McCain ad: “God’s Children”
posted at 9:15 am on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
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: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Look forward to four years of a monumentally stupid administration.
By whomevah’s standard.
Kini on July 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Yes it’s right. He won’t get the vote because he says the wrong things. His job is to give them an American civics lesson. To tell them what American democracy is and how American capitalism works, and what opportunities await those who wish to study and work hard and take entrepreneurial risks. He should warn them about attempts to recreate their home countries culture here–the one they fled because it failed. He should warn them about the dangers of not knowing English, and of not being able to compete. But he won’t say those things. He won’t promise them the moon because he’s seducing them with gov’t handouts. It is a liberal message.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Yeah, that’s what I was referencing, though I didn’t want to come out and say I support a movie idea.
I don’t know. If we’re getting excited about winning 38% percent of a demographic, then I’d say we’ve already lost that demographic.
But really, surely there’s a way he can reach out to them while not making it blatantly obvious that he thinks his party is full of racists who have no other reason for insisting on following the law.
Hispanics have nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigration, yet he attempts to equate the two to paint us in a negative light and gain emotional support for his amnesty plan. It’s insulting to all Americans, Hispanic or not.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM
The new deal, thats how. Something for nothing has always delivered the “black vote”. However, the “smart Black Vote” is changing fast. When you get something for free, it has little value. When you have to work for something, it has more value. The middle class working blacks have little time for the freeloaders, hence the rise of “horizontal descrimination” in the black community.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Disregarding your nasty comments, you seem not to be able to make a point with getting personal.
You are mistaken in some of your comments, first a trend and be static, and trend can show stability. So I don not understand you saying his figures do not show a trend.
Good grief you are an angry person…I said major gaffs and they would slip into single digits (ala Black vote). If you think they won’t slip into single digits, then we disagree.
Man, I hate giving history lesson. Nixon began his coalition building programs right after the 68 election, proving my point, that it doesn’t take much to move to single digits (from 11% to over 30%, can be reversed). In four years with the implementation of the Souther Strategy, Nixon aggressively confronted the then-dominant New Deal order of the Democratic party.
And you want to give away the 30%? Good idea, I don’t think you will be hired as a campaign consultant.
Rather then attacking my ideas and posts, which is easy to sit in a chair and do, how are you going to garner more votes from the Latino’s? Or do you think they are insignificant.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Get the book, it actualy explains the idea very well… movie kinda hammered the origional idea, and tried to discredit much of what the book was about…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I may do that. I’ve been looking for a good, entertaining book to read.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Thank you. This cannot be said often enough.
Connie on July 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM
So how ISN’T this ad pandering to hispanics?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I’d like to think you are right, but the >90% of blacks voting for Obama tells me something different. Either they are voting for him in spite of his nanny state approach and only because of his skin color, or they buy the whole package. If the first case applies, tribalism overides good government.
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Pander: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others’ desires
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
US citizens that happen to be Latinos don’t all like the idea of demonstrating to illegal immigrants that lying, cheating, and stealing is the best way to accomplish your goal of US citizenship (even though this disasterous precident was set in 1986). Many believe in the rule of law, and they vote. Like me, they just can’t vote to reward McCains blatant pandering.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the effects of the 1986 amnesty. There are 20 million reasons it was a disaster.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Flenser: From another thread:
This is how I have to respond to the fungible thing. We are endowed with different gifts. A just society can bring out the best in people whose potential could never be realized in their former home. I understand the contributions Europeans have made to western civ. I also recognize the contributions to western civ. that were made by the people referenced in the above quote, but I probably think about the former much more often than the latter.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM
pander
noun
1. someone who procures customers for whores
Race whores maybe?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Could someone explain WHY it is to much to ask that we enforce the LAW?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I wish.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Funny,
“Immigration” doesn’t seem to be much of a priority in their minds,
isn’t it.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Okay mister nasty, I spelled this out for you before…but like I said to your buddy branch ritchey, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
The bearing, and I thought this would be obvious, we do not want to have the Latino vote shrink from 30% to 3#.
No matter what I post (even when you agree) you will call names and make personal attacks.
So suffice it to say, that with very little reading, you will find that we moved from 40% to less then 8% (about), (I had given you the exact figures on another post, and you cried about them) of the black vote in less 8 years.
I believe we had a two party system then, the Republicans and the Dems. Dems got the vote, we lost the vote. So did they “steal” the vote, or did we allow them to “steal” the vote, or did we allow the vote to just leave.
You, by your angry posts, think the Republicans did everything possible, but it was inevitable that we lost the vote. Others think we could have stopped those losses, or at least minimized the loss.
My analogy I gave you still holds: When a basketball player drives to the basket and makes a layup, was it good offense or poor defense?
And could you find different names to call me, the ones you use are getting old and tired.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
The pols won’t enforce the law because they hope to capture the legal hispanic vote by assuming legal hispanics either prefer illegal immigration, or wish to see the illegals given amnesty. I thought we all agreed on that.
What is being argued is whether McCain promising to play nice will make any difference since the Dems play nicer and offer better toys.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
His figures do not show a trend because he picked for his starting point an exceptionally low year. You can “show” anthing you like by cutting out a selected portion of a graph. Once you look at the bigger picture it’s plain that there is no upward trend. GHWB received less of the Hispanic vote following the 1986 amnesty than Nixon did in 1972. You could say, with more justification, that this shows that amnesty loses the GOP Hspanic voters.
That’s a strange and unjustified assumption. You need to show that Nixons increase in the Hispanic vote was due to some specific policy change he made.
As I pointed out, the GOP’s share of the Hispanic voted goes up and down with its share of the popular vote, although it lags a long way behind. In 1969 Nixon won the election with far less than 50% of the popular vote, and he did badly with Hispanics. In 1972 Nixon won 49 states and one of the biggest landslides in history. His margin in the popular vote was 23%. At the same time he managed to win 35% of the Hispanic vote, losing them badly but improving on his 1968 performance.
As I have told you repeatedly, if you want the Hispanic vote you will have to buy it, and outbid the Democrats for it. Amnesty is not going to cut it.
If that’s what you want to do, say so.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I know. I have a friend with a son serving. He says McCain will be a better CIC for his son and thus the father will vote for McCain. Sounded about right to me. Is the strongest reason I have for voting for McCain. (Still, the guy infuriates me).
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I get it, however the reasons were brought on by the courts activism and the senate not backing the plan.
But what is your solution to the 20 million that are here?
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I see that you did not address this in your 3:54 PM, so I’ll repeat the question.
What does losing the black vote tell us about the Hispanic vote?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Get rid of them.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:59 PM
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Actually, it is. And those McCain speaks of in the ad aren’t “illegal” – they are playing by the rules, showing even MORE initiative by serving.
And these people McCain speaks of are some of the VERY people McCain would stab in the back with his “comprehensive” proposals – by awarding the very thing these people have FOUGHT and DIED for to those who don’t deserve it – who in fact are breaking the law – to get.
Thanks for playing. Buh-bye then.
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:00 PM
And how would you know what is on their minds?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM
right2bright, that’s been my point as well. It seems difficult for you to make your case that the “reaching out” made a difference when the jumps coincide with presidents who one a large percentage of the popular vote anyway.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it just doesn’t seem as though the data conclusively supports your theory.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I think you misunderstand the reason for the question. Of course I understand why.
I was being sarcastic.
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM
That you have to buy it, and amnesty isn’t enough.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM
And you will find a whole lot more English, German, Irish and Italian names. Why don’t you mention that you crazy old amnesty coot, Senior Juan Plantation LaRaza McBernie?
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Sorry. I’m hot and brain is getting fried.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I believe this is the case. Blacks have seen the ghettos, Katrina, crack, hip hop, etc for many years. I heard the black people joke about how utterly stupid their neighbors were. When I was working in the Black neighborhoods, they would say things like “If you are black, and you have a black doctor, you gonna die” or ” If you are black, and you have a black lawer, you are going to jail. “the white man’s ice is colder, and the white man’s greens are greener”.
There were no black merchants because the black customers knew they were getting cheated somehow. In the grocery busness, all the merchants were Chineese because the blacks resented whites, and the Chineese were a happy medium.
Even Tony Brown (Tony Browns Journal started the “Buy Your Freedom” campaign back in the 70’s because dollars stayed in the black community for literally minutes. It didn’t work.
I know what I’m talking about because I lived it.
With Obama, they see a first tier individual up to the grade of the white man, and they are elated. Only the race pimps like reverand Al or Jessie have a problem because they appear so outclassed. At last, many blacks see the Tiger Woods and Barak Obamas as a testimate to Black people reaching the top floor.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Immediately get rid of every single one that has ever been arrested, even for minor charges, especially the ones currently in our jails.
After that, I’d give them an ultimatum. Either get out in the next six months, and you’ll be given a chance for legal status, or don’t, and you never will. Legally being in this country is a privilege, not a right.
If plenty still stay, I don’t know if hunting them down is necessary, but at least deporting the ones we find could be good enough.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Yeah, you keep saying that. I’m trying to get you to say how you think we could have done that. For some reason you’re hard to pin down on that score.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM
My ideas are the same they have for the past couple of years, and posted on this thread:
Secure the borders
Establish a consistent policy on allowing immigration
Place a program establishing a legal path to work in the U.S.
Deport all illegals who have committed any crime, any
Take the ones who are “productive” and fine them for being here.
No immigrant is allowed to be paid cash for work, it must be a proper paycheck with proper withholding.
And maybe an additional “fee” per hour to offset the costs of these programs, maybe 2 1/2 % of pay or something small, but by the numbers will add up.
etc.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:06 PM
P.S. Juan – STOP saying “My friends” so damn much! You have rendered it, from overuse, about as meaningless as “Have a nice day” or Sean Hannity’s, “You’re a Great American”.
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What is monumentally stupid is the hissy-fit/temper tantrum the far right throws every time it feels McCain is not sufficiently kissing their butt. To take offense at this ad is what is monumentally stupid.
When Obama wins due to the whiny truculence of the so-called “base”, I guess that’ll show ‘em. It always works when one faction or another withholds support because they feel disrespected by the party and allows the opposition to win. Just ask the ‘00 Nader voters. They definitely showed the Democrat party! And put a Republican in office for 8 years. And the cry-baby stupidity exemplified by the above original post is the kind of attitude that will put a Democrat in office, possibly for 8 years with the advantage of incumbency, and the ability to pick 3-4 Supreme Court Justices, which is one of the few REAL things that matter about who is president. Which will affect every American’s life in a very real and tangible way. And all the McCain haters can feel smug and satisfied that they showed the GOP for not sufficiently respecting them.
Which pretty much shows the McCain haters aren’t really interested in furthering conservative ideals, issues and goals at all, they are just childishly worried about getting stroked. Romney bought you idiots off with some rhetoric, after one of the most liberal records of any governor in the country. McCain, with an 86% conservative rating, is unacceptable, and as the Cap’n points out, its “monumentally stupid” things like speaking positively about Hispanics that makes him so.
Personally, I think the GOP should reject and discard the nativists, much as they did the John Birchers in the 60’s. McCain very well MIGHT pull this election out, and you xenophobes will be more isolated than ever, since you never supported him from the beginning.
Which will be a pretty schweet result.
docweasel on July 11, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I asked you how you proposed to win the Latino vote. That list ain’t it.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Because, all you do is knock whatever is written, and easy thing to do, that doesn’t take much thought, only a “sharp” pen.
Looks like you will have to disagree with me. And just believe that the Republicans did everything they could, but they were overwhelmed by the Dems.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Yeah, wanting the country to enforce it’s own law…
Pretty nativist thinking there.
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM
We already have one. Why can’t we just use it?
No one’s legally allowed to be paid under the table, so again, why not just go with the laws we already have?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Methinks they can’t answer the question…
Or don’t want to?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
You’re still an idiot.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I think Frank is trying to point out some info. People on the front lines who want to win, and live, and have good commanders, prefer McCain, and feel safer with him than the alternative. I believe it to be true, but will take Frank’s word on it.
There’s no reason not to add the military’s view (assuming it’s correct) to the mix when deciding for yourself. Weigh it a lot, as I do, or not at all, as is your right.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I guess we’ll never know, since you refuse to write it down. But I have to wonder why that is.
I can’t disagree with you since I don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about, and since you seem unable or unwilling to say.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Like Bill Clinton said, “It’s not the Hispanics, stupid it’s rewarding bad behavior”. It is so easy for some pseudo intellectuals to make the leap.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Como se dice “pander” en Español?
The closest translation seems to be saconería, or insincere flattery. In some Latin American countries, the panderer is a sobón, or kiss-up. Others say he’s a chupamedias — literally, one who sucks socks.
But whatever you want to call it, Barack Obama and John McCain were doing it yesterday — en abundancia.
McCain, a former prisoner of war, came armed with el pander armado, the military pander. “When you take a solemn stroll along that wall of black granite on the national Mall, it’s hard not to notice the many names such as Rodriguez, Hernandez and Lopez,” he observed, lauding the “thousands of Hispanic Americans” in the military.
Four hours later, Obama countered with his own military pander. He spoke of the Hispanic soldier who “was denied burial beside the men he fought with and bled with because of the color of his skin.”
- Dana Milbank
PLENTY OF COMMENTATORS, including yours truly, argued during the Democratic primaries that Barack Obama had shown a weakness with Latino voters which could last through the general election and help John McCain on Election Day. McCain, known for his strong support for “comprehensive immigration reform” including a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States, would be able to make inroads into this growing demographic group. The thinking went like this: When you combined Obama’s perceived weakness with Latinos in the primary and McCain’s strengths as a candidate, the Republican nominee could hope to do at least as well as, and maybe better than, George W. Bush’s 40 percent of the national Latino vote in 2004.
Well, here’s a revised prediction. That’s not going to happen. Obama has already shown strength among Latinos in recent general election polls, strength that will likely continue through November 4. Obama will match John Kerry’s percentage of the 2004 Latino vote, perhaps do better
- Matthew Continetti
It would seem like Juan McChupamedias needs to suck harder on those socks.
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I think it’s certainly important, but ultimately the decision is yours. Who do you want in that office?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I think that right2bright is saying is that whatever it was we should have done with blacks, that is what we’re supposed to do with Hispanics.
But that’s not much help as she won’t tell us what “it” is in either case.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Pander?
I’m actually guessing, not being insincere. Is that what you think we should be doing, right2bright? Ads like this one? Singing in bad Spanish a la Teddy Kennedy?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Yeah, cos blacks just love free stuff, right? And you act surprised when people call you racists.
Grow Fins on July 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM
good luck winning without my vote.
cause Juan McObama will never get it.
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM
As for those of us that can’t stand McCain but are Republicans, I just don’t buy the notion that we are hurting the conservitive cause by not voting for him..
The way I see it is that sometimes you need to take a step backwards in order to move forward. I think all the doom and gloom about Obama is true. He will make a mess of things to be sure. But, out of those ashes will rise a new conservative phoenix.
In the longer term, I expect the Republican party will learn a positive lesson about shoving meatheads down our throat. I have held my nose for the last time.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM
why is that racist? and why do you think the blacks started voting for democrats in the 1930s..when they were supporting jim crow, the KKK etc.?
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Just the facts, mam.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I disagree. It is a monumentally brilliant ad if Juan McChupamedias wants to yet again say frack you to conservatives more than anything else in the world, which he does.
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Everyone loves free stuff. That’s hardly a controversial statement.
It’s also not controversial to admit that blacks were pandered to specifically with free things and that it actually worked.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Voting for Juan McChupamedias is an act of war against the conservative cause.
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM
absolutely. it would be the end of conservatism for a generation or more, if that moron wins.
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Are you Viny Foxy?
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM
As more and more Hispanics reach higher levels of success in America, their political views will change, and combined with more traditional religous and family values, some will slowly cross over to the Republicans.
(I know you can point to the Jews where that didn’t work, but they are largely the exception, and not the rule–and even that is changing somewhat.)
But if Hispanics come to believe that Republicans are the anti-Hispanic party based on ethnicity alone, that would be a big mistake. I’m not saying any Republican or anyone here has done that, and I’m not defending McCain’s pandering.
I wish McCain would speak about the people who dream of a future that include college, homeownership, a profession, independence, etc., and why somebody who dreams those dreams belongs in the Republican party. Remind people that they won’t always be at the bottom of the ladder, and not to base their vote solely on where they are today.
That’s what we can do to get the Hispanic vote.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Oh, brother…
JetBoy on July 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Even more…Oh, brother!
JetBoy on July 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Whoa-oa-oa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now
I feel good, I knew that I would, now
So good, so good, conservatives, I screwed you
Whoa! I feel nice, like tequila and spice
I feel nice, like tequila and spice
So nice, so nice, conservatives, I screwed you
Whoa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now
I feel good, I knew that I would
So good, so good, conservatives, I screwed you
So good, so good, conservatives, I screwed you
So good, so good, conservatives, I screwed you
HEY SUCKAS!!
- Johny Mac
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM
On illegal “immigration” (NOT the ad):
Why does America owe these people any easier “path to citizenship” than any which has been given before?
On the ad:
Still waiting for someone to tell me how it ISN’T pandering to hispanics? Doesn’t this bother ANYONE who supports McCain? That he feels the need to air an ad like this?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:33 PM
you have an aversion to the truth don’t ya? but you’re not conservative…please.
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I think so.
It might take a couple of election cycles, but the conservative movement will ultimatly prevail.
Some people are slow to learn basic reality like:
1.you cant tax yourself to prosperity
2. You can’t have more people riding in the cart than you
have pulling the cart.
3. If you tax something, you get less of it
4. If you subsidise something you gt more of it.
5. If you reward bad behaviour, you get more of it.
6. If you penilise something, you get less of it.
Some people are slow learners, but repeated lessons sink in eventually.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM
You will displease Juan if you don’t start saying, “Oh, hermano…”
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Juan McScorpion can’t help himself. It’s in his nature.
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM
As more and more Hispanics reach higher levels of success in America, their political views will change, and combined with more traditional religous and family values, some will slowly cross over to the Republicans.
I think I saw this earlier on the thread.
Explain WHY we should think it will work with Hispanics? It hasn’t so far. Somebody put up stats earlier. Republicans haven’t received more than a third of the Hispanic vote yet, but somehow that will change now? It hasn’t worked with Blacks. And you site that it hasn’t worked with Jews.
So…we should buck 50 years of evidence that this type of wishful thinking hasn’t worked either in a racial or religious connotation.
Yet we are asked to “give it jsut one more try”?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Here, I will try it one more time…we don’t want to make the same mistakes we made with the blacks. Where we went from 40% to 8% in less then 10 years (however you want to spin it, we lost it, the dems stole it, either way it was a quick major shift). We just can’t assume that we will retain the 30% that we have without some effort. And every move we make regarding Latinos, will be scrutinized. I am not saying that the blacks and the latinos are the same situation, we had severe civil rights issues back then.
What I am saying is we need to weigh all of the options to ensure that we don’t lose, we need to gain or maintain what support we have of the latino vote.
But I do finally appreciate you dropped the little “gangsta” name calling attitude.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I think that’s worth repeating.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM
One day, a man named John McCain looked around at the senate where he was a long time senator and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through caucuses and primaries. He climbed over some candidates and went around others until he reached the Republican nomination.
The coming Presidential race would be a tough one, and so John McCain stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way to win on his own. So he thought that he would probably lose.Suddenly, he saw some naive conservatives blogging at a conservative web site. He decided to ask them for help in winning the election. “Would you be so kind, my friends, as to give me a hand in winning the election?”
“Well now, Senator McCain! How do we know that if we help you, you wont betray us?” asked the conservatives hesitantly.
“Because,” senator McCain replied, “If I betray you, then I would fail too, for you see I cannot govern without your support!”
Now this seemed to make some sense to the conservatives. But they asked. “What about when you get close to being elected? You could still start to betray us and might still win anyway!”
“This is true,” agreed senator McCain, “But I might well not be able to get enough conservative turnout to win the presidency!”
“Alright then…how do we know you wont just wait till you get elected and then betray us?” said the conservatives.
“Ahh…,” crooned senator McCain, “Because you see, once you’ve helped to make me president, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with betrayal, now would it?”
So the conservatives agreed to take help senator McCain get elected president. He edged out Barak Obama in a nail-bitting race and was inaugurated in January of the year 2009. Now president McCain immediately got a democratic majority in congress to enact full amnesty for all illegals in the United States and all of their relatives. He also nominated Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Supreme court along with Senator Teddy Kennedy’s wife. Both were confirmed.
.
“You fool!” croaked the conservatives, “You have betrayed us and you will never get a second term. Why on earth did you do that?”
Now president McCain shrugged and snickered and did a little jig..
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”
- HT to INC for the idea
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM
So, are you willing to give move the 30% to 4% and accept that? Especially from one of the futures largest voting blocks?
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM
…we need to gain or maintain what support we have of the latino vote.
So…pander.
Check.
How is that conservative? Or even Republican?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:41 PM
HELP PICK LETTUCE AT $50 PER HOUR FOR SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The stats show we aren’t getting more than 30% no matter what we do, so why pander?
Why award breaking the law?
30% of an ethnic groups vote is worth more than enforcing the law?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Could you point to me an election purposely lost, so they can win next time?
Can you name a political party that ever said, we will lose now so we can win later?
Giving your opponent an almost unsurmountable advantage is inconceivable as a strategy.
When we lose this election, we lose for at least 8 years. The first 4, if it goes bad, will be blamed on Bush, so they get a pass, then the second 4 years is a gamble.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM
So, since no one answered my question I guess it’s settled…
McCains ad is a pander.
How very Republican.
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Hope and change
The political landscape it will rearrange
With McCain at our party’s helm
We might as well be hanging from a big old Elm
Somewhere at the business end of a firing range
MB4 on July 11, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Why does America owe these people any easier “path to citizenship” than any which has been given before?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Everyone tells me I must vote for McCain, but I just can’t.
I feel like Reagan when he said “I didn’t leave the democratic Party, it left me.” The problem is both parties have left me and I have nowhere to go.
It’s like the crackheads have taken over the pharmacy.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Nixon, Reagan, Bush, all pro Latinos…Ford not so (15%).
First you are using the words pander, so no matter what I say won’t change your mind.
And we can put policies in place that will allow immigration and not offend the Latinos…you can do both if you don’t bully. Americans don’t like bully’s, so we not only lose the Latino vote, but the fence sitters.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Good questions I admit. No hard facts to share. Anecdotally, in the past ten years I’ve seen my area turn more heavily hispanic, and now see many hispanic businesses and not only manual laborers. I see Hispanics buying homes and having a growing stake in the community. I see evidence of rising wealth. And since the Republicans offer more to people like that, why shouldn’t they gravitate to the party?
I don’t know how large the Hispanic vote was in Nixon’s day, and assume the opportunities that were available to minorities back then weren’t as good as now. There may have been no rising Hispanic middle-class to find appeal in Republicanism back then.
However, if the vast majority are undereducated and poor, the vast majority will remain with the Dems. The Republican message is for people who transcend their group identity.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Exactly, the Hispanics are the larges rising middle class. We don’t want to do something stupid now, that will affect us 8 years down the road.
If we push them to retreat and defend, then they become monolithic like the Black vote.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM
You seem to think I’m arguing against your point. I’m not for McCain’s pandering, nor am I for pandering/buying more than the 30% of the vote we get. What I am for is cherry-picking those people in the Latino population that may be looking for the message that Republicanism offers (assuming we have one anymore, but that’s a diff. story).
Someone asked how we can ask for the Latino vote. Explain Republicanism/conservatism/capitalism. Some will respond, and feel invited. Don’t write off a whole people who are in transition in our country.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM
No I can’t. I think what happened is that with Bush spending like a drunk sailor with no vetos for years, the Iraq war costing a fortune, 65 billion to New orleans, and republicans loosing their compass, that the wheels came off in the primary and the RNC wound up with this tar baby in their lap.
Ill bet if you could ask the soul of the RNC members, they would have wanted things to be a whole lot different.
When the party fails to stick to it’s core principals, this kind of trainwreck is what happens.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM
o/t
a little borsch for Obama?
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM
And we can put policies in place that will allow immigration and not offend the Latinos…
I’m not using the word pander to call names to you or anyone. I asked how this add isn’t pandering. People like me don’t like pandering, for many reasons. Mine primarily is becasue it shows preferential treatment to a specific group over another. Call me crazy, but this is hardly Republican. Nor is it remotely Conservative.
You don’t want to offend a specific group. Your reasoning is because you don’t want to lose the groups votes. So – you’ll do whatever it takes to get more or keep more of those votes – or will you only do the GOOD things to get/keep those votes? And who then is your arbiter? The group your pandering to?
Where does it stop? Hence my problem with the ad and pandering.
This is the problem with our politics and policies. We are so worried about “offending”, we’ll say/do anything to NOT offend.
This may be an outmoded way to think, but if an idea/policy/legislation etc. can’t stand on it’s own merits (without pandering to a specific group) then just what good is it?
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Why would anyone think conservatives don’t like Mexicans?
Grow Fins on July 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I don’t think this ad is stupid Ed. I really don’t.
I think this ad is meant to distance McCain from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party who have a made a real point of saying the hispanic culture is a threat. I don’t think this is how most Republicans feel, but a few people can make a lot of people look bad.
Terrye on July 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I’ve asked this already, but maybe you didn’t see it.
We already have policies that allow for immigration. Why can’t we just enforce those? Why make a new law when the old ones aren’t even being used?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I also think that Hispanics make great Republicans once they get acclimated in the middle class. I also believe that Hispanics that come here legally arrive there a whole lot faster. Therefore, I am for increasing the quotas for legal immigration probably bigger than most. However, illegal immigration must be stopped and illegal immigrants must be encouraged to leave, and arrive here the right way.
It helps their self confidence and removes the second class citizen psycological baggage the illegals carry.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Cherry-picking one blog post… you’re so outmatched here that I actually feel sorry for you.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 5:08 PM
The Republican message is for people who transcend their group identity.
I agree.
But you are sending a mixed message at best when you are tyring to do the above by pandering. And you aren’t attempting to reach those very people you describe with an ad like this.
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 5:08 PM
catmann:
I don’t think that giving respect to the dead is pandering. I don’t think that making a point of being respectful is pandering either. If a candidate went out of his way to say he supported Christian values, that would not be considered pandering. It would be showing respect.
Terrye on July 11, 2008 at 5:08 PM
“I’m John McCain and I hereby issue orders from my campaign headquarters for all you conservatives to quit whining and start supporting everything and anything I say because…well…because I’m me…Muhahahaha!!!”
sabbott on July 11, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I made a mis statement, what I meant was polices to deport or retain them as immigrants.
We should enforce what we have, and secure the borders.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM
If we push them to retreat and defend, then they become monolithic like the Black vote.
The type of people who would feel they need to retreat and defend are already a lost cause. They aren’t going to vote Republican because they have already bought into the liberal arguments.
McCain says he has made his stance clear on immigration (I know, clear as mud to a lot of us). So why does he need this type of ad?
You are tyring to get a voting block (or segment of said block) which isn’t going to vote for you anyway.
And all your ad DID do, was piss off the base which is exactly what Ed’s point for this post was
catmman on July 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I see Tiger earning everything and proving that your outside doesn’t determine your inside.
I see Clarence Thomas. Working hard. Living. Learning. Succeeding despite the lynching of him by Teddy K and Joey Biden….
ugh!
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »