the Dems this way…as I removed myself from the Rep party during shamnesty. But I will now be voting for Fred, or writing Fred in.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:27 AM
BINGO.
If we enforce the laws on the books, most of our illegal immigration problem, in addition to the illegals already here, goes away. Any candidate who does not talk about doing that is not serious about the illegal immigration problem.
And the talk about building a wall is not really an issue. There is no need for a wall either, really. Enforcement of current laws would solve much of the problem.
It is simply amazing to me that there are people running for President of the United States of America who are campaigning on NOT enforcing the laws of this country. And people are supporting those candidates.
Just amazes me.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:27 AM
What’s a git?
Saltysam on January 20, 2008 at 1:28 AM
…and some places are actually accomplishing something, because the Mexicans are now complaining about the influx of their own people running back across the border.
Enforce the LAWS!
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM
My point is that you guys run a really tight definition on who is ‘real’ conservative on here. What happened to being the Big Tent Party?
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Check that one out MB4, I think it’s a Ford.
billy on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Anyone who thinks that McCain would do whatever is required on the national security front should really listen to him when he talks about closing GITMO and giving all the terrorists show trials in our domestic courts. How about when he goes off about the 3 AQ terrorists, including the scumbag who planned 9/11, getting waterboarded. He gets his panties in a bunch over waterboarding 3 freaking terrorists and actually would have been happy if we didn’t get the info.
Or maybe doing what is required on the national security front might involve having someone who actually understands what is at stake in this WAR. Someone needs to ask each and every candidate this question. If you were the President on 9/10/2001 and the CIA / FBI etc. called you and said they had detained a Saudi Arabian national illegally in the US that had spouted some words about a huge attack before he stopped talking and they ask you, the President, how far they should take their interrogation….. what would you advise?
What would McCain say, or Huckabee, or Mitt, or Rudy, or Fred, or Ron Paul. That’s the way I try to gauge if a candidate would be ready to do what is required to protect America and it’s people! Honestly folks, if anyone’s answer is anything but “whatever is required!” then he or she isn’t good enough to protect my country and my family. McCain and the Democrats come up real short on national security because he’s already limited himself on this issue. If he can’t stomach a little waterboarding then he has no place being CIC in a war where our enemies want to cut our heads off on video.
I can only suppose that massive Democrat voter fraud gave McCain NH and SC. Was the Catholic Church busing in illegals to vote for him?
Buzzy on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
um, he doesn’t still support that. he flip-flopped and is trying to spin it. that is your problem Bryan, you make these absolute assertions that don’t hold up.
treyevans on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Sorry, Saltysam, I sometimes drop down into British slang.
It just means “moron”.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
McCain-Feingold= Little Tent
Saltysam on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Obviously your big tent includes Liberals and Moderates. That is not what this party is about. If it moves left, why have a Right??
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Reagan was trying to find an answer to the problem. He failed. His attempt allowed us to see that amnesty wouldn’t work in 2007, something that conservatives should’ve known.
Quit trying to change the subject to different politicians. The problem is with Mcain and his blatant attempt to lie to everyone here. If you want to talk about Goldwater, and the politics of 1965, find another forum. For me, in 2008, I want my nominee to be pro-life, pro-winning the war, anti-amnesty, anti-government, and pro-1st amendment. McCain fails too many of those.
Sydney Carton on January 20, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Right. I’m supportive of the idea of a wall because of the issue of national security. I think in a time of nuclear proliferation, I’d like to know it would be difficult to bring a WMD across the border. But even that is already passed and only would need funding. Which a President could get by submitting with his budget and a little strong-arming.
Where Congress really could come into play is to take away fed funds from sanctuary cities. Because of the vacuum of action at the fed level though, a lot of states are starting to take the issue into their own hands. By the time the election is held, I suspect we will really see how viable that approach will have become. Attrition by enforcement still seems to be the logical path to me.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:31 AM
If MiM and MB4 can like/tolerate each other, this coalition ought to still be possible. Alas, no leader to enable it.
If it’s not yet obvious, I like both of you.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Hear, freakin’ hear!
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Do you have a British accent? If so you might need to start posting your comments in mp3 form:-)
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM
As someone who is going through the immigration process right now (my wife is Colombian and we have been waiting since April of 07 for her visa), any politician that would consider for 1 second about giving amnesty to illegals is very insulting to me. The process is a joke but just giving in to the masses of illegals is a bigger joke. I have been seriously considering reversing the process and applying for a Colombian visa and living there. If Clinton or Obama get in office I will be an ex-american, I never thought I would say that but I can’t stomach the idea of here with a socialist president.
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Okay, fine. Terry and McCain are welcome under the big tent. A big tent filled with losing politicians, but a Big Tent nonetheless.
billy on January 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM
You are always such a ray of sunshine, Hon!! Glad to have you here.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM
In my opinion, yes. However, I’m also looking for a higher standard of discussion of politics than most people, so I’m probably more critical than most. I come here because HotAir is good for links to the news, but, in my opinion, the commentary is going downhill.
Granted, this site is not really about leading a movement of any kind, but mainly about critical and a lot of times snarky commentary on issues. I prefer more serious discussion and less snark. So I just mainly come here for the news links and go elsewhere for the discussion.
But prior to the open registration, I was beginning to enjoy the discussion in the comments with MB4, Entelechy, RushBaby, Spirit of 1776 and a few others that slip my mind at the moment. In my opinion, there seems to be too much tabloidization of politics and I prefer to discuss ideology and issues. Polls and identity politics and “momentum”.. that stuff just doesn’t interest me. There were plenty of polls and momentum regarding the war effort and the “surge”, yet that was not the story. The story was in the details of the war effort and the news not being reported. The polls were reported, because the details were not part of the agenda.
We don’t and shouldn’t fight wars based on polls and “momentum” and identity politics, we shouldn’t treat our country that way either.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Only when I fake it, Spirit. I’m just a southern belle with a serious case of Anglophilia. Watch so much Brit/Irish/Scottish tv/movies etc…and have a close friend who is a Brit…I’ve picked up a lot of the lingo.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Senor Juan says that we can’t put up a big tent without illegals doing most of they work.
It would just cost too much to have to pay lazy Americans $50 an hour to put it up and they would probably put it up wrong anyway.
MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 AM
McCain is a dangerous loon.
pat on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Although it is very unlikely, I can see the debate with Huckabee right before the general election:
- Do you seriously believe that the Universe is only 6000 years old?
Then he’ll be hounded by some guy in a Dinosaur suit around at campaign stops.
And how about those 25 million registered Catholic voters and 4 million Mormon voters? Think that they’ll be punching in old Huckabee on their dance card?
As for McCain the age/health/mental history and general scuminess will be factors, but the memory of his smooching with Ted Kennedy and allowing that lardbutt to write the ENTIRE Shamnesty bill (along with many other nightmares) will allow us conservatives to sit at home, eat popcorn, and watch a really good “Nova” show on meterorites or something on a certain night in early November.
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 AM
OK,
I’m not trying to defend McCain here. . . but here’s the deal.
McCain HAS NOT changed his position on this bill (that’s bad). The immigration bill that was passed INCLUDED BORDER FENCE. McCain SUPPORTED border fence, and he STILL DOES. It was IN THE BILL.
Now, the problem is that he also supported the amnesty part. He claims to not have supported amnesty because of the definition of amnesty. He doesn’t define amnesty as granting illegals citizenship if they pay $5000. I do. Many people here do.
What he has changed is his approach. He says to build the fence (and have states certify that immigration is stopped). . . then give citizenship to illegals who pay $5000 (which he doesn’t consider amnesty – though I do).
So he hasn’t changed his position. The McCain/Kennedy bill included border fence. McCain was for border fence. He still is. NOW he is for border fence alone, first, certify illegal immigration has stopped – then amnesty.
That is the difference. I know the media doesn’t report it like that. But McCain is telling the truth here. He hasn’t changed his position, just the order and method of achieving what he set out to achieve in the one bill. Now he’ll use two bills to do the same thing with the fence first.
That’s where he gets the ‘American’s don’t trust the government’. What he means is that American’s didn’t like the McCain/Kennedy bill because they didn’t trust the government to build the fence (which was in the bill – and McCain supported). Well, they authorized spending for the fence and it ain’t getting done so duh, that’s why we don’t believe you will build the fence.
DOES THIS MAKE SENSE YET?! Am I talking to myself? Please understand people (and Bryan). If you want the R to win, you are going to have to figure out how to support McCain because it’s going to be him as the R nom.
ThackerAgency on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Understood and agree. Tho, I tend to like the friendly threads. They do happen once in a while.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Yes, but I’m will to bet he doesn’t fit ALL of those. And if Hillary wins you get some who failed ALL of your requirements. But if that’s what you want.
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Sigh. Too bad, I was excited there for a sec, haha. I do love the British myself.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM
If McVain is the R, then the difference between the D and R in this election is negligible at best.
How many freakin times do we have to repeat this?
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM
You’re looking at the wrong details. You need to take a poll of what South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa voters say and then come to your conclusion about what is possible. If those people say that MB4 and Michael in MI cannot get along, then it is “inevitable” and we must listen to the “momentum”.
In all seriousness, I used to “tolerate” MB4 (which is to say whenever I saw his handle, I would scroll on by his comments), but I now appreciate his comments more and more. We may not agree on everything, but we probably agree moreso than not. But what I like about him is that he treats issues seriously, except when certain comments deserve snarky replies with quotes or song lyrics. But his serious comments have challenged my understanding and knowledge of things and for that I am grateful.
I used to come into discussions of politics trying to get people to come around to my point of view. I now go into discussions hoping simply to open people up to the facts and knowledge that I have and also to educate and inform myself from the facts and knowledge others provide. I simply enjoy learning. The more I know and learn, the better decisions I can make.
I just wish more people would focus more on learning and sharing knowledge and less on debating.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM
The party used to be about different factions getting along enough to agree to disagree on issues, even if in degrees. You can’t have one without the other and right now the self professed conservatives are acting like a bunch of babies because their guy is floundering and McCain is surging.
Had the reverses occurred I’m quite sure the moderates would have gotten the “now this needs to be a unified party and the selection was done fair and square so we are counting on you…” lecture.
If the conservatives don’t want to be loyal to the party go for it. The moderates will do fine without you even if Hillary wins. Because in 2012 people will remember who walked away from the party and target the voters accordingly.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM
A sh!t sandwich is still a sh!t sandwich. Give up now, you will not convince me to buy it. Much less eat it.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:42 AM
As I said, Spirit…I can fake the accents, and really well.
LOL.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 AM
What is so wrong with moderates!!! Most Americans are moderates. Imagine that, a Republican party that mirrors the people.
terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Sorry. I remember you, and will not engage. Thanks, tho.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:44 AM
What a tool.
JeffinOrlando on January 20, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Dear you are young yet, so I’ll just pass along what my dad used to tell me when I said that…
There is nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow lines and dead possums.
Moderate is just what libs who know “liberal” is a bad word call themselves.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:45 AM
There is a difference between Conservatism and politcal parties. Conservatism is not about the Republican Party, it is about a set of ideals and principles and a way of governing. It just so happens that most Conservatives are in the Republican Party.
Ronald Reagan stood for a set of ideals, principles and values… a certain conservatism. He left the Democrat Party, because he was loyal to his ideology, not his Party.
Conservatives vote Republican, because the Republican Party has stood for majority conservative principles more often than not. When it stops doing that, Conservatives have two choices: (1) vote out the elected officials who are not governing conservatively or (2) leave the Party as Reagan left the Democrat Party and vote for an elected official (of any party) who is governing conservatively.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Buzzy on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Not to argue with you…
but I don’t believe for a second that McCain, faced with immediate and catastrophic scenario, would hesitate to use waterboarding to extract information, and keep it Top Secret.
That’s just the problem with him. He’d just as soon oppose waterboarding and make it officially “illegal” and bask in the glow of MSM admiration.
Is it not similar to his views on free speech as well?
Saltysam on January 20, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Very well said.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Hillary will win regardless. The reason why the Republican base isn’t more mobilized is because the party keeps running RINOS like McCain and identity-politics jerks like the Huckster. If the Republicans, once in power, actually cut government, closed the border, got tough with Iran, told the Saudis to go to hell, and appointed more pro-life judges, then the base would be thrilled with them and would turn out in droves.
Instead, once again, we’re asked to vote for a loser. Screw that. If Hillary wins, that’s because the Republicans didn’t do their job. It has nothing to do with me.
Sydney Carton on January 20, 2008 at 1:48 AM
tickleddragon, ALL THE R candidates are bad. Why do you think they got voted out of Congress last election? They moved away from their conservative roots. How many freakin times do I have to repeat this?
ThackerAgency on January 20, 2008 at 1:48 AM
I won’t even waste my time watching this nonsense, I’d much rather just pretend Juan isn’t even in the race, but I’ll respond to the contention:
RightWinged says he hasn’t changed his position on McCain.
RightWinged on January 20, 2008 at 1:50 AM
I will politely agree to disagree on that. LOL. See! We CAN do that.
Seriously, I don’t see Fred the way you obviously do.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:50 AM
MB4
Since you are a Goldwater aficionado, I have to admit that some of the lugubrious “Big Tent” comments here remind of my own personal favorite Goldwater quote (and one that has special meaning out here in West Texas)
“That all makes about as much sense as teats on a boar hog.”
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Thanks for illustrating my points very nicely.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Good point about the sanctuary cities. However, aren’t those laws already on the books too? Or are States making local laws that allow for Sanctuary Cities and Congress and the President would be able to make a federal law to supercede any laws that allow sanctuary cities?
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM
MB4 on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I don’t laugh out loud much reading things online, but this definitely had me laughing. heh Thanks, MB4. Spot-on.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM
I respectfully disagree with you on that. SEE! We can agree to disagree.
I don’t see Fred the same way you obviously do. I do, however, see all the others that way. Tho, McVain and Huck are the worst.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM
My reason for not engaging with you has nothing to do with Fred. So, I’ve illustrated nothing for you.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Sorry for the double post, y’all.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:54 AM
OK look, notice I said top 4.
You, like Fred do not pay attention to the details. Fred had NO CLUE how to run a national presidential campaign. That’s why Fred didn’t win. It had nothing to do with Fred’s credentials and everything to do with the fact that he didn’t know how to run a campaign.
He should have won in Iowa, and he should have spent time in New Hampshire. Announcing on Leno the day the New Hampshire debate happened seemed like a good idea to his NOVICE and ROOKIE national election campaign staff. But it was the NAIL IN HIS COFFIN.
So understand that Fred’s problem is not his credentials, but his campaign from GO was BAD.
ThackerAgency on January 20, 2008 at 1:55 AM
Yeah, I understand people come here for that sort of thing. I personally do not. I have had too many people online betray my trust in them in the past that I no longer consider things I read online in this kind of format to be coming from people, but rather I just treat it as responding to opinions posted online. I refrain from responding to the person and choose to just acknowledge the statement or opinion or ideological viewpoint. I can understand though that others are not as cynical as me and actually consider this website some kind of “community”. Personally, I don’t see it that way and just choose to come here to discuss issues. When the comment threads stray off course or focus on nonsensical issues instead of substance, I choose to leave. To each their own.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:56 AM
I will give you that AFTER the primaries. They aren’t over yet, and there is a long way to go. But see me after, and we’ll have a party for your call. K?
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 AM
I knew he’d have a rough time the minute I heard Mary Matalin was his campaign adviser. If anyone is a first-class idiot, it’s her.
Sydney Carton on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Heh. Well now I’ll read your comments with that accent playing in my head. Just drop in bloody hell every once in a while.
A lot of the problem is self-inflicted. I mean we are complaining about being stuck with rino’s but one of the presumed front runners, G. Allen, shot himself in the foot with his macca remark. He was as conservative as Fred (if not more so I think), and he was an automatic front runner. It’s not like the guys aren’t out there, the party just imploded temporarily. Compound that with the fact that the VP is not an heir-apparent.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Btw…details? Are you kidding me? It’s 2am in the morning here…I should be asleep. Of course, I’m gonna miss the details in some of the comments. Duh.
:)
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Good point, I don’t know. To withhold funding however, I assume would be delineated anew in each budget bill.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:59 AM
With deference to your experiences, I’m plenty cynical. But I have made a couple really nice friends on this site. Mind, the friendships are now OFF this site, but they started here, so I will not complain.
I just don’t take the whole thing quite that seriously.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Righto…watch this space, Love. :)
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM
I really don’t get this term “moderate” and “Independent”. Most Americans that I know are people. People with opinions on issues. And most of those people I know with opinions on issues, vote based on those opinions on those issues. They are not “moderates” or “independents”, they are people with opinions.
There is no “moderate” or “independent” opinion on an issue. You either have an opinion or you do not. And you either vote Republican or Democrat or other party or you do not. All of those votes are taking stances on the issues and voting accordingly.
All this talk about “moderates” and “independents” is just a fancy way of saying (1) I don’t want to take a stand on an issue for fear of being labeled something or (2) I have opinions on all the issues, but they do not line up with any particular party most of the time, so I vote on what is most important to me and so I consider myself “independent.”
But when it comes down to it, the average person is not “moderate” or “independent”. Most people have strong opinions on most issues. But it seems a lot of people today are too afraid of being labeled that they come up with the nice safe PC label of themselves as “moderates” or “Independents” so as to seem above it all.
This is just another form of identity politics. Instead of identifying oneself a certain way, people need to get back to just talking about the issues and their ideology.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:05 AM
In other, more simplistic words… “nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow lines and dead possums.” LOL.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:07 AM
One last droopy-eyed question:
Wasn’t a lot of this problem stemming from the fact that GWBush was considered to have so little “Gravitas” ( an overused MSM word that actually has some meaning for old former Latin students like me) that he ran with an unelectable Dick Cheney as his VP, thus denying the Republican party any kind of a natural leader emanating from his Administration? Or is the Bush administration so tainted and low-rated in the public polls that it really doesn’t matter, like wioth the “tainting” of Humphrey in ‘68 and even Al Gore in 2000?
Or are we Republicans so used to electing turncoats and jackoffs like “GreenyWeeny” Gingrich, McCain, Lott and Joe Scarborough that we have an advanced form of Stockholm syndrome?
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:07 AM
It’s the “next in line” syndrome I think.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:09 AM
The presidential election has become nothing more than a freakin beauty contest. Two big mistakes were made in the political process in this country. The first was letting the people vote for senators instead of leaving it to the state governments to choose their representative at the federal level. The second was letting the people vote for president. There is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections and I firmly believe we were better off without the dumb masses voting for such an important position. Screw “democracy” (which we aren’t) we need to return to our roots as a constitutional republic.
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »