McCain ad: “God’s Children”
posted at 9:15 am on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Team McCain has its latest ad out today, taken from a New Hampshire debate in June 2007, when John McCain soliloquized on the contributions of Hispanic citizens and residents to our efforts in Vietnam and Iraq. Titled “God’s Children”, the ad matches imagery to McCain’s impromptu salute:
My friends, I want you the next time you’re down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You’ll find a whole lot of Hispanic names.
When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you’re going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You’re even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they’re willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation.
So let’s from time to time remember that these are God’s children. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them.
Thank you.
About the best that can be said for this clip is that it was much more effective in context than it is here. During the debate, the other candidates had described illegal immigrants as not much more than a plague upon the land. This response came spontaneously from McCain, defending the contributions of Hispanics in the US as a reminder to Republicans to keep the rhetoric from getting overheated.
Now, though, this ad sounds like a non-sequitur. He and Barack Obama are close in policy on immigration, to the point where conservatives have resigned themselves not to bring it up if McCain won’t. Unfortunately, this sounds now like a deliberate provocation to the Right, who in fairness have never — never — discounted the contributions of Hispanic citizens and legal residents, especially not their long history of service to this nation. The issue is illegal immigration and border security, not whether we know that Americans of Hispanic descent have risked and given their lives for us.
This is a monumentally stupid ad. It spends a full minute saying nothing about the issue it supposedly addresses, and it insults the intelligence of the people whom McCain is trying to woo. And I’m someone who has a little more sympathy for McCain’s efforts on immigration than most on the Right. Take two big steps backward, Senator McCain.
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 6 7 »
Wrong. They and their children are net consumers of taxes, as all low income people are. Even the Powerline guys seem to be waking up to this reality.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 11:53 AM
oops…that should have been
I certainly don’t support unlimited legal immigration. In fact, I would like to curtail it severely.
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 11:54 AM
LOL… one of the most interesting parts of this whole race this year? That the two candidates are from one of the most despised groups in the country.
With the HORRIBLE things which have come out of Congress the last few years, and their total mismanagement of the economy and banking situation, not to mention energy… why in the H3LL are we willing to give either one of them a promotion?
They are both part of the problem, bereft of solutions.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Um, no. It isn’t a fact, just your opinion based on the issues you care about. A majority of Republicans didn’t agree, which is why John McCain is our nominee. So the real fact is, you are a minority of a minority right now.
rockmom on July 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
They are still producing children (future workers) who will save social security and Medicaid. (my prior post)
I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying that’s what the perception has been and what has been used as a justification.
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I didn’t suggest that. I’m only saying that’s the only reason to vote for him.
I never said that. I just don’t see a big enough different between them.
Right. McCain is slightly better.
I’m sick of that. This is the most powerful position in the world that we’re talking about here, and the best we get is slight differences.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Given the stupidity and corruption endemic in American businesses, I’m not sure this is the best analogy for you to use. I’ve seen far too many companies that would have improved if they had made the janitor the CEO. And middle-management is a synonym for “sucks up, kicks down”.
Which does describe McCain of course.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 11:57 AM
A majority of Republicans did not vote for McCain.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Naw, not so much the ‘feminists’ as many of us are that in some measure…..blame the ‘femi-nazis’ as Rush likes to call them. The 100% over the top gals.
dustoffmom on July 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I don’t think it’s such a success story, turning to robots instead of people as the Japanese are doing. Nothing substitutes for a human mind and human ingenuity.
Sekhmet on July 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Ain’t that the truth.
mrsmwp on July 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Sorry Connie I haven’t read all your posts in this thread, but I got the idea that you supported immigration, and most people who do support immigration don’t support unlimited immigration, but what is the level that is acceptable? I think the target population of the U.S. needs to be clearly defined and managed.
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I am pro-woman and very much an anti-feminist.
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
More voted for him than for Ron Paul
Sekhmet on July 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Yeah, I got the metaphor.
But this is America, a place where even an actor can be president. All you need is the support of the people.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:01 PM
rockmom on July 11, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Somehow, watching this ad, I don’t think McCain really “got the message” a few months ago.
cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM
The problem is that the same is true of a vote for McCain, who is at least as big an internationalist is Obama and Kerry. When he ran in 2000 McCain cited John Kerry as the sort of person he’d turn to for foreign policy advice.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I don’t get your point there. Paul got hardly any votes from Republicans. You may as well say that more Republicans voted for McCain than for Obama.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I might do a write-in. Though I know it won’t go anywhere.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM
And a majority of Americans didn’t vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 but he still became president.
Exactly.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM
While that statement may be true in 2000, it’s now 2008. And McCain has said nothing remotely like that.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
What does it matter? McCain doesn’t need the Right. He doesn’t need his base. The GOP is his party, not mine.
He can have it.
spmat on July 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I’m probably going to do a write-in, and I know many other people are considering it. I wonder if we could coordinate that effort and come up with a single write in to show our unified displeasure.
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM
McCains 30 points down to UhhBama with hispanics, foolish waste of resources. Not to mention tweaking all those who want illegal immigration stopped, and legal immigration to be guided by a “good for the American people” policy.
Lunkinator on July 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM
If enough of us vote for a third party candidate, it will certainly go somewhere. Nothing scares the duopoly more than the thought that their monoply on power might be threatened.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Here we go again….three pages…one and a half of which are the flenser thread.
McCain/Flenser 08!
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You know. that would be an awesome act if it would actually accomplish anything. Well, besides helping Obama to win.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Better to settle behind a single third party candidate, probably Barr or Baldwin.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Oh, yeah. It will go somewhere. And that “somewhere” is a wikipedia page.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Which one do you suggest?
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Unfortunately, you are correct.
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM
He manages to flip flop within 30 seconds!
What a stinky pile of garbage this ad is.
Dave Rywall on July 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Hey, it’s “Lim”, still with nothing to say. So, how’s the Marxist-Catholic vote coming along?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM
a capella, I suggest the Constitution Party.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I have stuff to do, l8r
Sekhmet on July 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM
How about Alan Keyes?
I can dream. Actually, my husband and I voted for him in the Texas primary (Mccain already had it wrapped up by the time we got to vote).
mrsmwp on July 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM
It’s a great ad. I loved it. And it shows me that John McCain is a much smarter politician than I thought he was.
RBMN on July 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Why do you care whether Obama or McCain wins, witless man?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Well, that certainly means it hit its mark!
rockmom on July 11, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Wow, you’re an angry girl! No, if you must know, my dad has been a US Citizen since he was 19. He and my mom were dating when she was deported. He went down and married her in the US Embassy in her country. You assume too much.
jtorres138 on July 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I have stated in many other threads that I won’t be voting for McCain, and that’s why I didn’t feel I needed to state it once again in this thread. I instead talked about the longer term subject of stabilizing population. I don’t really want vote for a third party candidate because I’m not sure that will get the message across.
We want a clear picture demographically of the conservatives that refused to support McCain. I don’t know if that message can be conveyed by simply voting for a third party candidate, but if we all agreed upon a write in like Newt, then it would be obvious who we are and our number.
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Actually, I’ll be one of the “nose holders” that votes straight Republican ticket but then I am going to take an active role for the next four years in trying to fix this 2-party, primary system mess. Unless the GOP gets back to it’s core values then I am going to be soooooo out of there.
It’s a sad day when Blue Dog Democrats have more conservative values then many in the GOP.
mrsmwp on July 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM
How’s that working out in Mexico? Or India? Or all the other countries that saw explosive population growth and stayed poor?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM
You know, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and to inject some form of logic into this third party discussion here but:
When you vote for a third party, you make no impact.
Your vote for a third party does not send a message - at least, that you wold like to send. Most sane people view a vote for a third party only as a way to identify people who have no grasp on reality. As an example, in the last election, the first two people on the ballot got 60,639,281 votes and 57,355,978 votes, respectively. That’s right, sixty point three - million votes to fiftey seven point three million. and the third party candidate? The highest supporting third party candidate got 465,650 votes. that makes it 0.38 percent of the vote.
Zero point three eight percent.
Last year the constitution party got 0.12% of the vote. That is a third of the vote that Ralph Nader got. If you really want to be laughed at and make absolutely no difference in the election, but want to feel better, then listen to flenser’s advice. He’s good for that.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM
God’s children, huh? I seem to recall even God favoring segregation and splitting up the people per native tongues. Sorry MCSHAME, your vile pandering won’t convince me that you’re a weak little man who only craves political power REGARDLESS where is comes from…even if that mean switching parties to the Dems.
PS…Mexicans come here for the money…not their love of the US.
DanKenton on July 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Hey wow, mocking my name. Thats a new one.
I care that Obama is not the next president.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:20 PM
It doesn’t matter. If the Japanese perfect the technology, then you can bet that corporations will adopt it. They will turn to automation, and drop unskilled (illegal) immigrants like the fickle lover they are, and then what will you do with the population you imported?
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM
At least half the “Republicans” posting here are liberal Democrats who support the Iraq war. They’d vote for Obama in a flash if he promised them he’d crush Islamism. Their goal is to turn the GOP into a verion of the Democratic party.
Hence the shurgging about immigration, global warming, free speech, etc.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Yes, witless, but I asked you why you cared. See?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Quite true. I would like to see a tarrif on US currency going to mexico, in the way of wire transfers such as western union and other services like that. It can be used to fund all of the programs that the illegals use, such as emergency rooms, education for the children of illegals and everything else that they use but don’t pay for. If they make it in like with the same tax rate as the highest bracket of income tax on our own citizens, then less money would be sent to mexico from the US by illegals.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Moron said what?
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I believe that using illegal immigrant labor, like slavery in years gone by, actually impede technological progress. when Eisenhower got rid of the illegals in the 50s, the tomato industry developed machines to pick the tomatoes.
same with slavery, why bother to make up a machine, when you have a slave to do your dirty work? but when you have to do it, then you come up with ways to innovate.
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Yes McCain, twist that knife you’ve got in our backs a little bit more and piss away any chance of becoming our President.
CliffHanger on July 11, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Third party runs do have an impact, if its a viable threat to the monopoly of power in Washington.
Perots run forced Clinton to the center, and forced a balanced budget down the throats of the Congress. The budget, while being a valid issue, was NOT on the agendas of either party at the time… not until Perot forced the issue.
FACT: One of the primary reasons for the downgrading of the worth of the dollar is because of the National debt.
If we had had a balanced budget all along? The debt would be much less, the dollar much stronger, and our trade deficit would be less even with importing more oil
If Congress had done two things… allowed us to drill 10 years ago, and balanced the budget so we were not in such debt, we would not be in the economic sitution we find ourselves in…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 12:29 PM
To vote third party means that you think there’s no difference between the only two candidates that have a chance to be elected. I’d call that idea (of no difference in appointments for example) either naive or insane or both.
RBMN on July 11, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Your grasp on sanity is as tenuous as your grasp of logic or English comprehension. The third party vote in 1992 resulted in a Congress and President much more conservative than what we’re being offered now. If you don’t like what the duopoly is doing then a third party vote is your best and only option.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I agree, but since Japan and other other Asian countries like S. Korea are pursuing that technology it will come into existence, and when it does it will be adopted by U.S. corporations. Which means we aren’t pursuing the research of the future, but we are importing a huge drain on our future social services.
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Oops. Too late.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I’m a witless man. I concede that point. And it’s true that I only support McCain because of the war, otherwise I’d be with Obama all the way.
wise_man on July 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Yes, I noticed.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I think this is the great unspoken problem of the illegal immigration mess.
I don’t think its a coincidence that the industrial age came about after the end of slavery.
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Why are McCain and the Republican Party so far behind in polls of Latino voters? Why do members of other ethnic minorities view the Republicans with suspicion?
Maybe it’s because a completely positive ad like this one, attempting to re-assure Latinos in swing states that voting for a Republican isn’t ethnic suicide and that border security doesn’t mean open hunting season on Latinos, legal and illegal, let God sort them out - can set off this month’s 19th Nervous Breakdown in the far right fever swamps, until sooner or later everything bad that Latinos learned over generations to expect from Anglos starts to bubble up:
That kind of thing might have won you a vote here or there, 150 years ago… In more recent decades, not so often.
CK MacLeod on July 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I might consider that. The two party system is broken. It is not a choice; it is not Democracy. It’s barely a Republic.
The problem is that too many people are too afraid to “throw their vote away” and will vote the lesser of two evils, keeping the two party system alive.
People who say that a write-in vote is a vote for Obama, create a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I believe this poster made the point it was an attempt to quantify those who are so disatisfied with the present situation, they will sacrifice their vote for either Obama or McCain as an indicator of the amount of discontent. It isn’t necessarily an irrational act.
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
As a German-Lithuanian-English-Irish-American I resent the atmosphere of exclusion engendered by this ad.
Akzed on July 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Jobs and money. You want their votes, you better be willing to pay for them. Same as with blacks, btw.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Angry? Not at all. At the same time, I’d suggest that bragging you mom flaunted our laws isn’t all that endearing a trait. Your mom broke the law and got deported. She and your father only went legal when it was forced on them. That’s nothing to be proud of.
There are millions who would go through the legitimate process to enter this nation. Why should your line-jumping mom even be allowed to become a citizen after she had to be deported?
highhopes on July 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I suggested a solution to this problem a while back - instant runoff voting.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Right. We’re all bigots for having a problem with this ad.
Whatever.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Sean Hannity, who I’m not a fan of, yesterday said he doesn’t understand the reasoning McCain uses to come to his positions. I will vote for McCain over Obama. But I fear McCain is largely motivated by something hidden to us. A little like Citizen Kane and “rosebud”. No, not a Manchurian Candidate. But for example — Campaign finance reform to blunt the sting of his “involvement” (which was really nothing) in the “Keating Five”? Amnesty for illegals because … you tell me. His wife’s work in the third world? His compassion for his Vietnamese captors? As a maverick himself, an admiration for those who’d break the rules to make a life for themselves here? He threw Gramm under the bus pretty quickly with his “ambassador to Kazakhstan” remark. He seems prickly inside, like if you press the wrong button, he’ll go do something bold in retort. Maybe that’s the primary basis for his positions. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Paul-Cincy on July 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Do you mind elaborating a little?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I hope McCain gets his ass kicked in November. I hope Obama gets his ass kicked too. Both these shmucks will be a disaster for America. It’s like choosing between a sharp pine stick in the eye or a sharp maple stick in the eye.
Both options suck beyond belief.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I would suggest that the problem is with the politicians, not the system. We’ve created a career political class in society and the only thing that matters is staying in power. Congress has created a comfortable little world for themselves and are more interested with getting along with one another and getting re-elected rather than doing what is right for the nation.
My solution- term limits of six years total public service (3 house terms or one Senate term). That’s more than enough time in public office for anybody.
highhopes on July 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I’ve always thought it was his intolerance for opposing views. He may pretend to have “learned his lesson” but I suspect he never thinks he’s wrong. He seems unwilling to critically self analyse.
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM
We would have to agree upon a symbol that all of us could agree represents our ideal of a candidate, and at the same time clearly identify us. It could even be a dead person. Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, or someone else that is a clear symbol and a rally point.
DFCtomm on July 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Replacement rate.
I suppose I rely on Steyn. Populations falling in all first world nations– below replacement rates. Russia’s pop. falling fast. Populations falling in emerging 3rd world nations–China comes to mind.
Aging populations in Europe and US dependent on unfunded social services.
We need young workers if we want the economic world we created to continue.
I don’t know how many are needed. It varies by the standard of living that’s expected. And it’s not the absolute number of people that probably matters anyway–its how the various ages are spread throughout a society.
People are living longer than expected, and retiring earlier, and using retirement benenfits longer than anticipated.
That’s why I say we need more young people. But this is all the usual argument that you already know. So what do you have up your sleeve?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Put the myths and ignorance aside
http://www.countrybeforeself.com
ilitigant on July 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Picture the Republican primary, same cast of characters. Instead of voting for one of them, you’d vote for the entire slate, listing your order of preference, one through seven, or however many there are.
The first count would be of all the candidates first preference votes. If nobody reveived over 50%, then the candidate who reveived the fewest first preference votes would be eliminated and his ballots distributed among the others based on the second preference listed. If that puts anyone over 50% the process ends. If not, you repeat the process as neccessary until you have a winner.
It’s a runoff process, but does not require several seperate votes. And it allows people to vote for their prefered candidate without “throwing away” their vote.
If this had been in place for all states in the GOP primary we would probably not have McCain now.
The same thing can be applied to non-primary races for all offices.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM
“As well as others of Irish and German and Polish and Italian and French descent; but I am only pandering to you.” - Juan McVain, Sen.
This should go over well in Orange County.
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM
John McCain is not putting the country before himself. He hardly seems aware of the countries existence. That’s a common problem with people who have spent twenty-five years in DC.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM
BigD on July 11, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I will have to write in a vote even though I know it will be a waste. My anger toward McCain just happens to be stronger than my contempt for Obama. Obama doesn’t know better and McCain does.
No matter what McCain says, demonstrating to illegals that lying, cheating, and stealing will get you ahead in America is unforgivable to me. Obama on the other hand is and has been on the victim train, and excuses for lying, cheating, and stealing is all he knows.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Ewwww…. I’d vote for Thomas Jefferson…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 1:13 PM
What Gramm said wasn’t that bad. He’s talking about the economic state of the country as a whole. What he said was fair. McCain totally dismissed him. Gramm, a guy who supports him strongly, a major advisor.
That was unfair of McCain.
Paul-Cincy on July 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Candidates are A-B-C-D-E-F-G
Preference is the number
Voter #1
A-1
B-2
C-3
D-4
E-5
F-6
G-7
Voter #2
A-7
B-3
C-5
D-2
E-4
F-1
G-6
Voter #3
A-3
B-4
C-2
D-1
E-6
F-7
G-5
Who won the election?
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Actually, the comment thread to this post pretty much proves McCain is correct. And since HotAir/Malkinville is “We Hate Hispanics Central” I can see why everyone involved is taking offense to an ad that extols the virtues of Hispanics. You guys would rather see all negativity toward Hispanics all the time. God forbid anyone say anything positive about them, because this issue is closed. Hispanics are worthless and evil, end of story.
All the worst, most xenophobic and bigoted aspects blamed on the GOP are in full view here today. Congrats, haters.
docweasel on July 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I expect nothing else from Mr. McCain.
He enjoys giving conservatives, who are for legal immigration, the proverbial finger who oppose illegal immigration because (especially after all the vulnerabilities exposed by 9/11) they did not enter our sovereign nation through legitimate means.
“Illegal immigration” turns those individuals into lawbreakers and exposed to exploitation due to that status, but liberal elitist (like McCain and his La Raza buddies) calls us conservatives racists when he panders???
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
We don’t care about someone’s ethnicity. That’s your thing. That’s the democrats thing. That’s the liberal’s thing.
Paul-Cincy on July 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
The Republican Party is at it again. They throw a terrible candidate at us conservatives and then tell us that it will be the end of western civilization unless we support their lousy candidate. Not this time! Until any of the two parties picks a candidate that truly gives a rat’s ass about conservative issues, I for one will not support, send money to nor vote for their lousy candidates! We have been taken for granted by country club republicans for far too long and we are not going to go along any more. So for you Republican die hard rubes out there that will swallow whatever Carl Rove and Lindsay Graham ask you to, enjoy!
sabbott on July 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
On other words, social security is a government run Ponzi scheme. You or I would go to jail for setting up such a thing.
In other words, we need to prop up the tottering Ponzi scheme, and our vote buying political class, by bringing in fresh “marks”, as con-men call them.
The “economic world we created” cannot continue forever. It’s mathematically impossible. At some point in the future the number of people needed at the bottom of the pyramid will exceed the total mass of the planet. We need to be trying to figure out how to get out of this mess, not perpetuating it. That’s the case even if it were possible to bring in lots of Latin Americans and “save Social Security” for another fifty years.
Of course it’s not possible, since one of the variables in the equation is how much money these new workers would generate vs how much they would consume. And Latin Americans are a net fiscal loss to the Treasury, as all low wage earners must be in our economic world. And before you ask, there is an abundance of data to show that they will remain low wage earners.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I like that idea.
Interesting proposal. Maybe a grassroots campaign, especially for a dead person, would get the point across.
Maybe you could start a webpage?
But your solution is to change the system. I’m a little confused, as you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Not really fair. There are far more than 3 voters, (I’m supposing you engineered some kind of tie) so ties are less likely to happen. And if they did, why couldn’t some add’l. mechanism be created to deal with it. We already have that with the electoral college.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Totally wicked idea!
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Please see my posts above; it may help you with your hate.
p.s. I suspect I have a clue why “weasel” is in your name…. ;
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Wrong. I love:
1) Conchita Supervia
2) Lorena Ochoa
3) Sergio Garcia
4) Placido Domingo
5) Ramon Vargas
6) Rolando Villazon
7) Daisy Martinez
8) Jose Maria Olazabal
9) Penelope Casas
10)Victoria de los Angeles
BigD on July 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Honestly I didn’t engineer any predetermine result. I simply chose a different preference result for each candidate. Given our recent history of 50-50 elections I don’t see why this sample wouldn’t be indicative of 50 or 5,000 votes. It wasn’t a trick question, just trying to figure out how weighting votes = a runoff.
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
You’re an idiot with obviously low reading comprehension skills.
Congrats.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
If this ad is ‘monumentally stupid,’ what is the global warming ad he runs? Really super duper unbelievably stupid? Face it, he’s a lousy candidate.
james23 on July 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
LOL. Of course it’s a ponzi scheme. That’s why we are about to cut and delay benefits.
As for the rest of your comment, I agree, it may be ultimately unsustainable, just as the original SS promises were. That’s life. You can’t, and don’t have to, plan for what happens very far into the future. New things come along, circumstances change, plague, war, inventions, etc. It’s just not worth it. Keep the wheels turning for your kids. (When the baby-boomers die, the others can breathe a temporary sigh of relief.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »