McCain campaign manager: His stance on immigration’s pretty sweet for a general campaign
posted at 4:40 pm on June 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I.e. if you’re holding your breath waiting for him to run that background check on Juan Hernandez that he’s been promising for months, it might be time to exhale. Geraldo 1, conservatives 0:
Perhaps most ominously to those who would prefer a Republican presidential candidate who echoed talk radio on the issue, illegal immigration, Davis noted that McCain’s history of stands on immigration that caused him such grief in the GOP primaries “may suit to fit him in a general election.”
They’re expecting a 10-point bounce for Obama this month, although it’s dead even right now.
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
To those throwing out opinions without stats:
1. It’s a VOLUNTEER military.
2. Some statistics on deaths here.
Curious – these death percentages are about same as the general population, except Hispanics are about 15% of the general population and only 11 percent of deaths. Are Hispanics under represented?
fred5678 on June 7, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Right on Fred. How far do we take representative proportions (quotas)? Should we be demanding more dead hispanics…in the name of proportional representation of course?
Shouldn’t the NBA be 75% white? How about Rap Stars…do we really demand more Vanilla Ice?
jwp1964 on June 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM
To anyone is is advocating any form of “amnesty”, “pathway to citizenship”, Z visa, “legalization’, etc.:
1. Do you think awarding the ill-gotten goods (residency in this country) to illegal aliens will a) decrease, or b) increase, future illegal border crossings?
2. Are there any crimes other than illegally entering our country (burglary, robbery, grand theft, larceny, etc.) for which you also propose awarding the ill-gotten goods to the guilty criminal? (with or without a fine)
3. Did you skip that afternoon in Psych 101 where they explained how rewarding any behavior increases the frequency of that behavior, and punishing the behavior decreases the same behavior?
Duh.
fred5678 on June 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Hey, its s**t hot army guy…
Care to take some more cracks at the Navy?
BTW, the people who came here with Capt Ed are the smartest people Ive met on the internet. You should take a few lessons.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:29 PM
None of this comes even close to being pertinent to the discussion we were having. But Ill let you two talk amongst yourselves.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Nope, just lucky I suppose.
I gave my statistics from the Heritage Foundation earlier.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I knew that one would bring out the reliably condescending, pedantic, elitist, I know more than you, if you disagree with me you’re a traitor and don’t support the troops Squid Shark. I enjoy how much you think of yourself. You certainly don’t have a self esteem problem. Keep educatin’ me oh wise one from Capt Ed.
jwp1964 on June 7, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Apologies for that last one, I lost my temper.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM
I apologized, I am trying to do better at turning the other cheek. Have a lovely night there, soldier.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:38 PM
I’m on board with a truce on a fellow member.
jwp
jwp1964 on June 7, 2008 at 9:40 PM
In spite of the sarcasm, these are real questions that need to be dealt with. Does the damage caused by “rewarding” lawbreaking exceed the cost, time and social toll taken up by mass deportations.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Thanks, how about we start over.
(10 years in, 4 as enlisted/officer candidate, 6 as officer, stationed in Jax.)
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Definitely, because cracking down on illegal immigration will not only help to solve the current problem but it will stem the future tide. Also, mass deportation is not necessary. Attrition through self deportation is what will inevitably work. Take away jobs and welfare benefits and fix that 14th ammendment issue and you go a long way toward solving the problem. Then, We invite who we want to come to our country.
mrsmwp on June 7, 2008 at 10:00 PM
You either can’t read or refuse to learn. This is definitely troll-like behavior. I’ll try one last time.
See my 5:56, 9:16, and 12:40 posts on this thread.
To save you time, I will repeat the most salient point:
Read this poll – the ONLY poll to offer attrition through enforcement as an option. Read the per cent of Dems and Rep. who want this policy – NOT deportation and NOT amnesty.
Read here how it’s working. And stop with the Bush/McCain false dichotomy.
Good evening and good reading.
fred5678 on June 7, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Excellent post, thank you.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I notice that the only people who ever talk about “mass deportations” are the amnesty fans. They also like to mention “concentration camps” and “cattle cars”.
I’m not going to rehash the actual plan of people on my side because I’m sure you’ve seen it ten thousand times before, and if you want bravely do battle against “mass deportations” then it seems cruel of me not to play along. So sure, I’ll pretend to be the Nazi of your imagination and you can pretend to be the Resistance. Whatever gets your rocks off.
flenser on June 7, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Squid,
You brought up the proportion of the personnel in the military – Race.
What was your point? To me the context of what you wrote, it seemed you were taking the leftist tack of minorities in the military bad/overepresented/dying more/being taken advantage of – when that is certainly not the case – as the same Heritage Foundation has shown. So why bring it up? Just curious.
And if anyone is going to make fun of a military branch – take some shots at my Air Force. There’s plenty of ammo out there…
:)
Yes, we are definately off topic a bit now…
catmman on June 7, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Does the damage caused by “rewarding” lawbreaking exceed the cost, time and social toll taken up by mass deportations.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 9:42 PM
I would rephrase the question:
Does the damage caused by not enforcing the law, indeed by rewriting it when it is inconvenient, exceed the cost, time, and social toll inflicted by relegating the law to a popularity contest?
catmman on June 7, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Well, now that I have a clearer understanding of you side, perhaps there is some common ground we can find, however with you it is unlikely. You would much rather play the principled man against the RINO’s.
BTW, I think enforcement, particularly on employers in the key to everything.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 10:34 PM
We were talking about the political impact of amnesty and increased Hispanic populations.
And from what I saw, both blacks and hispanics are over represented in the armed forces. Hispanics only slightly, blacks more significantly.
This would not be a suprise given the greater proportion of blacks and hispanics in poorer circumstances.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM
This would not be a suprise given the greater proportion of blacks and hispanics in poorer circumstances.
Squid Shark on June 7, 2008 at 10:37 PM
So you are saying these minoroties are overrepresented in the military because of their economic status? This is just patently untrue Squid, come on.
You site the Heritage Foundation and they found this “common knowledge” to be unfounded – in fact the exact opposite is true. The poorest areas of the country are underrepresented, while the white middle-class are overrepresented. And the enlisted ranks are not overrepresented by minorities.
And though certain minorities may be “overrepresented” solely based on population, it isn’t by such a wide margin as to be really significant. “While blacks continue to be overrepresented, their representation has decreased during the wartime years and is much closer to being proportional in 2005 than it was in 2003. Additionally, recruiters are not targeting black-concentrated areas in an effort to exploit the black population.”
Context is important and you seem to be blurring it.
catmman on June 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM
It would be much better to go by official statistics than by “from what I saw”.
I thought that was John Kerry’s schtick.
MB4 on June 8, 2008 at 12:49 AM
John McCain? Nah Gah Dah, baby. I’m packing for 40 days and 40 nights in the Conservative wilderness. See y’all around the campfire.
pabarge on June 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4