Video: McCain says he hasn’t changed his position on immigration
posted at 11:44 pm on January 19, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
As best illustrated by Bush I - a resume searching for a person..
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:12 AM
An old friend of mine who taught me a lot about politics and who considers himself a “9/11 Conservative” mentioned Allen to me right after the 2004 election. I knew nothing about him, but he said to watch out for him, because he felt that he could surprise a lot of people.
Unfortunately, as you say, he shot himself in the foot with that comment. The thing that annoys me is that conservatives and Republicans could accidentally run over a cat and they would be forced to resign. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats can basically commit murder, fraud, steal and be corrupt as can be, and even openly admit to all this and just apologize, and they get off no problem.
I want to continue holding our elected officials to high standards, but I tire of the double standard that exists for the two Parties and the two ideologies.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:13 AM
The term moderate is a joke. They call the PLO aka Fatah (which means conquest) the moderate “palestinian” party, and Abu Mazen aka Abbas the moderate leader.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:05 AM
I was thinking the same exact thing.
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM
This is a symptom of the relativistic society we live in. An “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” monster that has consumed us.
Skidd on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM
I didn’t leave the
DemocraticRepublican party, the party left me. - Ronald ReaganAlthough honestly I have never considered myself a Republican. Yes I am registered as a Republican, but thats only because I can’t vote in primaries without being part of a party, and the Republicans are closer to my views than the Democrats.
Gianni on January 20, 2008 at 2:15 AM
This is a symptom of the relativistic society we live in. An “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” monster that has consumed us.
Skidd on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM
You can thank government schools for that.
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Allen was hounded by the Washington Post, but he would have imploded during the primary process, in any case. He simply was not as smart as the conservative press (ie, Newsmax) was touting.
TexasJew on January 20, 2008 at 2:18 AM
That is a HUGE part of it. Schools have become surrogate parents.
Skidd on January 20, 2008 at 2:20 AM
NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Ditto.
Saltysam on January 20, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Well, I used to do that too. “Meet” people on website comment sections such as this and then correspond with them through e-mail or IM off the site and then develop a repore with them and, seemingly, a “friendship”. But, as I said, every time, I was betrayed in one way or another with them not being completely honest with something or another (too many long stories to get into). There are many commentors here who seem nice in their comments, but I no longer think that I can “know” a person based on a few comments they leave on a blog or a few comments they leave in a comment section. Or, for that matter, a few e-mails and IMs exhanged. People can be anyone they choose to be online without any repurcussions, as I have learned the hard way too many times.
I used to believe that since I am a “normal, decent” person online, there must be other “normal, decent” people online as well. I no longer feel that way. Now I just assume everyone is using an “online personality” and I don’t take what anyone says seriously, whether it be insults to me or praise and “liking” of me.
But I understand others have not had the same experience, so I don’t begrudge them that. As I said, to each their own. But, just an FYI, if I don’t return any pleasantries from any commenters on here, now you know why. I’m not here to commiserate and mingle, I am here to discuss politics.
With regards to taking things seriously, are you talking about the personal discussions here or the political discussions? Personally, I wish people would discuss politics in a little more serious and less snarky manner. The goal, I believe, should be to help educate and inform and to help ourselves learn in the process of discussion. Passing on insults or getting into debate contests does not really do much to further the goal of improving this country, in my opinion.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:22 AM
I understand the sentiment. I’d rather be on the side held to the higher standard because the public views R’s on a higher standard too, but I certainly follow your meaning.
It’s hard for me to get too excited about it though because you have things like Romney’s said he ’saw’ his dad walk - and that gets all blown up and twisted to fit a stereotype by members of the party itself. Same with the ‘hat rule’ or whatever. Supporters use anything against other candidates regardless of legitimacy. Which I don’t think serves us well because then the big things are taken less seriously then they should be. Politics is just a night of long knifes, sadly.
Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 AM
heh Exactly.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 AM
I was of voting age both times Reagan ran. What many people don’t get is that the large majority of the country wanted to vote for him. He had certain conservative principles but still governed from the center on many issues.
This campaign season none of the candidates fit that bill. And the GOP in particular is fracturing because people are angry at one another because they aren’t voting for their candidate.
And whether it is McCain, Romney, Thompson, etc. the common theme is “I won’t vote for anyone else”.
Time is running out for the GOP to get on track towards some sense of unity.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Yes, he grows on some people, and thoroughly annoys others, and doesn’t have to care. It’s really a beautiful thing.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 AM
I disagree.
I think the parents are the problem. Either they choose to commit to the well being and raising of their kids or they don’t. Good parenting offsets any negative things the schools may offer.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 AM
I meant taking any of it seriously. You’ve obviously thought about this so much that you’ve developed a philosophy about it. And if you’re needing to be somewhere where folks don’t discuss anything but the issues, you need to get away from people in any capacity. No one sticks to the issues, ever. We’re mostly here because we have opinions about what’s being reported, and fortunately or unfortunately, when you put personalities (real or fiction) together you get social interaction.
I can respect your need for circumspection, but you may not get what you want from ANY internet site.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 AM
This is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of actually listing all the positions of the Fatah Party, they are labeled “moderate” and thus acceptable. People who are ignorant of “Palestine” politics see the label “moderate” and associate it with “moderate” here in America, when it is nothing of the sort. “Moderate” in “Palestine” has a completely different meaning. But the mass media and “Palestine” apologists use “moderate” on purpose, to whitewash the actual ideology and positions of Fatah.
I don’t like the whole “moderate” nonsense here in American politics either. People are not “moderates”; you either have an opinion on something or you do not. Period. Most people calling themelves “moderates” only do so because they are afraid of being labeled and not being “liked”.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:32 AM
The trouble is that parenting, especially in the last half of the twentieth century, has been handed over to “experts” in every field there is. The Doctor Spocks, Sigmund Freuds, etc.
The parents are out of their own homes more than any time in history.
Skidd on January 20, 2008 at 2:33 AM
And I think this is largely due to the parent’s choice. We consciously chose to keep one parent at home while the kids were growing up and forego many of the luxury items our peers were enjoying with their dual incomes. Kids are grown now, each successful and independent and we are still together. Was it easy? Not at all. Was it worth it? You betcha!
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 AM
I’m getting really tired of the suggestion that it’s no one but “my guy”. As if it doesn’t have anything to do with WHY my guy IS my guy… I have chosen my choice based on my principles and nothing else. Whoever gets closest to them, gets my vote. It’s a no-brainer.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:38 AM
This is what I meant when I said I want to hold our elected officials to high standards, but don’t like the double standard that exists. I also do not like the riduculous attacks that happen and the small things that are blown out of proportion. Maccaca was not really that big of a deal. He should have had to apologize for it, but that’s it. He should not have been labeled a racist and denied public office, simply for that comment. Or, if he should, then there are a LOT more public officials who need to resign from office based on that standard.
I just want the standards to be even across the board. And I also want the Republican Party to stop eating its own. But that is what happens when people are more focused on identity politics, polls and “electability”. The substance and ideology and issues go out the window and we sit and talk about “silly hats”, guitar playing and Mormonism vs Southern Baptists. Meanwhile, we also sit around denigrating entire states of people or groups of people simply based on some Primary results. Look at the comments people are throwing around about “evangelicals” and Iowa, etc. Instead of talking about issues and explaining issues and ideology to people to help them learn and educate themselves, people sit around calling Iowans idiots and evangelicals stupid. Brilliant.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:38 AM
We’ll all just have to learn that the jobs are gone and won’t be coming back.
But 20-50 million more illegals will sneaking in for whatever’s left, as soon as McCain gets the reins.
Depressing and weak, simultaneously.
All due to that fact that he has permanent Absolute Moral Authority because the Viet Cong didn’t follow the Geneva Conventions.
Thankfully, he doesn;t have a chance at the nomination.
No matter how much the MSM (dems) are trying to grease his skids.
profitsbeard on January 20, 2008 at 2:39 AM
If your profile is correct you are about 30 years old. You will find as you marry, raise kids and age that your stance on some things will harden while softening on others. To paint the world in terms of conservatives and liberals only is narrow minded at best.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:40 AM
I tend to think you’re right about that. Let’s hope you are.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:40 AM
He shouldn’t care. These are only a bunch of comments left online. It’s not like we’re talking to our best friend or our family members or our boss. I don’t get why anyone cares what anyone else says about them online. If people would just stick to discussing the issues and ideology and bag the identity politics, people would find they get along a lot better.
That’s why I enjoy MB4’s posts. I know nothing about him as a person and, frankly, I don’t care. All I know is that I learn something from his comments he chooses to leave here, and am entertained by some of his other comments he chooses to leave here. Not once do I consider what type of person he is or what he looks like or whatever. I focus on the substance of the post and that’s it.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:42 AM
BINGO.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:43 AM
You know, there is a comfortable middle ground between trusting all those that you talk to online and shutting down. Some of us exist there, without issue. :)
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Not true. The discussion on a site depends on what the standards are for the site and what the blog authors allow in the comments. HotAir has no restrictions on discussion in the comments of personal matters or whatnot. That is not the case on many of the military blogs that I read. The discussion is focused primarily on serious discussion of the issues and commenters are asked not to go off topic or treat the comments section as some sort of chat community for any topic under the sun.
So this kind of discussion can be found on many sites online. it all depends on the regulations on the site by the authors. HotAir does not regulate its site in this manner and it is moreso in line with a community chat site like LGF, rather than a blog where comments are mostly on topic.
I treat HotAir the same way I treat LGF. Once the comment section starts turning into a personal chat site, I just move on. I no longer have any interest in making “friends” with people online. I do that with people in my everyday life offline.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 AM
You’ve made that clear, I think.
As this isn’t a military blog, and more of an entertainment political blog, you shouldn’t expect it to be dry. I’d rather it not be. The other would bore me to tears. But I’m glad you find what you need there.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:50 AM
*throws a bucket of water over TD*
There ya go.
MadisonConservative on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 AM
Kind of like Tuco.
But then no one would ever be foolish enough to trust Tuco as far as they could through Tuco anyway.
Tuco on January 20, 2008 at 2:52 AM
Also, one last thing about this comment. This is fine if this is known by both parties up front, but it causes trouble down the road if one or the other don’t realize that things aren’t serious, but everything discussed is simply in jest or not really serious. Personally, I am honest to a fault and don’t say anything that I don’t mean, whether in person or online. I have corresponded with too many people online in the past who liked to fool around with saying things that they didn’t really mean and then hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to protect themselves from any repurcussions. Sometimes they did it deliberately to hurt people and sometimes they were under the false assumption that both parties knew it was all in fun or jest. But most of the time, one can’t really know if someone is being serious or just goofing around online. So I bypass having to figure that out and just stick to what I can figure out: statements on issues.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:53 AM
LOL.. I was wondering where you got off to.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:53 AM
MiM, I’m truly sorry that you got burned so badly. I’ve never trusted anyone online enough to get involved to get burned. I’m sorry you had to learn the hard way.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:55 AM
He sounds like some kind of fungus.
Tuco on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 AM
The overabundance of “Fred’s in third, that means he’s done, I know it, don’t deny it” crap when no actual announcement has been made has made me cut back on the Hot Air (both literal and site name).
MadisonConservative on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 AM
I understand that. I’ve stayed away but got back into it this evening.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:58 AM
That is absolutely excellent. My parents chose to do the same thing with my brothers and I. Like you, my parents did not have all the luxurious things for us and we lived very simply and did not have the best clothes or the best toys or get to go on a lot of fancy, expensive vacations or live in a big house (my room that I have now in my own 4-bedroom house is probably bigger than the one my two brothers and I shared growing up in our 2-bedroom townhouse). But, my brothers and I had what could not be bought: quality time with our parents. What I most cherish is the time I had with my mom growing up, making sure that I got all my homework done, checking it even after I did it and then allowing me to go outside to play. She also went with on school field trips, helped out with Mother’s Club and was very involved with our school and church and with our sports activities.
That was all priceless. It was not easy, as you said, but it was definitely worth it. All 3 of us boys have college degrees (BSME Purdue 1999 for me) and both my younger brothers are now in the military. The same choice to have one parent stay home could be made today, but the parents are making other choices. Sad.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Tuco, just because you’re ugly, not everything is. MB4 could be an adorable fellow.
p.s. see what I wrote to the beautiful person on the main “Top Picks” thread.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 3:01 AM
May you prevail.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Thanks for taking the time to share that. You are fortunate that you have the parents you do.
It is more hope than certainty but I like to think that the younger people today are hungry for more stability and meaning in life. This could translate to higher premiums on lifelong marriage and commitment to kids.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 3:05 AM
If your profile is correct you are about 30 years old. You will find as you marry, raise kids and age that your stance on some things will harden while softening on others. To paint the world in terms of conservatives and liberals only is narrow minded at best.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:40 AM
Yep, I will be 32 in a couple weeks. And while I do know that my opinions will change as I mature and educate myself more and become more informed than I am now (my gosh was I ignorant 5-10-15 years ago, even though I felt I knew it all at those times in my life), I won’t be getting married or having kids (completely given up on that aspect of my life), so that won’t affect my metamorphosis in ideology. Though, I can understand how people change when getting married and especially when becoming parents. One of the most amazing experiences of my life was the 45 minutes I spent holding my cousin’s baby last Christmas. She was only about 4 months old at the time, but when he went to hand her to me to hold her, she turned and gave me this big smile and my heart just melted. When I held her and she seemed so content on my lap, I felt like nothing else mattered in the world and all my worries went away. All I could think of was this baby girl and how amazing she was. I can see how that experience 24/7 would have quite an effect on a person…
I don’t see the world in terms of “conservatives/liberals”, I see the world in terms of having opinions on issues. Conservative and liberal are terms used to describe people with certain opinions on certain issues.
What I am trying to promote is for people to stop using the easy labels and start focusing on their opinions on issues. Labeling someone a Conservative and Liberal is playing identity politics as well. There is too much of that and too little of talking about issues and ideology and policies.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:06 AM
I would not trust him very far. I know the type - trust me.
Tuco on January 20, 2008 at 3:08 AM
I don’t like the whole “moderate” nonsense here in American politics either. People are not “moderates”; you either have an opinion on something or you do not. Period. Most people calling themelves “moderates” only do so because they are afraid of being labeled and not being “liked”.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:32 AM
I’m a moderate; let me show you how it works. I am conservative on some issues (welfare, taxes, defense, affirmative action), liberal on others (gay marriage, stem cells), and unsure about a few (abortion, guns). There are also a number of smaller issues that I really don’t care too much about (medical marijuana). It’s possible to have a set of views that are philosophically consistent with one another but do not fit into any category. Politics is a buffet, not prix fixe.
Big S on January 20, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Good points. Enjoyed the dialog. have a good night - time for me to turn in.
Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 3:11 AM
I know there is a middle ground. I have made the choice not to find it. I choose to not have to figure out who is real and who is BSing me. I’m a sensitive person who wears my heart on my sleeve and that have gotten me in trouble more times that I would prefer. So now I simply choose not to put myself through any of that BS anymore.
As I said, to each their own. I’m not saying that I expect this not to be an entertainment political blog. I know what it is and I know what to expect here. Part of my point though was that if one doesn’t treat things seriously, then one shouldn’t expect others to either. For example, politicians don’t treat voters seriously, because they know voters don’t treat politics seriously. People need to stop complaining about politicians and start examining themselves. If we don’t treat this country and its government seriously, we shouldn’t expect our elected leaders to do so either. That was my main point.
Just as children are a reflection of their parents, a country’s government is a reflection of its citizens. When people complain about politicians, they are really complaining about themselves. Something to think about…
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:13 AM
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:55 AM
Sorry, I am not looking for sympathy, just trying to explain my point of view on things here. I’ll stop though if I am coming off looking for sympathy instead of my goal which was just to inform.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:15 AM
Hon, I know you’re not asking for sympathy. And you’ve made abundantly clear how you feel…at length.
tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 3:18 AM
Funny you are Tuco - in one sentence you tell me not to trust him, but to trust you.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 3:20 AM
Same here. The lack of substantive analysis anywhere on political blogs these days is pretty uninspiring, to say the least. But, if the goal of all those kinds of posts from all over the blogosphere was to depress the public, specifically conservatives in support of Fred Thompson, it seems to be working. As I have heard and read a lot of my friends start throwing in the towel and getting discouraged and basically giving up. The annoying thing is that some of these bloggers seem proud that they are having this effect on people. But, as has been said:
It is just frustrating to work to inspire people, when there are so many others working to depress them.. and enjoying every minute of succeeding at it.
Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:20 AM
These are much deeper waters than I had thought.
Tuco on January 20, 2008 at 3:28 AM
Perilous waters. I wasn’t born to walk on water.
The Hillary/McCain/Bloomberg scenario give me no hope. Inspire me, or just enchant me a little. It’s been a depressing day.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM
We are caught up, in an enchanting dance, a minuet. La, it is all so simple.
Percy on January 20, 2008 at 3:57 AM
Percy, did you see my answer (to my illogic)?
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 4:02 AM
Sharpen your sword Percy, it looks like we’ll need it. What a day. Where will all this lead? Retreat into the mountains?
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 4:04 AM
Good gawd…Am I really going to have to vote for this tool? Optimistic view? big ass turnout to block Hillary serves a dual purpose in electing republican congressmen who can block her…or McCain.
Either way, I think we are looking at a one term president. Keep your powder dry Mike Pence.
Dirthead on January 20, 2008 at 4:12 AM
He sees what is here and what is there
even when you are not aware.
The Lady is too kind
and La, even sublime.
Percy on January 20, 2008 at 4:15 AM
holy toledo…the state of our planet????? who is this jack-a$$?
Dirthead on January 20, 2008 at 4:20 AM
Je suis enchanté. Schlaf gut Springerle, und traeum von Kindern in einem Karussell.
Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 4:26 AM
That is no Culo, although there is a certain simularity.
That is your next el Presidente of America del Norte !
Saludamos a todos !
VinyFoxy on January 20, 2008 at 4:30 AM
SHAT!
Dirthead on January 20, 2008 at 4:33 AM
I’d like someone to show this San Diego TV news video during an interview and have him justify his policies.
I actually wrote letters to Graham and McCain after they insulted me and many other Americans with their comments about those of us who just want a little law enforcement. And it’s working so well in his own Arizona!!
Graham didn’t reply, but McCain’s office did. One of my points was that we should not allow the matricula consular card. In his reply, he said that the Patriot Act allowed its use. I replied that it did NOT. It was silent on the issue, in spite of pleas from the FBI that it was not secure. No reply from him that time - maybe because I called him “disingenuous”.
I also called him out on his changing of the 2006 version of the bill’s ‘90 day’ waiting period to a ‘one business day’ in 2007. That devious item alone is deserving of his disqualification to represent the citizens of this country. That little move showed his true colors - he raised his middle finger to American citizens.
He is slime. Simple as that. Maybe we need another mobilization like last Summer.
I trust him. I trust him to betray his country in a Mexican minute if he gets elected. He would make the biggest single transformational (PERMANENT) mistake of this century for our country.
fred5678 on January 20, 2008 at 4:35 AM
So are you anti-McCain people in support of Romney, who ran as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate for Governor of Massachusetts and now is posturing himself as pro-life and supportive of traditional marriage?
As for immigration, McCain has been saying for months that he got the messsage, that law enforcement and securing the border comes first. The problem we have is that the law enforcement provisions of the 1980’s immigration law that none other than President Reagan signed into law were not enforced. What McCain understands well is that while last summer’s immigration bill had law enforcement provisions, the majority of the American people do not trust Government to enforce the law and until law enforcement is demonstrated, other immigration measures are off the table. Yet the angst about immigration continues.
Maybe you should think about the fact that the Democrats have not got the message, that they all attack President Bush for not passing comprehensive immigration “reform” as if there was not a negative reaction among the American people to last summer’s bill. So if you undercut the one Republican that the polls show can win in November (McCain), then you will be helping elect a Democrat who will move full speed ahead on amnesty. If you think that the rich white guy (Romney) who has no knowledge and experience about military matters, national security and foreign policy (the Republican strong suit) can win in November, then I have a bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan to sell you.
Phil Byler on January 20, 2008 at 5:03 AM
And NO ONE save a complete Rube believes him.
Murphy9 on January 20, 2008 at 5:47 AM
If McCain or Huck win the nomination, I’ll have to do the same thing I did when Gov. Perry was up for re-election in Texas during our last election…I’ll write-in a Republican.
McCain has stabbed conservatives in the back too often over his career. I still think he pushed McCain-Feingold to assuage his guilt over being the honorary democrat in the Keating Five mess…
golfer1 on January 20, 2008 at 6:15 AM
fred5678 on January 20, 2008 at 4:35 AM
nice piece.
jerrytbg on January 20, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Arrogance, pure and simple. That describes McCain totally. The man is arrogant. His condisending tone over the fence it another example.
My opinion is that he will never secure the border. And if elected, he will partner up with the other immigration illuminata in the senate and get his precious ammnesty bill passed.
I think Huck is a worse threat, but I will fight to the very end against McCain.
conservnut on January 20, 2008 at 8:03 AM
I believe that McCain hasn’t changed his view on illegal aliens (please don’t call it immigration anymore). The man always has been, and still is, for amnesty and sweeping the trash under the rug.
Many of the people of South Carolina must be on medication. Either that, or the state’s already been overtaken by illegal (voting) aliens. There’s no limit to voter stupidity.
orlandocajun on January 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Good job fred!
conservnut on January 20, 2008 at 8:15 AM
All I can figure is that it is a case of massive stupidity in SC. Some of these folks seem to believe that because someone is an “American Hero” he must be a good choice for president.
They seem to forget that Benedict Arnold was an American Hero too. And he sold us down the river.
McCain will do the same. Whatever respect I have for his service to this country is lost on his performance as a senator.
conservnut on January 20, 2008 at 8:23 AM
McCain is making it perfectly clear that he has not changed his position on immigration. McCain is still for amnesty. But he will practice saying things the way he is told that people want to hear things. Since stipulates that his immigration policy has not changed, one needs no translation.
maverick muse on January 20, 2008 at 9:11 AM
McCain is on FNC right now, speaking to the media in Charleston, S.C.
He sounds like he is gasping for air.
Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 9:15 AM
All that constant spinning of your past positions on issues will do that to a guy!
conservnut on January 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I hope that all of this “I’ll never vote for McCain” talk is primary bluster, and doesn’t actually mean that many of you are really willing to turn the White House over to the Clintons or Obama in November.
I’ve been hoping for Fred, willing to support Mitt or Rudy, and dismayed by the fragmentation of the so-called “Reagan coalition”, but the fact remains that even the worst Republican in this field (IMO, Huckabee by a country mile) is preferable to any Dem.
I don’t get the mindset that causes conservatives to abandon all common sense and cling obsessively to some notion of ideological purity, even at the expense of turning over power to leftists.
I mean, I revere Reagan as much as the next guy, but, hell, he supported an amnesty bill.
I do understand the “core values” argument, but it is sadly apparent that the one candidate who espoused core conservative values is not capable of winning even a southern primary.
Do we take our ball and go home and leave our playground to the other team?
Priscilla on January 20, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Nope, and I won’t. But if we allow McCain to win the nomination, we have already turned the playground over. He will be decimated in the general.
conservnut on January 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM
I agree with you in principle, but add a couple of twists. In the primary, the candidates slide far to the right edge of their platform, giving us their most conservative views. And in that light Huckabee has shown us only two things — he is wildly inconsistent in his promises vs. his record, and he is willing to lie about almost anything.
The are doing the same thing on the other side, in reverse. I think Hillary would be easier to contain in the White House than this doofus.
Otherwise, I agree. As for McCain and immigration, let’s all remember that his views are no worse than Bush’s, and we were able to castrate Bush on McShAmnesty, too. McCain has none of Bush’s good will from other Republicans, as he has repeatedly turned on them, so he’ll get zero tolerance when he plays butt-boy for Teddy Kennedy. So I default to his glorious postures on Iraq and the WOT, which are preferable to anyone else in the race for me, even Mitt.
Jaibones on January 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I admire your passion on the illegal immigration issue; I’m sure we all do here. But McCain can be controlled on this issue, just as Bush was. Their views are identical.
Jaibones on January 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I am willing to take McCain at his word, that he hasn’t changed his possition on amnesty and that he is still all for his special brand of it.
Tim Pancoast on January 20, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Fatherhood, defined.
Jaibones on January 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM
In one of the headlines on the front page here they interviewed voters, unbelievable. The tone was about the same. One woman said this:
There you go. That is the state of the Republican Party.
broker1 on January 20, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Look, I’m sorry, but the ONLY way I can bring myself to vote for McCain is if he’s running against Hillary. Hell, he’s practically a Dem anyway. So much so that there was consideration about him running as Kerry’s VP.
I’m sorry, I just can’t do it.
eclark1849 on January 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I think some of the attraction to Obama — whose views on anything might reasonably be assumed to lie far to the left of McCain’s — is that people see him as willing to consider any issue on it’s merits, without locking into a position automatically, for partisan purposes.
It takes a great patience and talent for politics to cultivate such an image, especially since there is zero evidence that it is in fact true. If McCain were not so rough-edged, he might benefit from such an image, because clearly he does not follow conservative doctrine. I’m ok with that, and I agree with many of his points on illegal immigration, just not his conclusion.
As with most of Washington, he doesn’t appreciate that we know they’re lying, and don’t trust them in any way. But he might be coming around on that.
Jaibones on January 20, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Priscilla on January 20, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Chest your cards during the primaries.
The voting machines and paper ballots were not made available to all voters in South Carolina. That unacceptable circumstance is inexcusable.
As per leaving the playground to the other team, McCain plays FOR the other team.
Before any campaigns began, a consistent effort to affirm the conservative GOP platform had my support and will have my vote. We are fortunate that Fred Thompson accepted the call to campaign and his campaign has my support.
It wasn’t the fat lady singing last night;
those are coyotes. Ironically, of course the MSM and politico accomplices will use the military uniform to destroy conservative values. McCain is whole-heartedly in politics for himself; other than John McCain, there is nothing that he will protect. Whatever John McCain serves, you will eat. Figuratively, McCain FUNCTIONS as a GOP cannibal.
I support Fred Thompson for POTUS.
maverick muse on January 20, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I repeat what I have said earlier. If the RINO Dem McPainintebutt is nominated by the GOP then for the second time since 1972 (1992) I will not cast a vote for President but will abstain rather than vote between 2 Dems.
bill30097 on January 20, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Conservnut, what state do you live in so that when McCain wins the primary there I can call people in your state (including you) a victim of a massive case of stupidity. Most of his support (and R support) comes from older people. Guess what. . . most of the older people like to think that 72 isn’t too old to become president. They consider him to be ‘one of them’.
McCain is just as good/bad as any of the available choices other than Fred. . . The difference between Fred and McCain is that McCain has been to this rodeo before and understands how to WIN THE NOMINATION. This is Fred’s first rodeo.
ThackerAgency on January 20, 2008 at 10:10 AM
McCain won because he got the military vote en masse. Romney won in Nevada because he got the Mormon vote. Huckabee won Iowa because he got the evangelical Christian vote.
Welcome to the year of identity politics.
Mojave Mark on January 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM
ThackerAgency
McCain is TOO old. Thompson is TOO old.
Obama beats them both - getting most of the young idiots in both parties (there are many young republicans RINOs). Even Hillary looks better than those two.
However, should Obama lose the nomination it will be because of a lack of black voter support (not guaranteed). Ironically his defeat will bother black folks. They will be ripe for Republican recruitment.
A good time to promote “Emancipation Revolution Revelation”.
The question is who can lure disgruntled black voters? A strong endorsement from Lynn Swan should do it. Timing has to be right though, thanks to race baiters Sharpton, Jackson, etc.
Agrippa2k on January 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
If you Republicans don’t mind McCain’s positions, then what is it about Hillary’s positions you dislike? They’re the same!
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM
What is worse? Losing a direct attack by the terrorists or losing the country by it being overrun by illegals???
I don’t see much difference–A quick loss or a slow loss.
woodswalking1 on January 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Mojave Mark. Interesting post, and accurate I think.
Is the problem perhaps even worse on the GOP side than the dem side? How many women have you heard say that they would never consider voting for Obama because he isn’t a woman? But I hear an awful lot of folks saying they would never vote for Rudy because he is pro-choice. A lot of evangelicals hate McCain and have for years, which makes no sense considering his voting record is quite socially conservative. Don’t tell me about amnesty, because the evangie poster child this time around is Huckabee, and before that was GW Bush who ran in 2000 as a huge Mexico/Vicente Fox friend.
You know, it’s fun to make fun of dems, I guess. But the GOP has pretty serious problems this way too.
funky chicken on January 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
You know, we Fredheads all admire his committment to federalism. It seems to me that we are seeing some federalism at work on immigration/amnesty. The people in several states have been able to put enough pressure on their state legislatures to get laws passed that have led to illegal flight from those states. Other state laws that would have made life difficult for illegals have been blocked by federal judges.
Yes, I’m absolutely disgusted by the shamnesty pushers, but perhaps immigration is going to be the issue that gets us back to where states’ rights gain ground.
funky chicken on January 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
How does this relate to his trying to get the bill passed in the Senate without time for study or debate? And, his reference to those voters who opposed it as “loud folks”? That says a lot about his attitude towards voters.
He hasn’t changed his goals, just his approach. Listen to him blubber about a humane way to handle the illegals already here and it is obvious he hasn’t changed his spots. Natural attrition if they don’t have jobs due to law enforcement isn’t on his agenda.
a capella on January 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM
McCain also got the Independent mushy middle vote in open primaries. Florida is closed so that advantage is not there.
As for Romney, the fact is that he still would have won Nevada without the Mormon vote, and in any case Mitt is not out there campaigning as a Mormon.
He is winning with Republican voters in places like NH and Michigan and if he wins in Florida it will because of his agenda and personal appeal as a candidate, not his religion.
Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Go Rudy!
funky chicken on January 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Fred! bested Mitt, Rudy, and Paul in SC, yet no one thinks they will be getting out of the race.
Go Fred! Excellent showing!
AZCON on January 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Oh pssh, McCain is not a Dem. He often talks like a Dem and he is cozy with the Dems, but I think that that’s largely because he’s a senator and has the “can’t we all just get along and get things done” Senate mentality. He’s no Reagan conservative, but he’s certainly not a socialist and he’s as strong on the military as anyone.
Comparing him to Hillary or Obama, and saying that there’s no significant difference is just flat out wrong. Big difference.
Priscilla on January 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Cain, oops, McCain is still a RINO. A bonafide war hero. Why would he want to sell his country out to the ‘backs’ & the democ-rats? What a jerk! So if Fred ducks, we can choose between 2 democ-rats - Cain or Rudy, or a billionaire mormon, or a Jesus freak huckleberry hound guy, in the future primaries. And democ-rats will choose between the ‘white trash’ Clintons or a racist black muslim. What a bummer!
countywolf on January 20, 2008 at 11:32 AM
McCain-
Voted no on ANWR, and that one vote killed the bill.
Was the “brains” behind McCain-Feingold which is a direct assault on the First Amendment.
Was the “brains” behind McCain-Kennedy which was overwhelmingly rejected by the American people.
Wants to close Gitmo which puts our national security at risk.
Voted against Bush Tax cuts.
Panders to Global Warming alarmists and European elites.
Joined the Gang of 14 which ruined our ability to have judicial nominees be confirmed with a simple majority as the Constitution intends.
He has been solid on only one issue: The Iraq War.
Buy Danish on January 20, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Here is a thought experiment. Imagine a scenario, something short of a complete and total collapse of civil society, where you are faced with the choice of stealing your neighbor’s food, or starving. What would you do?
Believe it or not, there are people on this planet who will chose to stick with their principles about private property and theft. Even to the point of death. There are others who will abandon their principles and choose personal survival.
There are some of us who still believe in the words, “duty, honor, country”. We are called conservative.
Now imagine some scenario, something less dire than the first, where you are faced with abandoning your principles or sticking by your moral code despite the resulting personal consequences. What would you do?
rockhauler on January 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »