John McCain’s Catch-22
A winning strategy won't come easy to John McCain, writes John Hawkins. The presumptive Republican nominee has a "hellish balancing act to pull off."
It’s not easy being John McCain these days. The self-styled “maverick” faces a classic Catch-22, which he will have to somehow resolve if he wants to be elected president.
As we conservatives see it, McCain has gotten this far in his political career by kicking us in the teeth for the amusement of the mainstream media, which has repaid him for the entertainment by treating him with kid gloves and hyping him as a principled maverick.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with this perception, it is clear that now that McCain has captured the Republican nomination, he faces a dilemma.
The problem in a nutshell: he desperately needs the backing of the very conservatives he has infuriated time and time again over the last few years. We’re not talking about tepid support either. John McCain needs conservatives to pour money into his campaign, and to rabidly defend him when he’s under attack — and of course, vote for him. Achieving this won’t be easy. In order to patch things up with conservatives, McCain will need to cater to us by making meaningful gestures that show his heart is in the right place and by shifting his positions a bit on key issues, in order to placate our very valid concerns about him.
BUT — if and when he actually attempts to start trying to reach out to conservatives, he risks losign what made him attractive in the first place; McCain’s appeal to independents and moderate Democrats is directly based on liberals in the mainstream media saying nice things about him based on the fact that he DOESN’T try make conservatives happy.
What to do? McCain has a hellish balancing act to pull off.
If conservatives don’t vote for him en masse and fill up his campaign coffers, he is probably going to lose in November.
However, if he tries to openly appeal to the conservatives that he needs to win, his real base, the mainstream media, will voice their displeasure, which will turning off the middle-of-the-road voters that McCain has been counting on to put him in the White House. A lose-lose situation.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that McCain’s “honorary Democrat” status, which the mainstream media has bestowed upon him for criticizing other Republicans, has officially been removed now that he wears the mantle of presumptive nominee.
That’s why, for the first time in at least a decade, you’re seeing the mainstream media smear John McCain with the same sort of poorly written, lightly sourced hatchet pieces that are typically aimed at other Republicans.
Today’s situation was completely predictable, so much so, that some of us predicted earlier that it would happen if McCain were the nominee almost two years ago — and it makes perfect sense if you think about it. After all, why would the liberals in the press settle for a “Democrat-light” like John McCain when they can have the real thing?
This puts John McCain in his enormous pickle, particularly if he ends up going toe to toe with Barack Obama. On paper, McCain would seem to be the superior candidate to Obama in almost every way. He’s incredibly experienced: Obama isn’t qualified to be President. McCain is a moderate and Obama is the most liberal man in the Senate. Obama makes empty promises about how he’ll unify the country because he’s such a wonderful guy and everyone loves him so much. McCain has forged more significant compromises between Republicans and Democrats than any other five senators combined.
You can go on and on with these examples, but Obama has one huge advantage over McCain: Obama inspires enormous enthusiasm on the Left, which means his voters will turn out for him and give him enough money to build a staggering war chest.
By contrast, conservatives were dispirited BEFORE John McCain became the nominee and now, the Right is sliding towards despondency.
How is John McCain going to change that? How can he change that? Given John McCain’s contrarian nature, a better question may be: does he even want to try to change it? If so, there’s not much evidence of it. Since he sewed up the nomination on Super Tuesday, McCain has done very little of significance to reach out to conservatives. As of now, there are few indications that he intends to do so.
That may lead to what the late, great Milton Friedman referred to as a “wonderful natural experiment.” Reagan has already proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that a strong conservative Republican can pull in independent voters and beat a liberal candidate hands down for the presidency. But, can a strong moderate Republican, one who doesn’t have firm support on his Right, do the same thing in 2008?
Despite all of his flaws, conservatives should certainly hope so.
If not, they should just remember Adam Smith’s words of wisdom when he was told that Britain would be ruined by an unhappy turn of events, “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
52 Comments
1. Douglas Walsworth:McCain may get a fair number of conservative votes in November, but he is not going to get conservative dollars between now and then, something he may need more than the votes.
Mar 2, 2008 - 5:29 am 2. syn:I’m pouring my donation money into Conservative candidates campaign coffers who are running for the Senate and House; the RNC needs a to learn a lesson about loyality.
I’ll pull the lever for the troops and their mission even if it means McCain.
Mar 2, 2008 - 5:57 am 3. Drugstore Cowgirl:I just cannot fathom why, in a country of 300,000,000 citizens, the best we can come up with as candidates for President of the United States are these three. It makes me sick.
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:08 am 4. SDN:“In order to patch things up with conservatives, McCain will need to cater to us by making meaningful gestures that show his heart is in the right place and by shifting his positions a bit on key issues, in order to placate our very valid concerns about him.”
And why, after his shabby treatment of us, his lies about our motives, and his willingness to stab us in the back, should we believe him?
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:44 am 5. Lazki:Given that there is a war on, these “conservatives” sound unbelievably selfish. They are also remarkably boring and rigid.
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:49 am 6. A. N. Pierson:This is the same old cliché argument we have been hearing for months. Want to focus your mind? Go read the column on the left about Sderot. Those people really have problems. Those who are concerned McCain isn’t perfect for them should get a life, as they say. Serious things are happening. If you want Obama dealing with them, shame on you.
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:23 am 7. obama4me:Heres a conundrum from you right wing conservatives and an additional fly in the McCain pickle jar. Senator McCain was instrumental in having the Pentagon contract to replace the nation’s aging fleet of air re-fueling KC-135 tankers pulled from a budget appropriation in 2001 opening it to the ensuing Boeing, Pentagon scandal and competitive bids. Friday the Pentagon awarded the contract to the French controlled consortium EADS, parent of Airbus. A spokesperson for Boeing stated this would result in the closing of the Boeing 767 production and a loss of more than 9000 American jobs. The good news is the French government will be able to replenish funds it used to subsidize Airbus. More good news, if you can call it such, EADS announced it would build an assembly facility,(to assemble the foreign made components), in Alabama, resulting in 1,000 American jobs. What a tradeoff, 9,000 lost manufacturing jobs to create 1,000. Also what if the French government endures one of it’s labor strikes, of which many have happened in the past. The entire fleet of American air refueling tankers could be affected, not to mention the possibility of the French government becoming unfriendly to the U.S. for some reason. They will have control of our entire refueling capability. Just think about a labor strike at just one of the facilities manufacturing parts critical to the continued operations of America’s fleet. Thanks, John McCain, I for one don’t think this is such a good idea.
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:31 am 8. Saganashkee:The problem is that there will not be a meaningful candidate that a conservative can happily vote for. It makes sleeping in on election day awfully attract.
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:38 am 9. dougf:America is just about finished with the ‘conservative movement’ headed as it is by people with absolutely no solutions to offer except opposition to ‘liberals’. Even the more observant ‘conservatives’ see the writing on the social wall. But then they become heretics like McCain.
Limbaugh is a prime example of the rot at the top. He’s not an intellectual leader — he’s a radio demagogue.
The death of WFB is significant in more ways than one. His ’smart’ conservatism is passing rapidly from the scene.
Sit out November for all anyone really cares. Who exactly do you think is most going to suffer the consequences of such a foolhardy action ?
It’s going to be YOU.
If McCain wins and you have not supported him — you lose.
If McCain loses and you have not supported him — you lose.
America is not going to come pleading at your doors to save it from the ‘liberal’ menace which is seemingly the ‘real’ conservative back-up plan. The far more likely situation is that America will grow to ‘like’ the menace the longer it hangs on to power. Especially if it is dressed up all spiffy in its new Obama threads.
I’m tired of ‘conservative’ angst and pettiness. I don’t think I am alone. The ‘movement’ is more and more merely the mirror image of the so-called nutroots.
Wahhhhh— We want it OUR Way !!! Give it to us or we will hold our breath and tune blue. So there.
That’s a real pity.
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:43 am 10. Jason:There is also a (suicidal) strategy evolving on the right that assumes McCain will fail in November.
And since he’s bound to lose, why not let Obama take the White House this time so that the GOP can come roaring back in 2012?
After all, the country is a mess and Obama is a rookie, so he’s bound to fail, right? And in 2012 a Republican (Jeb?!) can come riding in on a white horse and easily beat the incumbent. Or something like that.
This is a defeatist strategy. If Republicans can’t beat Obama now, how on earth do they think it will be easier in 4 years? What arrogance to believe they can choose to lose now and beat him next time!
Perhaps they should ask some Democrats who shrugged off Reagan’s 1980 victory because they “knew” that Reagan would fail and a Democrat would retake the White House in 1984.
Strategic losing is still losing. Republicans need to suck it up, deal with McCain, and stop acting like losers.
Mar 2, 2008 - 7:55 am 11. George K:Vote for grandfather McCain then, Jason. He is your ‘hero’, a promotional ‘pilot’, illegal ‘immigration’ ‘Law’ champion, and more and more.
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:57 am 12. venividivici:America is just about finished with the ‘conservative movement’ headed as it is by people with absolutely no solutions to offer except opposition to ‘liberals’.
What the hell are you talking about? Conservatism, as a method of analyzing the world and our place in it, relies on observation of nature and history, not on “opposition to liberalism”. Conservative solutions to problems have the added advantage of making all costs and benefits of solving said problems transparent, unlike liberalism, which shrouds its solutions in pleasing rhetoric like “tax the rich” without noting the side effects of said policies. Conservative, classical liberal policies are the only things that have ever worked in history, whereas liberal, statist solutions end up in nightmares wherever they are tried, in the worst case, or create unintended negatives that basically balance out whatever good they create, leaving the situation as a basic wash, in the best case.
There’s a basic reason why people become more conservative as they get older and it isn’t because they get stupider and/or less experienced in the actual ways of the world.
Oh, and if McCain wants to be president, he should just friggin’ suck it up and go along with what the majority of people who are would-be supporters want. That, combined with the obvious lines of attack on Obama (his policies are too expensive and based on unfounded assumptions, his willingness to dialogue with people committed to our destruction is dangerous, etc.) should be enough to put McCain in office.
Mar 2, 2008 - 9:47 am 13. David Thomson:The odds are that John McCain will win by a landslide. Barack “Barry” Obama is too weird to become president of the United States. He will ultimately turn off the middle-of-the-road voters. The irony is that the hard core conservatives who are blasting McCain—are inadvertently helping him. They are moderating his image.
Mar 2, 2008 - 11:23 am 14. Mike Manges:I suggest anyone thinking of sitting out the election read this article
Asia Times Online
Mar 2, 2008 - 11:28 am 15. cfbleachers:Obama’s women reveal his secret
Well, the paradigm is shifting, I’ll give you that. Typically, the Republican runs from the right in the primary, to the center in the general.
The Democrat runs from the left in the primary toward the center in the general.
McCain, according to this article MUST run from the center…to the right. HORRIBLE move.
This election will swing on taking the cape and mask off of Sen. Obama’s hard left underpinnings. That will win the day, because the center is where Obama needs to make and keep inroads.
McCain must contrast himself against the REAL Obama, and that should be enough for any thinking voter to understand what the choice becomes when you boil the peanuts down past the shell.
We can move to Euro-Socialism, with an antipathy toward Israel, a weakened national defense, and a tax structure mirroring Denmark…OR…we can enhance our economy through sensible trade programs, a tax base that encourages expansion and an integrity toward our allies that can be counted upon.
It’s time for conservatives to play ball with the center, instead of always insisting on the other way around.
Mar 2, 2008 - 1:00 pm 16. Larry J:If McCain wins and you have not supported him — you lose.
If McCain loses and you have not supported him — you lose.
What dougf fails to mention is the 3rd possibility:
If McCain wins and we supported him but when (not if) he turns around and stabs us in the back again — we lose.
Given that, it seems that McCain is a lose-lose-lose proposition for conservatives.
McCain has proven to conservatives that he can’t be trusted. So, why should we trust him? Should we vote for him because the other side will suck even more? Sorry, but unless McCain can give me reasons to vote forfor</b< him instead of just against the other side, he isn’t likely to get my vote.
Republicans like McCain, Snow, and the others may be the new face of the Republican Party. If so, that makes conservates the “New RINOs”. For that reason, I’m seriously considering changing my voter registration to independent.
Mar 2, 2008 - 2:04 pm 17. Fat Jolly Penguin:Lazki said: “Given that there is a war on, these “conservatives” sound unbelievably selfish. They are also remarkably boring and rigid.
Boring and rigid? Aren’t those the very same adjectives used by liberals to describe us — uncreative and stuck in the past? That aside, how is it bad to at least try to stay true to your principles? McCain may be good on the war, but he worries me a great deal with his domestic policies. He thinks humans are responsible for global warming and helped sponsor a proposal for one of the original “cap and trade” systems. His noted weakness on border security is well known (did you know he was a co-sponsor with Ted Kennedy of that amnesty bill last year?), as is his apparent disregard for the First Amendment as it pertains to political campaigns. I may yet vote for him in November, if only to keep the Messiah out of the Oval Office; that doesn’t mean I agree with him or I like what he’s going to do.
Mar 2, 2008 - 2:21 pm 18. progressoverpeace:Excellent analysis, John.
The fact is that everyone knew that we would be in this situation if McCain got the nomination. It was McCain’s boundless selfishness that kept him from leaving the race, after the shamnesty debacle, to save the GOP from coming to this point of great crisis.
But McCain cares about nothing but himself and he is perfectly willing to destroy the GOP in his quest for personal power. What a guy!
Mar 2, 2008 - 3:25 pm 19. W. Keller:I am always fascinated by those spouting the joys of socialism. Tell me, name one socialist country that is successful when compared to the US? Name one with our level of unemployment, our 54 month record of economic growth, our military successes or our global generosity. No western socialist county, no a single one, can approach our successes. That will change with the next election, of course. They will get what they want – it won’t make them happy.
Mar 2, 2008 - 4:49 pm 20. endo:The conservative movement is flagging because the Republicans have been anything but. Farm bills stuffed with pork, expansion of the federal government in education and socialized medicine, preposterous ethanol subsidies, and a ruinous deficit are not conservative at all. They are Republican (with a capital R), though. Add to that scandal, perceived pandering to big business, inflation, and expensive, open-ended military adventures overseas–conservativism don’t look so great. The Republicans must be punished.
Mar 2, 2008 - 5:58 pm 21. timmah:I’m not rigid and boring: I’m a maverick! I’m independent!
Timmah
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:07 pm 22. william:Obama will generate enthusiasm and money. McCain will generate votes. The hard right’s criticism of McCain is as spiteful as the hard left’s criticism of Lieberman and just as ineffectual.
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:33 pm 23. Jeff:Conservatives whining about holding back their vote from McCain for not being conservative enough always make me laugh. Democrats would love to see the McCain vote shrink — it makes beating him even easier. Self-righteous losers are still losers.
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:43 pm 24. Assistant Village Idiot:Most of my votes have been negative in my lifetime – president, congress, local – I am voting against the person I absolutely do not want to see get the job, seldom for a person who I think will be great.
I prefer it that way. It is not merely a necessary evil of democracy, it is very efficient democracy. Stop looking for rescuers. Just keep the crazy bastards out.
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:44 pm 25. cacimbo:Have all these McCain haters truly never had to compromise on a candidate before.
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:44 pm 26. JeanE:If Obama gets elected and passes national health care & paid tution. Everyone can forget the republican on the white horse. Once provided these benefits will be impossible to take away & taxes will reflect that!
“In order to patch things up with conservatives, McCain will need to cater to us by making meaningful gestures that show his heart is in the right place and by shifting his positions a bit on key issues, in order to placate our very valid concerns about him.”
Why should McCain cater to the conservatives who have been villifying him for as long as I can remember? Do you really expect me to believe that those who have railed against him for years will suddenly come around if he whispers sweet nothings to them? You have outlined why he is clearly a better choice than Obama. Conservatives who recognize this will vote for him, but those who hate him will stay home no matter what he does.
The best thing for McCain to do is to keep being McCain- a man who knows his mind and is willing to work on behalf of the things he believes in, even if that offends somebody.
Mar 2, 2008 - 9:45 pm 27. progressoverpeace:LOL. How naive are you? We’ve all compromised on all of our votes, save maybe one two special ones. But you don’t seem to understand that there are degrees and limits to compromise. That’s why you think the way you do.
No one is scared of minor alterations such as these. More taxes will not kill the Republic. However, amnesty to illegals will. Amnesty to illegals, which will more likely be passed under a McCain Presidency than an Obama or Clinton one. I won’t bother going into the reasons this is true, since your ridiculous comment on compromise shows that you wouldn’t understand.
Mar 2, 2008 - 9:45 pm 28. BMoon:The conservative firebrands attacking McCain and those threatening to sit out the election simply do not have a clue. MCain, with all his warts, his a gift from heaven. No one in the Republican Party can beat slick Barry (not because of his assets but because of the lunatic anger against Bush) except him, for no one else cold have pulled the Independents and moderate Dems so the the Reps can keep the Presidency as well as some sanity in the White House. How can they not see this?
Almost makes me ashamed to call myself a conservative after being one for over 30 years. Can we make up a new word to describe realistic conservatives?
Mar 2, 2008 - 9:50 pm 29. levotb:Not going to happen. McCain is finished before he’s begun. Unless something comes out that destroy’s Obama, that he’s bisexual and/or was seriously involved with the criminal Rezko, Obama will be President.
Hawkins writes, “Despite all of his flaws, conservatives should certainly hope so [that a liberal Republican, IE a Democrat in Repub clothing] can pull it off. Why? Why should conservatives want McCain to win? There are three words I can respond with:
“Amnesty” (and) “the House”. With a President McCain, the House (if under the GOP) would be more prone to give him his way, as they did for Bush. With Obama, it’s almost certain that the House will go back to the GOP/conservatives. Obama will never get amnesty past the GOP House.
Mar 2, 2008 - 10:59 pm 30. Hank:For those who want to sit out the election as a protest against McCain, I have an important reminder: There is a WAR on!
Are you willing to lose the war in order to show your displeasure at McCain? Are you? Beacause that is what will happen if you sit out the election and let Obama win. He has already stated that he will set a time table for leaving Iraq. What do you think he will do if things start to get really hot in Afghanistan? How do you think he will respond to complaints of Islamophobia surrounding domestic security measures?
This is no joke. We are at war. McCain knows we can and must win. So get out there and give the man your support. Not for his sake, for the sake of the country.
Mar 2, 2008 - 11:04 pm 31. Lee Moore:As a foreigner (British) I see an echo of the position in the UK, where the Conservative Party has replaced 3 right wing losers, hated by the media, especially by the BBC, with a more centrist figure (Cameron) who gets an easier ride from the media. Cameron is unpopular with the right, because he is too centrist. There is no chance whatever that the BBC et al will actually support him when it comes to a general election against Labour, but having helped him burnish his image as a centrist it will be harder for them to paint him as a right wing fanatic, or a racist during the campaign. In the UK, the right will hold their nose and vote for Cameron, because Labour has won the last three elections (and still has a very good chance of winning again.) Maybe US conservatives will be readier for someone like McCain in 2020 when you’ve lost three Presidential elections in a row, and have an 8-1 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
Mar 3, 2008 - 3:42 am 32. Eye doc:I don’t know John, I’ve heard these arguments before but I just don’t buy them. It’s not that your argument doesn’t make sense. It’s that conservatives won’t have a choice. They can vote for McCain, stay home, or vote for Obama. I don’t think conservatives are so self-destructive that they would choose either of the latter two options.
Mar 3, 2008 - 3:50 am 33. progressoverpeace:John McCain was a big supporter, strategically, of Israel’s unilateral pullout from Gaza. This was one of the most disastrous policies any Western nation has pursued in this larger war and anyone who thought the Gaza disengagement was a good idea is not the sort of person I want strategizing for us. McCain has embraced other disastrous policies with regard to our own defense, which I find to be evidence of his failings as lead war strategizer. I do not trust McCain to handle the larger war in the correct way, at all. That is one of the major reasons I woudn’t vote for him in the Republican primary.
If Obama is the Dim Candidate, then I might feel compelled to vote for McCain, but it will only be by inches. Both of them will spell disaster for our fight in the larger war, just in different ways.
I have ZERO confidence in any of the potential candidates as regards the larger war. ZERO. That’s how I see it.
Mar 3, 2008 - 4:37 am 34. TomJW:McCain got the nomination and we conservatives were ordered to ‘fall into line’. That didn’t happen – we took time to think about the situation. We voiced our concerns about McCain.
Then we were told to STFU and our intelligence was insulted in dozens of ways. Every McCain supporter seems to have McCain’s ’special’ touch on political persuasion – kick the conservative.
If there is a politically savy McCain supporter who tries to persuede me at this point – no insults, no lies about how the country falls without him, and most laughingly of all, does not expect me to believe McCain’s campaign promise, but relies on persuasion based on McCain’s record – I will listen. I’m mature enough to discuss the situation and not too rigid to be flexible.
Does anyone expect me to find a politically savy McCain supporter who can persuede me with facts?
Mar 3, 2008 - 5:05 am 35. M Vess:This is a defeatist strategy. If Republicans can’t beat Obama now, how on earth do they think it will be easier in 4 years?
If we couldn’t beat Jimmy Carter in 1976, what made us think we could beat him in 1980?
I guess that’s why he won re-election in 1980.
Oh, wait…
Mar 3, 2008 - 7:46 am 36. Pat:“Does anyone expect me to find a politically savy McCain supporter who can persuede me with facts?”
Here is a fact: If McCain is not the next President, then Obama will be. Which one do you think will be better for the country? Not for the Republican Party. Not for the conservative movement. For the United States of America.
You have a choice to make. Please choose the candidate who will be the best leader for the country during the next four years. That is what this election is about.
I am amazed and disgusted by those whose only concern at this point is “sending a message to the RNC” or “punishing McCain”. In other words, people who want to game the election in order to gain political advantage for their party or faction. Some of them have expressed a willingness to deliberately inflict bad leadership on the country for the next four years so that their party can seize power in 2012. If you feel that way, how are you any different from the Democrats who have spent the last seven years trying to sabotage the war effort in order to gain political advantage?
There is a word for deliberately inflicting harm on your country for personal or political gain, and that word is TREASON.
Now, understand me here. I am NOT saying that failing to vote for McCain is treason. What I am saying is that your vote should be motivated by a sincere concern for the welfare of the United States, because that is your duty as a citizen. And none of this “The country will be better off in the long run if my party is in power” crap; I mean the country’s welfare during the next four years, because that’s the period for which we are choosing the next leader. If your choice is motivated by a partisan lust for power at the expense of the nation, then yes, you are a traitor. Regardless of who you vote for or what party you support.
If you sincerely believe that Obama is the better choice for the country, then more power to you. I don’t happen to agree, but I respect your choice. On the other hand, if your vote is motivated by a desire to screw up the country over the next four years so your faction can gain power after that, then you deserve nothing but contempt and scorn.
Mar 3, 2008 - 8:04 am 37. Pat:And the country is still suffering the damage inflicted by Carter’s disastrously incompetent leadership. But your party won the next election, so it was all worth it, right?
Mar 3, 2008 - 8:07 am 38. TomJW:Pat
I know not to vote for Obama or Hillary. You’re argument failed because I said I did not want to hear how the country would fall without McCain.
Why do I want to vote for someone who is skilled in taking away my First Amendment rights and eliminating the sovereignty of my country with open borders. Does your vote for someone such as he not count as treason?
See, stupid remarks are easy. I’m still waiting for a politically savvy McCain supporter who can persuade me with facts.
Mar 3, 2008 - 9:48 am 39. Michael B. Babbitt:Republican Derangement Syndrome existed long before Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush seems to embody every cartoonish impression the Liberal Left has of any Republican: oafish, uneducated, greedy buffoon. McCain is now faced with going to bed with those he kicked before. What a betrayal this is for the liberal MSM.
Mar 3, 2008 - 10:56 am 40. Pat:“Why do I want to vote for someone who is skilled in taking away my First Amendment rights and eliminating the sovereignty of my country with open borders.”
You missed my point entirely, Tom. I’m not telling you who to vote for at all. All I am saying is this: when you choose who to vote for, do it for the right reason. And that reason is the welfare of the country during the next four years.
I understand that you don’t like McCain. I’m not a big fan of his either, but I believe that he’s better than Obama, and those are our only two choices at this point. I’d love to have some other candidates to choose from, but those are the ones we have.
If calling me stupid makes you feel better, go right ahead. I’m just trying to be realistic.
Mar 3, 2008 - 11:25 am 41. Larry J:Pat,
With respect, all you’re doing is providing reasons to vote against Obama, not good reasons to vote for McCain. All I keep hearing is effectively saying “vote for McCain because the other side is going to suck even worse.”
Admittedly, it’s McCain’s job to provide reasons to vote for him, not yours. However, to date he hasn’t provided any reasons why we should trust him. If I can’t trust him, why would I vote for him?
Ronald Reagan used to say that “I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me.”
I’m beginning to feel the same way about the Republican party. McCain is the latest reason but far from the only one.
Mar 3, 2008 - 12:22 pm 42. progressoverpeace:Don’t lecture me on what the appropriate time frame is for any analysis.
Worry about your own thinking. Seeing your “argument”, I certainly would. Your deep self-righteousness is, also, quite out of place.
Mar 3, 2008 - 12:24 pm 43. Herschel Smith:You’re right on every account, John. I don’t know how McCain will do it. He needs not only our votes and money, but our enthusiasm. He needs our voices in the workplace defending the principles of conservatism.
The problem is that we can defend principled conservatism, but that isn’t the same thing as defending McCain. On many instances, it is the opposite (McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman).
Then when he attempts to woo the conservatives, he screws up again. His stance on immigration is precisely the opposite of what the party faithfuls want. His most recent speeches spew the mantra of “securing the border FIRST.” First before what? We all know, because it is the same open borders policy he has pursued for his entire career. The party faithfuls want to secure the borders and imprison CEOs who hire illegals, McCain wants to secure the borders “FIRST” and then open the doors to continue the flood.
This changes nothing. It continues the policies of repairing Mexico’s crime and poverty problem on the backs of the American middle class taxpayer. McCain doesn’t care since he is an open-borders socialist.
So therein lies the problem. You have stated it well. He needs the very people he has enraged, and more than just for votes.
More than likely he won’t get them. No true conservative I know is going to vote for McCain, and we certainly aren’t going to defend his views in the marketplace of ideas.
My vote is precious to me. I am not for sale and not a political hack. I will not cast a vote for continuing to break the backs of the middle class with immigration. As for who will be President … well, the party should have thought about that before they cast their collective votes for McCain.
I see this preparing the way for four years from now. Will the GOP’s heart be softened to return to her roots, or will she die from trying to please everyone?
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:05 pm 44. Pat:“With respect, all you’re doing is providing reasons to vote against Obama, not good reasons to vote for McCain.”
Yep. That’s exactly right. Robert Heinlein said it best: “There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”
And if you believe that McCain is worse than Obama, you should vote against McCain. I say that in all seriousness.
“Ronald Reagan used to say that ‘I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me. I’m beginning to feel the same way about the Republican party.’”
Well, that’s why I’m urging people to forget about parties and just pick the best (or least bad) leader. But then, I’m an independent, so that’s how anyone would expect me to think.
“Don’t lecture me on what the appropriate time frame is for any analysis.”
My apologies if I came across as lecturing. And I’m certainly open to persuasion on the subject of time frame. It seems self-evident to me that when we’re asked to pick a leader for the next four years, it’s the country’s welfare during that time that we should be thinking about. But maybe I’m wrong about that — what would you say is the right time frame, and why?
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:08 pm 45. progressoverpeace:I can only tell you that the scope of my assessment stretches into the decades. I am concerned for the continuation of the Republic 30 or 50 years from now more than our state over the next 4 years. Marathoners don’t worry about who’s leading for the first 2 miles and anyone who would have that as their main concern would probably not do well in the race.
Now, if someone thinks that something over the next 4 years will bring irreparable damage to the US (beyond high taxes or other relatively inconsequential considerations, in terms of the existence of our nation, which don’t scare me in the least) then it is not that they think that the next 4 years are important, in and of themselves, but that some deadly action will be taken during that time that will cause our eventual demise.
While certain actions in the larger war might have such an effect, the chances are very slim, and no different than what they have been for the past 3 years, anyway. Bush has gotten us back into the pre-9/11 position of waiting to react to a hit, and we are stuck here unless someone has the guts to deal with the real world. For all his talk of “pre-emptive war”, Bush never did anything but react. Iraq, which had to be taken down, whether people remember how things were before or not, was a reaction to a long festering problem, not a pre-emptive war. In legalistic terms, even, Iraq had been in violation of every single agreement/cease fire they signed and had been at war with us continually since the pitiful “end” of the first Gulf War. Bush’s policies have drifted so far off in his second term that I would not vote for him if he were running this time. He is about to leave office with 2/3 of the Axis of Evil stronger and more dangerous than they were on 9/12 and he has managed to almost totally ostracize the country that has been our traditional ally in world wars (with much worse governments and actions than they have now). I mean Russia.
None of the current potential candidates, McCain certainly included, has shown any desire to treat the world as it is, all of them instead choosing to continue following the idiocy of the past few decades, including staying in the UN, accepting OPEC as a legitimate organization, giving more lip service to the Geneva Conventions (even though the very existence of our strategic nuclear arsenal PROVES that we really never took the Geneva Conventions seriously – because the conventions never bore any relation to the realities of war), refusing to act as ruthlessly as our enemies demand, treating other cultures as if they were Westerners, etc. etc. All of the potential candidates, with minor differences, offer us more of the same, waiting to be hit again, until we can finally do what should have been done a long time ago, and certainly after 9/11 – though I still don’t trust any of them to do it even then. The Geneva Conventions certainly precludes any real warring, as all the tactics of a real war are “illegal”. It is all a pthetic joke. Our only hope is that this hit takes place somewhere else and scares America enough to say “stop with the idiocy”, or that India and Pakistan go nuclear on each other and finally force us to get serious and defang the rogue states that have been destabilizing and threatening the civilized world for decades. But I see no real differences, otherwise.
So Obama would pull out of Iraq. So what? McCain would force Israel to capitulate to the Palestinians and we see the jihadist bases already establishing themselves in Gaza and Sinai (a new development that will ultimately destabilize Egypt, leading to … very, very bad stuff) as a result (to some extent) of our idiotic policies that I pointed out earlier, not to mention the jihadist government we forced to be allowed to arise there. And let us not forget something, Israel has a large nuke arsenal and if Israel feels its existence truly threatened (which it is currently on the edge of) then the ending disposition of that nuke arsenal is more important than anything about Iraq. Whether Israel ends up launching those nukes in a Mutually Assured Destruction protocol, or collapses quietly and the arabs come into possession of the arsenal – both are totally unacceptable options for us. Obama, Clinton (both), McCain, Bush, Rice, … are all in a mad race to make Israel as insecure as it can be, and that is a strategy that can be fatal to all, whether they like Israel or not. The same would be said about the India/Pakistan nuke situation, except that the same geography that kept that area safe for millenia renders it also safe for nuclear war to take place without too many effects spilling over into strategic regions and we haven’t bothered trying to force them to do anything. I’ve seen no analysis of this type from anyone in the running (though their words and actions seem to indicate that they have not even considered these issues) and I have very little faith in any of them with this larger war.
Obama might be beyond on the pale on the larger war. Beyond his desire to pull out of Iraq, he might be able to irreparably damage the US, but even that I find highly unlikely. I am generally distressed by the idea of any of these people becoming President, in terms of how they would handle this war. But, that is the situation we are stuck with.
That aside (as they would all be awful war leaders, in my mind) it brings me to the domestic issues. Our country will be destroyed, by my estimation, with any amnesty. The US will not continue to exist if we flood the population with anti-Americans (those who carried signs that said, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us” are exactly the sort of people I am talking about). In this case, amnesty is more likely to be passed under McCain, and I feel that our existence as a country is more threatened by him. Obama and Clinton both want to pass amnesty more than McCain, but they would be less likely to do so – for various reasons.
I’d go further into this, along with the many other considerations in this election (global warming idiocy, first amendment rights, …), but I think you get the general gist of my thinking.
I don’t like having to listen to McCain supporters, most of whom have not considered any of these issues, telling me what it is important to consider in my voting and acting as if they see something that I don’t. If they did, they would be able to say it, and I would be happy to engage that debate. But we never get such debate from the McCain supporters – the same way no one ever offered a reasonable defense of their amnesty proposals.
Because of all this, I generally find McCain to be at least as great a threat to the US as anyone else currently running. McCain would be marginally better in the larger war, but not by much and perhaps not to our ultimate advantage, either. And if he delivers the deathblow of amnesty to the US in the meantime, which he is intent on doing, it won’t matter anyway.
These are some of my reasons. Other people against McCain have their reasons – I have heard myriad different ones, though most understand the mortal danger of amnesty to the US. This idea that people won’t vote for McCain because they just don’t like him is well off-base.
Mar 3, 2008 - 5:05 pm 46. TomJW:Pat
I am not a Republican. If you called me a Democrat I will take the insult very personally. I am not looking for my ‘party is in power’ crap, I do not have’partisan lust for power at the expense of the nation’. You insinuated I was treasonous. I called a remark like that stupid, not you.
You have failed at persuasion. Address me on McCain’s politics or not at all. progressoverpeace also has legimate reasons to not vote for McCain that I could not articulate. Address these issues intelligently, without name calling or scare mongering.
If you can’t, just let us know. We don’t all have the answers when we want them. But if you know you can never change our minds about McCain based on his record, admit that too.
Mar 4, 2008 - 6:08 am 47. JeanE:TomJW
You asked for a discussion of McCain’s politics, and I think amnesty is the most important issue for many opposed to McCain, so I’ll start with that.
McCain has been advocating immigration reform for years. As a senator from Arizona he is well aquainted with the problems of unchecked immigration, and also with the connection of immigrant workers and the economy.
The disparity between the US economy and the Mexican economy draws workers over the border in droves. It is often better to channel powerful forces than to try to shut them down, and there are already millions of workers who are in the country illegally, but are working and could be productive, tax paying members of the community if they could obtain legal status. McCain’s proposal would provide tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers and provide a way for immigrant workers to enter the US legally. Reducing the economic incentive to cross the border illegally should significantly reduce illegal immigration, and providing a way for workers to enter legally would channel the economic forces that drive immigration. There remains the problem of what to do with people who are already here illegally. They have broken the law, and that should not be dismissed, but most of the illegal aliens are not involved in any OTHER criminal activity, it seems reasonable to require a fine for violating the current immigration laws, then allow them to pursue legal status.
The proposal is not perfect, but is a reasonable approach to deal with a real problem. It is a far sight better than ignoring the issue, and I believe it is better than proposals that ignore the driving force of immigration or call for deporting all illegal aliens. These proposals ignore the reality on the ground and are thus little better than ignoring the problem.
McCain has acknowledged that the federal government does not have credibilty on immigration, so it is necessary to implement programs to halt continuing immigration before dealing with illegal immigrants who are already here. I think he is right, but unfortunately I think this will create divisions in our communities. Again, we must accept the reality on the ground, even if I don’t like it.
I believe that the next administration will provide some sort of immigration reform. Obama or Clinton will basically grant unconditional amnesty and do little to stop further immigration. McCain’s proposal does a much better job of addressing conservative concerns about unchecked immigration, even if it is not all that they might wish for.
Got to go now.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:11 am 48. progressoverpeace:JeanE,
It’s hard to know what you’re talking about, since you seem to mix “immigrants” with “illegal aliens” and I can’t see where you split the two disjoint sets.
What you have described, legalizing the illegals here, will destroy the United States. Destroy it, literally.
McCain refuses to back down from this, even today, and makes some silly claims that somehow the flow of iilegals could be stopped by having a border fence. That is just untrue, as we give tens of millions of tourist visas every year, and any number of those “tourists” could stay on their trip and become the next illegals. This would bring us back to the situation we are in, in no time, and the solution would be … legalize them?
I have not seen such a total disrespect for the sovereignty of the US and the rights of American citizens as you people seem to feel is “reasonable”. Psst: We don’t need illegal labor, and once we legalize them, they cost the same as Americans – thus drawing more illegals to fill the vacuum.
McCain refuses to support interior enforcement (which would be his job as President, not getting legislation passed that would legalize the illegals) and without interior enforcement of OUR laws, we will not have a US to talk about before long. Make no mistake, this is not hyperbole on my part, but a very serious issue that you and the rest of the McCain supporters like to shrug off without a thought.
This is exactly why I find McCain to be a danger to the very existence of our republic, and your explanation (along with the explanation I always hear out of McCain and his supporters) proves that nothing will change any of you. This is why, in addition to other issues, I have such huge problems with McCain in the Presidency. It is a suicide pact to elect him, plain and simple.
But, since you are defending McCain’s desire to open the US to the entire world, tell me, after you get your amnesty, and the fence is built, and then we find huge flows of illegals through visa overstays and temporary worker overstays and whatever other means they find to get here, what will be done about the next 20 million illegals that decide they have the right to live here? What are you going to do about them? Obviously, it can’t be what you just described as the solution for the 20 million we have now (plus the tens of millions of “family” that will have come along to keep them company), since that would just be an admission of the total capitulation of US sovereignty, but I’d like to know what you really think would be done. Seriously.
And, by the way, McCain is much more adamant about legalizing illegals than any of the other candidates. His campaign spokespeople are talking about legalizing the illegals today, on TV. I know that all of the potential candidates want to do the same, but McCain’s the only one stupid enough to keep saying it, and I consider it a mortal threat to our country. I don’t think you people realize how truly serious a situation this is because you talk about it as if it will be done and forgotten. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Frankly, the only hope for the US, at this point, is a deep recession that will drive the illegals out of the country (as the illegals are extremely mobile when they see a few bucks somewhere else), since we cannot count on the government to actually do its primary job and we cannot count on the GOP to defend the notion of US sovereignty.
This is all very sad.
Mar 4, 2008 - 10:53 am 49. JeanE:progressoverpeace,
Sorry if I was confusing. Immigrants would be individuals who have come into the country to find work and become part of the community. We want them to go through legal channels, but neglect of the border for most of my lifetime has resulted in a large subset of the immigrant population who have entered the country illegally- illegal aliens. I’m trying to recognize the difference between those who are in the country legally vs. illegally, and distinguish both groups from those who enter the country specifically for the purpose of carrying out criminal or terrorist activity.
I don’t especially like the fact that we have had virtually open borders for at least a couple of decades, but I can’t change the past. From my reading (Heritage Foundation), immigration reform really is a package deal- improve border control, reduce incentives for illegal immigration, create system to manage legal immigration and guest worker programs, and deal with the people who are already here.
McCain’s proposal is too fuzzy on details of border control and how to manage the number of guest worker applications, but it also has good points, such as a tamper proof ID for guest workers/ immigrants and getting the Mexican government to take a more active role in restricting illegal immigration.
The problem is always what to do with those who are already here. I don’t expect the problem to simply go away- it hasn’t before, and that’s why we have to deal with it now. Tamper proof ID and tougher enforcement on employers will encourage some illegal aliens to leave on there own. Those who have been here for 20 years are unlikely to pick up and go. Would we rather maintain a large number of people living the shadow of the law, or find a way that enables them to gain legal status? There are reasonable ways to limit this- proof of employment for X years beginning prior to a given date is a common proposal. Of course it is possible that the government will ignore the laws that we pass today, leading to a greater problem in the future. That hardly seems like a good reason to avoid passing laws to deal with the problem now.
Other than plunging the nation into recession, which I concede would reduce economic incentives to stay in the US, how do you suggest dealing with the 12-20 million people who are already in the country illegally?
Mar 4, 2008 - 10:54 pm 50. progressoverpeace:JeanE,
The illegals would more aptly be called “migrants” – as they used to be called before it became politically incorrect – or more aptly, “invaders”. I don’t fault you on the terminology, but those running the open-border side of the debate who have gone out of their way to confuse the issue with their intentional abuse of the terminology.
As to any chance of us counting on the Mexican government helping us on this, that idea has to be totally discounted, as the Mexican government has worked AGAINST us on this, trying to push as many people through the border as possible. Anything that depends on cooperation with Mexico is doomed to utter failure – just look at the country of Mexico, itself.
As to tamper-proof ID’s and other laws to be enforced in the future, I don’t see why our current laws cannot be enforced but new laws will be. I just don’t believe it. Not in any way whatsoever.
As to illegals who have been here 20 years (they are not the bulk of the problem, as the border was swung wide open by Bush, mostly, and a huge number of illegals were allowed to come rushing in here AFTER 9/11!!!!!) .. but, those same illegals who have been here for 20 years had no problem uprooting themselves from places they lived for far longer than that – to break into our country.
You have to understand why our southern border was open, to begin with. It was as a favor to Mexico, to allow migrant farmers to travel here with the seasons, make money, and return. But they became greedy when they realized that we let them operate on the honor system and started abusing our generosity. No good deed goes unpunished. This is like someone who takes all the change in the bowl by the cashier. It’s there for everyone and if people can’t be trusted to be decent, then it will be there for no one.
You have to keep in mind one very important fact, most of your side of the argument rests on the idea that we cannot enforce our own law, because we’re “too nice” to do anything like that, but then no new law can be passed with anyone taking it seriously. Do you see my point? All of your ID cards and requirements and such will mean nothing, and the flow of illegals will not stop, even with a border fence.
Americans have to decide if we want a sovereign nation. It’s just that simple. Bush, McCain, most of the Dims, and others have chosen “No”. This is understandable for Bush, his family has had a bug up their butt about globalism for a long time. They don’t seem to like the notion of sovereign nations. McCain seems to be just too dumb to understand the situation.
What we will get, though, by legalizing the illegals, and having them bring their families in to keep them happy, will be secession votes, eventually, in the states of the southwest where these nice illegals already think it should be Mexican property. We don’t have the guts to throw a few million illegals out, do you think the US would survive secession votes by those states (which would infect others, too)? This would spell the absolute end of the United States as an entity, and the entire world would lose the greatest nation that has ever existed – all for the sake of a few million third worlders who have no business here, to begin with.
As to how I would deal with the illegals here, I would cut off all services to any of them and throw them out as they come into contact with any offical points of contact. By attrition, they would mostly leave. And for those who didn’t, I would make their lives totally unbearable.
Look, the US is in the great position of having everyone in the world wanting to come here. We can choose the best of the world, and should. To have millions of aliens imposing their will on us, and take up spaces that I would rather have filled by quality individuals, thus restricting our choice as to who we want here, is a cost so great that it would make your head spin if it was properly accounted.
But the question of whether a sovereign nation should enforce its own laws, even if it makes some people unhappy, is not one that really needs any defense.
We will always have illegals here, and it’s better to solve this potentially fatal problem now, rather than trying to push it off and pretend that it won’t come back (as McCain does). It will come back, even moreso, because the prize of legal US residency is just worth too much to have its gifting, to those who should never get it, do anything but encourage more to come.
But, when people want to be loved by everyone (even those who hate us and love stealing from us) these are the sort of dilemmas we get ourselves into.
Personally, I think that Bush should have been impeached (and worse) for his refusal to defend American borders, especially after 9/11, and I will hope and work for impeachments and treason charges for all the people who try to give this country away in lieu of acting like adults and enforcing our laws.
Do I want illegals living in the shadows? Yes. Absolutely. They have no right to live in the sunshine of a country that didn’t invite them and doesn’t want them. It’s interesting how they all know how many problems they are causing us, and how Americans are incensed at their presence, but they still refuse to leave. Still! Yeah … that’s a great bunch of potential Americans, there.
I shed no tears for the illegals, except in seeing how they are destroying my country and how many of my fellow citizens seem oblivious to the danger … and worse.
Mar 5, 2008 - 12:06 am 51. JeanE:progressoverpeace,
I agree with many of your positions, but I don’t think your approach to dealing with the existing problem is GOOD FOR THE US OR FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. I am not worried about upsetting illegal aliens or multiculturalists, or the President of Mexico. I am concerned about dealing with a real problem in an effective manner.
Should the US maintain her sovereignty? Yes. Should we choose who gains the privilege of citizenship? Yes. If we install the world’s greatest border fence, refuse all government services to illegal aliens and deport everyone we can catch, will we still have people entering the country illegally? Yes.
Why would people come here illegally in the face of all those obstacles? Because the quality of life and economic opportunity is still better on this side of the border. It like asking why rocks roll downhill- it’s because of the forces acting on them. I don’t oppose “enforcing our laws”, I just don’t think that enforcing our existing laws will satisfactorily solve the problem.
American citizens who employ workers can and should be penalized for hiring illegal aliens, but we have to make sure that the employers can figure out who is and isn’t here legally. Are you going to support bringing the hammer down on a business owner who gets snookered by a fake ID, with the result that he goes out of business and 50 citizens lose their jobs? You might, but lots of others won’t- like the 50 people who lose their jobs. That’s why tamper-proof ID and social security verification is important- employers won’t support tough programs unless they have reasonable protection from fraudulent ID’s.
Why will Mexico help limit illegal immigration? Follow the dollars. Remittances to Mexico are a significant portion of their economy. If the availability of those remittances is tied to legal status, they will be anxious and eager to make sure that every guest worker obtain legal status before entering the US. (the Heritage Foundation folks understand how to do this- I admit I do not know enough about the law to fully grasp this.)
What do you propose doing about the illegal alien Maria who marries a US citizen Joe? Deport her? Deport him? Deny her admission to the hospital when she is having their first baby? These are real questions here in Texas, and I promise you that you won’t get a lot of support from Joe and his family if you try to force Maria into the shadows. More importantly, police know that communities that live in the shadows are much more likely to shelter criminals- the residents are afraid to call the police even when they witness crime, and when everything is a blackmarket deal, it fosters contempt for the law and separation from the larger community. In other words, it creates the kind of separatism that might lead to secession. I think your approach would exacerbate the very problems you fear. Right now the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, want to integrate into American society- they want to get a job, find a home and raise a family, and they want their kids to have better opportunities than they have had, I think your approach would Balkanize communities that have successfully integrated immigrants for decades.
I expect we will continue to disagree on the best approach to the problems of illegal immigration, but I hope I have demonstrated that McCain supporters are not simply “shrugging it off without a thought”. We have just come to different conclusions about how best to address the issue and preserve America’s security, prosperity and domestic tranquility.
Mar 5, 2008 - 7:59 am 52. progressoverpeace:Who would then be thrown out as soon as they were discovered. That is the process that must be put into place. Nothing less will do.
They come because they know that they can stay and do as they wish and we will do nothing to them, except extend citizenship to them after x number of years.
Read that sentence again. You don’t know what enforcing our existing laws will do, because we we don’t enforce anything – except making sure to railroad border guards into prison, tacking on idiotic “gun” penalties to minor crimes (if that) to show what enforcement of law can look like when someone really wants to do it. What we can do, if the President chooses to enforce our law, would be quite enough. And if it isn’t, then those parts of the law need to be strengthened, not weakened.
And that legislation should have passed on its own years ago. It has nothing to do with enforcing the law on illegals. That section pertains to enforcement on US citizens – a different class.
It’s not up to employers.
That’s just preposterous. Sorry, but all of known history says something quite different. I’m all for cutting off their ability to send money. That’s fine with me, but it won’t move Mexico to be more above board. Mexico will only change they realize that we are taking this situation seriously – and amnesty says quite the opposite. Now, if we start charging Mexico for the cost of handling their illegals and the illegal traffic they support …
She’s illegal. Deport her. Period. If he wants to follow her, then fine. Nothing else to say about that.
As an illegal, she has no right to hospital services. But if you’re sying to let her in the hospital, then she has to be shipped out the day she’s released.
He’s married to an illegal. Obviously, I’m not going to get any support from him for the rule of law.
The faster we get them out the better. The shadows argument doesn’t work. You can use it with every criminal group to argue for amnesty.
It is not their right. Period. I don’t care how much they want to be Americans, it is OUR choice to invite them, not their choice to force themselves on us.
Mar 5, 2008 - 9:01 amI expect we will continue to disagree on the best approach to the problems of illegal immigration, but I hope I have demonstrated that McCain supporters are not simply “shrugging it off without a thought”. We have just come to different conclusions about how best to address the issue and preserve America’s security, prosperity and domestic tranquility.
I do appreciate your effort, but I just can’t accept any of your arguments. It is a nice change to hear your side’s reasoning. Thank you.