Team McCain: Immigration statement poorly worded
posted at 12:45 pm on May 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Jim Geraghty reached out to the John McCain campaign to ask them …. well, to ask them what the hell John McCain was thinking yesterday. Instead of dancing around it, Geraghty’s source acknowledged the damage done by the statement, but insisted it was just an example of poor wording. Their commitment to border security first has not changed, they said:
I doubt this will mitigate the anger of bloggers like John Hawkins much, but Team McCain tells me there’s been no change in his stance on immigration — secure the border first, deal with other aspects of illegal immigration once the border is secure. Recently, McCain made comments that seemed to suggest he was eager to get to the second part, which conservatives and border security types are understandably wary about. ….
Team McCain tells me the senator’s comments were poorly worded. There’s been no discussion within the campaign of altering their stance on illegal immigration, and as far as everyone on the campaign is concerned, the policy is still, ’secure the border first.’
If so, then Senator McCain needs to make a rather high-profile attempt to clear up the confusion. I didn’t think he had departed from his previous positions, but clearly that was the impression that was left with people, and not necessarily unreasonably so.
It’s admirable that they acknowledged the mistake, but McCain needs to perform better now that he’s won the nomination, especially on this hot-button issue. He has to know that a large number of conservatives mistrust him on this specific issue, and that anything said on the trail about immigration will get very close scrutiny. He can’t afford missteps like this.
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 ... 7 Next »
Judging by the people I see making pro-MCcain comments on conservative blogs, there are plenty of liberals supporting McCain. I notice that you use liberal and democrat, and conservative and republican, interchangebly.
Look up the history of the American Whigs.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM
My point is that 3000 of those were killed by 19 terrorists, in a single attack. If we capitulate in Iraq, and allow Al Qaeda to claim victory, they will recruit many more jihadis, including many Iraqis who will be undertandably bitter about being abandoned and betrayed by us twice in two succeeding generations, and thirsting for just retribution. And, as a result, there will most likely be many, many more 9-11 style attacks within our shores – or worse.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM
What line? You just described the same situation that you McCain folks are demanding that we move into: A lame-duck Republican President with neither congressional support nor any kind of unifying vision for the country beyond his own political aspirations.
Your argument of, “If McCain is not the President, then the war is lost” does not pass the test of history. I submit that a sustained Congressional counterattack in 2010 with an inept socialist in the White House (and thus, the opposition Congress factor in our favor) is superior to an old centrist Republican in the White House and a bluer Congress. The latter case, so similar to 1975, is more likely to produce the outcome that you seek to prevent with his election.
The former is a tactical retreat and regroup.
The latter is a Pyhrric victory.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:00 PM
There was no “snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory” in Vietnam.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Yeah, electing this guy is gonna work out so well for conservatives, and for the nation.
funky chicken on May 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I’m not opposed to Legal Immigrants. If you think we can streamline the process for becoming citizens, I’ll happily listen. If you think we can increase the limits, I’ll applaud the move and cheer it. I believe America is a land of opportunity, and one of many cultures, but only one nationality. American.
That isn’t racism. That is America. We don’t discuss the health related issues of unscreened illegals coming across the boarder. Oh no, to even breath a word of the diseases that are running amok in South and Central America is racist right?
Juan McAmnesty isn’t getting my vote. Because he’s a punk liberal in Republican clothing.
Snake307 on May 23, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Then maybe you can explain why their countries are socialist. Maybe you can explain why they vote for the Democratic party when they get to America. Maybe you can explain how tens of millions of them doing that will not make America socialist as well.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:03 PM
So you demand that McCain capitulate on all your pet domestic issues before you’ll support the ONE candidate who will do the right thing abroad for the safety and security of this nation.
How petty, spiteful, myopic, and even unpatriotic of you to value our nation’s position in this world and the safety of its citizens from terror attacks less than you value your treasured, cherished doctrinal purity.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM
An insight into how he survived captivity.
JiangxiDad on May 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Those soCons and Christian conservatives turned the Big Tent into a revival and disinvited anyone that didn’t think exactly like them. Moderates helped elect Reagan twice, held our noses and helped elect Bush twice (because the alternatives were even worse). Sorry if we weren’t energetic enough, but at least we didn’t bail when we couldn’t get exactly what we wanted.
RightOFLeft on May 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Congress is the key, and John McCain only hurts our chances of increasing conservative governance in Congress. They’re already talking about using “his brand” for the near future. The longer John McCain stays at the top of our ticket as a party, the bluer the GOP will get.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM
So. I suppose nobody has any opinion on this subject either way…
Rhinoboy on May 23, 2008 at 3:06 PM
My point is that we should be a lot more stringent about checking who we allow into the country.
As long as we have open borders, there will be foreign-directed terrorist attacks within our shores. Nothing which happens in Iraq can alter that. And you say nothing to suggest otherwise.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m with you on these points, but with a note of caution.
I believe there is quite a bit of inherent socialist tendencies amongst many of the newcomers. Many know the existing programs better than we do before coming across the border.
Their soc-con tendencies are not debatable, though. It is in this matter, that I believe that they help strengthen the traditional American values of our culture.
And I believe that most of them couldn’t give a damn about American military dominance.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
McCain can lock arms with 100 angels and dance on the head of a pin at this point.
I’m not voting for him.
I’m with John Hawkins. Screw the mutt.
pabarge on May 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Unconvincing.
I’ve stated my case. I’ve also, on this forum, asked these two questions:
What about the interpreters who have helped us?
What about the lady who pointed to the roof top where the sniper was hiding?
The answer I get is always the same….that is their problem. I don’t buy into that argument and never will. If that mean’s I’m nieve, then I guess I’m nieve. We have a responsibility that goes beyond our borders. If you don’t believe so then there is nothing I will do to change your mind. I refuse to make the decision to leave the interpreter and the friend behind. We came, we saw, we asked for help and received it. I’m not about to tell those folks to buy insurance.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
There was no “snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory” in Vietnam.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:01 PM
The Tet Offensive was a propaganda victory, but a crushing military defeat. The Viet Cong lost more than half of their guerrillas. Two years after we left and the democratic Congress cut off arms and funds to the South Vietnamese government, it was not the Viet Cong who toppled them from the inside, but North Vietnamese regulars moving across the border.
A history lesson for you:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/827
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Yes of course. Tks.
JiangxiDad on May 23, 2008 at 3:08 PM
The ones that are legal in my region don’t vote that way. The reason their home countries are leftist is due to their land policies. In fact, many hispanics in Texas vote similarly to Floridians of Cuban ancestry. Maybe that does not apply elsewhere.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Really? Then what exactly has the GOP done these last eight years for “soCons and Christian conservatives”?
So why do you fall for the usual lies about conservatives, and about “soCons and Christian conservatives”, now?
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Actually, what we do in Iraq will either greatly reduce the domestic terror threat (if we cut and run and are perceived to be the weak horse), or greatly increase it (if we persevere until the job is done, and are perceived to be the strong horse).
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM
When did I say that? I’m all for cultural influence but believe in the melting-pot. However, that’s besides the point. We’re fighting overseas against people who’ve already attacked us here at home, most of whom were here illegally. You’ve been advocating we surrender on that front in order to fight overseas when both fronts are essential to our preservation. If we allow them to come here and attack us unfettered we will be forced to take drastic action’s here at home that will forever change our way of life.
FloatingRock on May 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Once Obama leaves from over there, they won’t be able to wage jihad on us there, against an armed, trained and alert military; they will have to come over here to do it – and they will, as they’ve done before, with devastating consequences for our civilian citizens, including our families.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Hispanics vote Democratic by a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 margin, depending on the year. They don’t vote like Cubans. Texas Hispanics vote Democratic. In time they’ll turn it into a Democratic state.
The thing is, the Democrats have SAID that they like mass Hispanic immigration because it’s a political winner for them. And Republicans still won’t get the message.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I long ago got sick and tired of the sleazy chuck-and-jive shamnesty politicians of which John McCain has been the chief ring leader. The reason that Republican supporters of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” want it is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal.
The reason that shamnesty Democrats want this is so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them. Many of them probably also want to do this for the same reason that shamnesty Republicans do too.
Does anyone think that many of these shamnesty politicians really care one wit otherwise for the illegals.
Does anyone think that any of the shamnesty politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs?
Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants?
Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants?
Invite them to their cocktail parties?
Introduce them to their daughters?
The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant light-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.
So the shamnesty politicians like John McCain are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.
If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the ethnic cleansing of Mexico.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:14 PM
/shrug
Moderates did not help Reagan get elected. They voted for him. There’s a difference. The soCons worked for Reagan. And Bush. And Dole. And Bush. Funny, they’re not all that interested in helping McCain.
Whatever. It’s a gambit, but I’d rather see a conservative Congress with Barry in the Oval Office than McCain with a rabit anti-war Congress, which is exactly what he’d get. The McCain GOP is a party subservient to liberalism. They’d do as they’re told in exchange for pork to keep them elected.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:15 PM
FloatingRock on May 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM
So, sending the message that an Obama presidency, and a Democrat controlled Congress will hasten fighting on both fronts?
Is that what you are saying?
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I may have confused you with another poster who said there was a threat to his cultre. I have no problem enforcing the borders, and have no problem with deportation and sanctions on businesses that hire illegals. But, if we bail in the mideast, we will show the moslem half of the world that we have no cojones, and they will gain innumerable converts, we will substantially weaken our economy vis-a-vis fuel, both of which are a more dire threat IMO than 20 million illegals in the short term.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM
So how do you think a President McCain will be able to stop a Democratic Congress from doing the same next year? That battle is lost already.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM
What lies?
RightOFLeft on May 23, 2008 at 3:17 PM
.
You are not going to get Barry plus a conservative congress under any realistic scenario.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:18 PM
But what we’re gonna get is two houses of a Democratic majority Congress. That being the case, I want McCain in there to veto a bill mandating our immediate withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the conditions on the ground, rather than Obama making a Rose Garden ceremony out of signing it.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:19 PM
+1
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 3:20 PM
So when you say that you’re a big oppenent of illegal immigration, what does that mean in practice? I notice you think Hispanics are just great, and that there are several issues you consider more important. I think your only suggestion was we turn America into a libertarian utopia somehow. (Something McCain opposes.)
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:20 PM
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:15 PM
If you could assure me that we are winning the Congressional elections, I would write in Tom Tancredo.
Otherwise, the way I read the tea leaves, Congress is going to raise holy hell after the elections, and I’ll be damned if I’ll LET THEM have the White House, too.
I will not roll over like a little omega poodle. Sorry.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM
.
I’m not advocating surrender on that front. The primary voters of both parties plus independents did that by nominating McCain and the tag team duo of Obama/Hillary. I am merely pointing out that the fight has shifted from total opposition to one of modifying the terms.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Geez, do you people know ANYTHING about politics? There will be no bill “mandating our immediate withdrawal from Iraq”. All they have to do is not pass a funding bill. There is no veto involved.
It’s scary that you guys think this way.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Really? Which military objectives did the Communists achieve? Which battles did we lose? Until 1975, when the Dems in congress voted to cut off funding to S. Vietnam, there was no reason to believe that the US lost the war.
Sounds like you missed the last chopper outa Berkley.
Akzed on May 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Of course you are. In 2010.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:24 PM
In such a case, McCain would draw money from the rest of the Pentagon budget, until the squeeze got so severe and the protests got so loud that the Congress would be forced to do something. And with the help of the Blue Dog Democracts, we might just be able to save this nation from national and international disgrace, dishonor and disaster.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM
The lies that so-cons and theocons have run the GOP into the ground. You know, the lies you were repeating.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Wouldn’t happen. Defunding a puppet government is one thing, defunding U.S. troops on the ground would end political careers.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM
2010 is too late; the damage to our Iraq mission would have been done by then, and our ionly option would be to accept a decades-long reversal of international fortunes, or to reinvade, at a horrendous cost of both blood and treasure.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans want to remain citizens of their home country while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I, Mexico allowed German spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S.. During World War II, Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today, Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don’t believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.
- David J. Stoddard, 27 year veteran of the Border Patrol
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:24 PM
And, will you expect your adversaries in the GOP to support your candidate after the primaries are over after they don’t get everything they want?
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Okay, MB4; would you want Mexico’s and Iran’s geographical positions reversed?
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
That’s the point I’m making. McCain means losing congressional elections. The GOP is already trying to adopt “his brand.” That brand is not conservative, it is not Reagan conservatism and it is not an alternative to the Democrat party. It’s essentially Democrat Lite. Why choose that when you could have the real thing?
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Actually I came back from RVN out of DaNang on a contracted commercial jet.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
What “rest of the Pentagon budget”? The Pentagon does not have some separate budget it can dip into. Congress can defund the entire DoD if it wants.
What, the same Congress that got elected by running against the war?
Pathetic.
Look, an Iraq war funding bill will never get through the next Congress. The Dems in the Senate will block it. They’ll have about sixty votes.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:30 PM
.
We need to work at the grassroots to prevent a blanket amnesty. This will be easier if McCain is in office than Obama. If Obama wins, we are officially non-entities (he will run the two-country model of the Pony, and ignore us). With McCain we at least have a chance. Further, to truly engage the economic (and not racial) battle, we need to push at the state and federal level to rescind the laws that mandate hospitals treat illegals for free, as well as the laws that put children of illegals into schools and AFDC (cannot some lawyer successfully present the case that the fruits of illegality cannot produce legality? I am sure that is in law already, but not enforced). By removing the economic benefits to illegal immigration, we can drastically improve the situation.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:30 PM
.
Wishful thinking
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:31 PM
My apologies. Please explain why you think we did not snatch defeat from etc.
Akzed on May 23, 2008 at 3:31 PM
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Ummm, McCain already is the nominee.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
If you want to educate yourself some on the Vietnam war read THIS from the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97.
Also read H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”
BTW, H.R. McMaster is a West Point graduate who earned a Silver Star for battlefield prowess during the 1991 Gulf War
after his armored cavalry troop stumbled across an Iraqi mechanized brigade in the middle of a sandstorm and destroyed it.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM
The point is that we have two choices; Obama or McCain. The rest of this ‘disgust ‘em in 2008, take ‘em in 2010′ speculation and conjecture amounts to chimerical phantasmagoria and illegal substance pipe dreams.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM
With the Dem/Dem control of the Hill/WH how are you going to take back 2010? How are you going to work past the obstructions of the Fairness Act? How are you going to remove the citizenship of the very people you now want deported? How are you going to restore breath into the bodies of Iraqis you left on the tarmac?
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM
+2
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:34 PM
That depends on who’s in Congress. And I’m not convinced that inertia alone couldn’t maintain the mission for two+ years. Besides, blind fear is not a compelling coalition builder.
I will readily agree that it’s a gambit, but given the likely outcome of not taking it, I’m willing to take it.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM
The US military did not lose the war. When hostilities ended the south was (relatively) free and secure. When congress defunded the south in 75 all hell broke lose. There was no other reason why S. Vietnam couldn’t have been another S. Korea.
Akzed on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Apart from the fact that I don’t see Iraq as this last ditch battle for Americas very existence which some of you people seem to, this is one other problem. Electing McCain will not keep us in Iraq in any case. The new and expanded Democratic Congress will force things to wind down. And McCain will be able to do nothing about it.
I don’t expect anyone to support any candidate who offers them nothing. If “my candidate” offers you nothing then you SHOULD not support him. I’d think you strange if you you did.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Correct, but disingenuous. You ignore the bully pulpit role of Pres. speaking over the heads of Congress.
JiangxiDad on May 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I think I’d rather wait for the second volume of Mark Moyar.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521869110/ref=s9ktag_t2_asinmore?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=top-2&pf_rd_r=0JJ183N8XZSB455PDJZR&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=397371001&pf_rd_i=vietnam%20war
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM
/shrug
McCain is a Pyhrric victory. What good is a veto when the Democrats have a veto-proof majority?
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Life, business, war, politics….
“One in the hand is worth two in the bush”
You don’t defer til later. You fight, you fight, and then you fight.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:37 PM
If you could assure me that we are winning the Congressional elections, I would write in Tom Tancredo.
Otherwise, the way I read the tea leaves, Congress is going to raise holy hell after the elections, and I’ll be damned if I’ll LET THEM have the White House, too.
I will not roll over like a little omega poodle. Sorry.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM
+1
funky chicken on May 23, 2008 at 3:38 PM
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Political battles are not won without the numbers.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:38 PM
What is this, the Soviet Union? You are free-born American citizens. You can vote for anyone you like. Vote for the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, heck vote for the Socialist Workers Party if you like. You don’t have two choices.
And neither Obama or McCain have won their nominations yet.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
When did the democrats gain that veto proof majority? Or are you just longing for it so much that you think it already happened?
funky chicken on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Political battles are not won by pre-emptive surrender. You are not fighting a political battle. You are conceding defeat.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
So it wouldn’t have mattered if they didn’t vote for him? They weren’t helping? ………………..
Republicans in congress are even more unpopular than the Democrats, which is a big reason why Congress has the lowest approval ratings in modern history (or close enough). I think a gambit is a good word for what you suggest – a certain loss of material for an uncertain line of attack. Here’s the problem: we can’t get back what we’re giving up. We can’t un-appoint eight years of Obama judges, if market-based health care is turned over to the state it’ll take more than an opposition congress to turn it back, and we can’t un-lose Iraq.
Do you really think 8 years of hard-left liberalism won’t severely harm the people of this country? If you don’t, why do you even bother being conservative? You can’t only stand for things, sometimes you have to stand against things.
RightOFLeft on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Crybaby defeatists ain’t my cup of tea.
funky chicken on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Wrong, we have many choices.
We can not vote, we can vote for someone else, we can go third party, we can write someone in…
I will not allow the Two Parties to take away my choice.
You know, that whole silly FREEDOM thing…
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 3:41 PM
They don’t need a veto proof majority.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Okay. Breathe.
Obama may talk a big game, but what, exactly, can he do?
General Petraeus has been planning for two years to turn over “sustainable security” of the entire country to Iraqi forces in the summer of 2009. Just today it’s being reported that he will order home some troops, perhaps up to a “major combat formation” by the fall of this year. He’s expecting the responsibility for most, if not all of iraqi’s provinces to be completely in the hands of the Iraqi security forces in 2009.
Let’s say for sake of argument that President Obama, on Inauguration Day, January of 2009, orders every soldier out of Iraq. How long do you think that’ll take. There are something like 140,000 troops in Iraq right now. It would take the largest part of the year, if not all year, to get them all out of there. Do you believe that they’ll sit on their hands for that whole year until they come home? I surely hope not. And by the end of that year, General Petraeus is expecting the Iraqi government to have control of the situation anyhow.
So, by the end of 2009, we don’t have any troops in Iraq, right? Let’s keep playing the hypothetical game. How about if diplomacy happens and the Iraqi government comes to Obama and works out a deal that gets us some cheaper oil from them in exchange for keeping a few troops there like we have in Saudi Arabia. Better yet, we move the troops we had in Riyadh to Iraq, with the full and glad cooperation of the Iraqi people.
In that case the first two years of the Obama administration look almost exactly like the 2009 and 2010 envisioned by the Bush administration a couple of years ago, right?
You must admit, it’s an extremely plausible view of the future.
Jimmie on May 23, 2008 at 3:41 PM
What makes you think that we’ll get eight years of hard-left liberalism? If it’s harming the country, won’t people elect a conservative Congress to stop him?
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Nope, not go’in for it Freudian slip yeah, didn’t mean it with sell out Arnolito on board uhn-uh.
This I believe, McCain hasn’t changed his position, not since 2006 when his intended voting base were still racists and bigots.
Not just wary, outright disbelief, plus.
For somebody who will give the keynote address at the Raza convention to tell me “secure the border first” and who has a history of stab me in the back politics, disbelief doesn’t cover quite cover it.
Bounce Hernandez like Hagee and decline the Raza speech and maybe its a start, maybe.
Speakup on May 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Yup. You can vote for anyone else you like. And they are guaranteed to loose.
Come Movember 2nd, there will be two choices, courtesy the people in both parties that voted for the nominee from the group that they had to choose from, starting with the states in the beginning of the list until each candidate got the electoral votes they needed to clinch the nomination or it was brokered at the convention.
You can vote for Mickey Mouse, flenser. The rest of us who are serious about this will do what we can to make sure that Obama is not our president for the next 4 to 8 years.
Sorry to lay this little dose of reality down on you, but you seem to be needing someone to inform you.
wise_man on May 23, 2008 at 3:44 PM
The difference between leaving precipitously, regardless of conditions on the ground, with Obama in office pulling in the traces with Congress, and leaving much less precipitously, and perhaps remaining in long enough, in sufficient numbers, to preserve victory in Iraq, with McCain pulling against Congress, would be substantial, and could be pivotal.
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it a lie.
RightOFLeft on May 23, 2008 at 3:44 PM
No, probably not. Illegal immigration is a threat to our culture in more ways than one. First of all, (and this has been what I’ve been referring to in this thread), by allowing terrorists free access to our country where they can utilize the illegal alien support network to obtain fraudulent documents and blend in while they plan their next attacks, at some point we will be forced to curtail our way of life, (our culture, based on freedom and liberty), in order to deal with the threat from within. Taking off shoes at airports is nothing compared to what is likely ahead.
But since you’ve brought up the subject of social/cultural equality, I should point out that the superiority of America’s culture over those of Central and South America is measurable. That’s why they are streaming over our border: to take advantage of our superior culture. I’m all for cultural influence, but allowing the 3rd world to invade our country and multiply at the rates they do without assimilating even while we’re aborting our own babies is a recipe for the end of our culture, which as stated, is measurably superior in totality to banana republics.
FloatingRock on May 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM
.
Look up the term ‘gerrymandered’. Good luck gaining a minimum of 9 senate seats and upwards of 40 house seats in the 2010 election. Oh, by the way, guess which party is now in control of the 2010 census, and the reapportionment of house seats?
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM
If you vote for McCain then you ARE letting “them” have the White House too. Them liberals, that is.
Can you people see past party labels at all?
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Political battles are not won by pre-emptive surrender. You are not fighting a political battle. You are conceding defeat.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Flenser, you’ve no idea the battles I’ve fought in my state.
I’ve lost this battle. You are right. I was defeated. I am a realist.
Now, I brush myself off, get back up, scan the political landscape, take my position, and get ready to fight again.
I will never surrender.
Saltysam on May 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Looks great. I’ll pick it up.
Akzed on May 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM
That is an intriguing idea. It’s not something I have given exactly a lot of thought to as I didn’t think they could do stuff like that even in Star Trek.
Just off the top, I guess I can see pros and cons. An obvious pro would be that I don’t think that there would be in the tens of millions of Iranians coming to the U.S. and those who did come would probably not get all the “Press two for Farsi” and flood our hospitals.
I know this much for sure – it would sure be nice if Jorge and Juan gave as high a priority to protecting America as they do “protecting” Iraq.
MB4 on May 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I don’t trust John McCain on the illegal immigration issue for one hot Arizona minute. I have no doubt that he would not hesitate to try and ram through another massive amnesty bill on his second day in office if he thought he could get away with it. The only reason I have even considered voting for him in the general election (and if I do, it will be the very first time this Arizona resident has ever voted for McCain) is because he has at least been paying lip service to the idea of securing the borders first. It will take years to secure the border, and my hope is that McCain will be out of office by the time it happens.
The other thing that I am counting on is the fact that, unlike McCain, so many blue-dog Democrats have heard the outrage of their voters, and they are not about to spoil their own chances for re-election (especially those in Congress) by voting for an amnesty bill. When Tennessee Democrat Heath Shuler recently put forth a solid enforcement-only bill in the House, Nancy Pelosi refused to allow it to be voted on. Pelosi did this because she was afraid the bill would pass. Despite the mind-numbing idiocy on this issue by the two men running for President, there is still some hope that we can prevent another massive amnesty, based on the political cowardice of our Congressional representatives, if nothing else.
AZCoyote on May 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Not to irritate, but actually this would seem to be a COMPROMISE with the conservatives, better put as a compromise of conservatism. We can hear McCain’s rationale before he even reads his excuses.
I’m interested in noting any change in verbage now that his main prop man turned against him AS PROMISED–such a show of “integrity” from his loyal Democrat friends who can’t go against making history.
Speaking of a candidate’s campaign making history, take your pick from any of the three top POTUS contenders.
McCain: the oldest ever & the first POW POTUS.
Hillary: first female elected POTUS (privately, first ladies have filled in behind the scenes during a grave illness suffered by the husband in office.)
Obama: first without any credentials & former Muslim turned Black Gospel (consistently black supremacist) POTUS.
Since Bill Clinton, no one now can claim to be the first Marxist sympathiser.
maverick muse on May 23, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Let’s see……staying, establishing security, working in a responsible government, and gradual withdraw gets how many dancing parties in the streets of Tehran?
On the other hand, ‘I am ordering the immediate withdrawal of X number of troops with the goal of ending this war by X date’ gets how many dancing parties in the streets of Tehran, Damascus, Lehore, and Beruit.
Limerick on May 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM
2002 was an anomaly for a reason, people. Off-year elections elect opposition Congresses. 2010 with McCain in the Oval Office would be a nightmare, given that 2008 is already shaping up to be a bad dream.
My speculation is not whether a McCain presidency would yield a return to 40 years of impenetrable Democrat control in Washington. That’s just the near-certain reality of it. My speculation is whether we can afford to retreat in ‘08, return to our roots and regroup for a 2010 counterattack and conservative insurgency. I believe we can.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
When did the democrats gain that veto proof majority? Or are you just longing for it so much that you think it already happened?
funky chicken on May 23, 2008 at 3:40 PM
After this next election, they are going to have it.
So McCain’s vetos or whatever he’s lying to us about these days, won’t do crap.
TexasJew on May 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM
LOL!
wise_man on May 23, 2008 at 3:49 PM
McCain has locked up one nomination; Obama is going to lock up the other. Yes, this is America, and you can vote for Carrot Top if you wish, but either McCain or Obama is going to be the next President of the US. I think that the difference between them is so stark and critical that I would never consider voting except in a manner that would give the candidate, between those two, that I consider quantums better for our nation, the best chance to win.
That means that I will vote for McCain (even though I voted for Giuliani in the early Florida primary).
Salamantis on May 23, 2008 at 3:49 PM
What, Obama is somehow going to gerrymander the House districts in all the states? Do you people know ANYTHING about politics? He can’t even if he wants to.
Unless we retake the Congress in 2010, which we won’t do with McCain, then the Democats will be in charge of the 2010 census. And seats are allocated on the basis of population, not on anything which either Congress or the President will do.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:49 PM
.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, not with your second. Our culture is what it is due to influence of many immigrant cultures but overlaid with freedom. The reason cultures farther south are inferior is not due to culture, but due to lack of freedom, whether it be land use, electoral shenanigans, or other reasons. Every group that emigrated here at some point adheres to the American culture, while adding their own spice. Just because of their history, don’t resign them to always act the way their mother country expected them to.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM
The same party that under McCain would grow even more powerful as a result of the 2010 election and therefore act with impunity to marginalize Republican power for the next 30 years.
spmat on May 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM
.
The 2010 censuse takes place in the summer of 2010, which as I recall, is before the 2010 November elections.
Think_b4_speaking on May 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Now there’s a shocker! And you seemed so conservative too.
For who? Not for America.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM
The harm done won’t be immediately obvious. Obama and Co. won’t be in any rush. The end game for them is a second term, and with “true conservatives” unwilling to oppose him he’ll get it. If there’s a drop of American blood in your veins it should be curdling at what a socialist president could do to the United States in just 4 years, though.
Sorry, reason hasn’t worked, thought I’d try some hyperbole.
RightOFLeft on May 23, 2008 at 3:52 PM
So, when McCain legalizes 20 million illegals, and they bring their familys in (another 10-20 million) which destroys public services for at least a generation and bankrupts the Social Security system… can we blame you?
When McCain signs the Global Carbon Credit Scam which hurts the American economy, and sends us into reccesion, can we blame you?
Unless you LOOK for another alternative, you will never find one….
Romeo13 on May 23, 2008 at 3:52 PM
What are those things if not culture?
Immigration has made America more left-wing, and is continuing to do so.
flenser on May 23, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 Next »