And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.
You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.
Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.
There is weeping in National Reviewdom today.
Ramesh Ponnuru says it's 1996 all over again:
McCain is Dole: the old war hero who has run before, who does not enthuse either economic or social conservatives but has a pretty conservative record. Giuliani is Forbes: the socially liberal, economically conservative New York candidate. Huckabee is Buchanan: the social conservative with rhetoric that scares economic conservatives. Romney is Gramm, the movement-oriented candidate with boatloads of money but difficulty connecting with grassroots conservative voters.... The social-Right candidate takes out the movement candidate, the economic conservative ends up not playing a huge role, and the nomination goes to the old guy whom much of the Right distrusts.ADDED: I should note that Ponnuru is happy with the development. He endorsed McCain a year ago. I assumed otherwise because: 1. The editors of National Review have endorsed Romney, and 2. Dole lost!
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
McCain is the guy they should have nominated in 2000. Sorry they made the wrong choice then.
Much of the vote for McCain, I think, is tribute to his personal story, rather than his politics, which tend toward gadflying. He'll be difficult to get elected because of this and also because of his age; he can't assume that he'll serve two full terms at his age, so the choice of a younger, well-qualified running mate will get much scrutiny and may cause Republicans to sit out the election and risk the possibility of an Obama or Clinton presidency, with the view of running a better candidate in 2012 against what they will hope to be a president weakened by scandals (Clinton) or simple incompetence (Obama).
Sounds like they're making it through the denial stage and moving right into anger. After bargaining there will predictably come depression - the point at which most ideologues are wise to seek professional counseling.
I don't think the Dole template is quite so predictable if Hillary is the nominee. There's something "special" about her that rouses the slumbering or resentful conservative of any stripe... Bill slipped past them in 1996 but Hillary is like the red flag to a bull.
Babies.
Every "major" complaint about John McCain can be countered with a similar complaint about Mitt Romney.
Note to Rush, et al: Get over it. Not one of the national candidates is, or ever was, in the Reagan mold. Whine all you want, but the only question that really matters is:
Do you really want the Supreme Court determined for the next 30 years by a Democrat? Just to spite john McCain? For what value? Deciding that it would be "good" to let the Republican nominee lose because it would show the American people the value of "true conservatism" is the deed of a selfish, thoughtless bastard.
The trouble over at National Review Online is a humorless editor.
Democracy is predicated upon an educated, informed electorate. Or so the theory goes, anyway.
As neither party (nor our political history with unsustainable middle-class entitlements) evinces that, the results should not be surprising.
Rush will support McCain if he's the candidate, via take-downs of his opponent.
He definitely prefers somebody else however, when it's still an option.
The Captain Queeg parodies will come out again when McCain reproposes one of his inexplicable fetish programs as President.
But then Bush had amnesty and Herriet Meirs and Rush slammed him on each ; yet he admires Bush.
The guy sticks to his guns ; a mutual admiration society of Bush, Rush and McCain, in a way.
I am a little tired of the inside-politics people speaking for all conservatives. On the war against Islamo-terrorists, McCain is good [prescient and convincing and risked his whole career on the surge issue]. On cutting spending, McCain is excellent [25 years in DC and ZERO ear-marks...Hillary has over 200 in six-plus years], McCain is pro-life.
On the down-sides: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, ask yourselves: what is the net effect of McCain-Feingold? Do we have less political speech or more? How about McCain-Kennedy? We have illegal immigrants and it is a problem and there was a chance for something meaningful to be done, but it was botched by an inability to realize that you don't evict 5% of our working people and not collapse our economy. You think he survived 5 years in the Hanoi prison without being able to take some withering criticism. Hardly.
Geez, Republican insiders. Get over yourselves.
Geez, Republican insiders. Get over yourselves.
Yes. It's pretty hard to pity pundits when the policies and people they push go off the rails.
I am a conserative. I supported McCain in 2000 and again now and frankly do not understand a lot of the anger toward him?
McCain Feingold? I think now it was a bad idea but despite all of the screw up, the GOP still managed to hold onto Congress for 12 years.
McCain Kennedy? A compromise that was supported by the president and which will be replaced by something far worse if the Democrats win this year. And in any event, the anger far predated the immigration bill.
His statements about Falwell and Robertson? Considering that the National Review crowd tends to be Catholic I do not think that is the reason.
McCain is 71 and has stated repeatedly that he would not commit to running for a second term if elected to a first.
First, I don't agree that it is a lock for Hillary although on her best day she looks every bit as old as McCain looks young but next to Obama, McCain looks absolutely lathargic - and liberal or not, least trustworthy or not, the vitality of "change" will trump ideology and positions.
I'm continually bewildered that in a country of 300 million we are reduced to an carmudgeon, a somewhat shrill politico, a dandy, and a kid.
I'm continually bewildered that in a country of 300 million we are reduced to an carmudgeon, a somewhat shrill politico, a dandy, and a kid.
Everything is governed by the news media's target audience; that's why.
If there were in fact an audience for serious news that would tune in every day, day in and day out, news or no news, then the media would play to them.
But there isn't, so it won't. It plays to soap opera women, and they're all that will ever matter.
con't
Review that Katie Couric off-camera video. She's a different person off camera, completely sane, entirely listenable to.
She's not in her bringing-women-the-news mode.
Always have to do a reality check when I agree with HD, but he sure nailed the quality of the candidates. Well said, HD.
"I am a conserative. I supported McCain in 2000 and again now and frankly do not understand a lot of the anger toward him?"
You can't possibly be a conservative if you support John McCain. He is basically a Democrat in Republiban disguise.
McCain Feingold, the worst assault on free speech in the history of our country.
He supports amnesty for illegal aliens and then insults the people who support upholding the laws we have now instead of a gigantic give away. He calls anyone who disagrees with him racists and bigots.
The Supreme Court Justices that he would appoint would be a disaster for Federalism and the death knell of our Constitution.
I don't trust him any further than I could throw him to not change his tune once again if he is elected president.
Frankly I think he is becoming senile and has little control over his emotions.
This is going to be the first time in 40 years that I will not be voting for anyone for President. Ptooey on McCain. I hope he has a good VP that can take over when he tips over half way through his term. Please GOD NOT HUCKABEE.
As far as I'm concerned let Hillary or Obama have at it. THEY can run our country into the ground and turn us into a socialist state. The slavering media can't wait.
We are doomed.
Oh, they'll get over it. They hate Hillary Clinton much more than John McCain and most of them know there is no way they can get control of Congress this year. Thus, expect a miraculous collective epiphany some time during the summer.
DBQ: Conservative used to mean strong on defense, fiscally controlled, pro-life and pro free enterprise. How is McCain not that?
McCain-Feingold: I agree it's bad law. Cripes! W signed that bad piece of legislation! And what's the net effect of it? Money in 527s that's at least traceable to George Soros. Really. Small potatoes.
So if you in your miffedness yank away my self-described conservative title, fine. I'll just be a pragmatist and choose the better of the two who are their parties' nominees. McCain v. Hillary? McCain in a heartbeat.
"Oh, they'll get over it. They hate Hillary Clinton much more than John McCain"
Wanna bet? I'd rather see our country destroyed under a Democrat administration than 'aid and abet' a RINO administration to do the same.
A senile McCain may have the Toom Tabard effect going for him.
(read the paragraph spanning p.177-178, from Carlyle's Sartor Resartus)
dbq: I agree with you! You can't possibly be a conservative if you support John McCain. He is basically a Democrat in Republican disguise.
McCain is slightly to the left of Sen. Feinstein, though the RINO-est candidate was Giuliani.
>McCain is 71
HD -- when I turned 40 a few months ago, everyone consoled we with the comment that "40 is the new 30". So 70 is the new 60.
In any event, McCain is like Yoda. Old, seemingly frail, but when necessary, can kick ass!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IRd9PGmAQUE&feature=related
Get a grip, conservatives (full disclosure - I'm not one, except to my many friends who are moonbat Dems). The US is more conservative than it was pre-Reagan, but that is not the same as saying that a majority of the electorate shares your point-by-point litmus tests. The notion that either McCain or Giuliani are anywhere close to being left of Diane Feinstein is either stupid or relies on some convoluted nonobvious argument that I'm not seeing. I suspect that others aren't seeing it either.
I agree that McCain-Feingold is an abomination. I don't recall either Barack or Hillary being for repealing it.
Never say never, DBQ. Come November, we'll see you around these parts and we'll see what you say then. Then again, you just could be one of those people stupid enough to cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Ruth Anne, keep asking that question. But don't expect much in response.
Basically-
The Republican candidate with the least National Review advisors wins!
Talk about a bunch of insular, belt way, country club wanna bes....
Could they be more out of touch?
The Dole comparison is particularly inept.
McCain is not running against an INCUMBENT{ go look that up Ramesh} and Hillary ain't no Bill.
Incumbency is a HUGE factor and that's something these threaten to sit at home and not vote factions never seem to realize.
It takes yeeeeaaaarrrsss to recover from that.
You know a little known secret they never really vote in generals anyways.
They always find a reason not to.
It's nothing new.
They consider themsleves the "purity" gatekeepers in the primaries and they more often than not sit out the general because there is always some last minute reason why the guy or gal ain't pure enough.
The Republican party needs Rational Republicans to start voting in the primaries and instead these faction nitwits are turning them off.
They "own" the primaries and for the first time a guy -McCain might have figured out a way around them.
Heh-and it was probably their calling his plan Amnesty that did the best advertising for him.
You know the border nuts sold that as less than his plan actually is-and really if he has any political acumen he should make his plan in reality the myth they spin it to be.
Because if they were fair his plan was actually quite tough but they've sold the American public that it is less than it is-and now McCain should actually change it to that expectation.
Ironic.
Movement-types are entering the put a cork in it stage on February 5th. If McCain gets significant numbers of closed-primary wins, then you know what that means? Exactly--he's what Republican registered voters want. The election is not about Rush. The election is not about NRO. The election is not about Mark Levin. It is about the rank and file voter, and what message do they want to present via choice of candidate. If you do not like the choice that the GOP voters come up with, that's your problem. If you dislike it, then you can stay home Election Day. You can leave the party. You can get out of politics all together for a while. If you do not like McCain, then no one says you have to vote for him. Indulging in useless name-calling towards him is childish. Some of you (but not all) need to just grow up.
McCain has had many prevarications. Wait until the media starts playing with the term "Keating 5". His buddy, Warren Rudman convinced Bush 41 to appoint David Souter to the supreme court. What if he convinces McCain to appoint more like-minded justices? If he can't be trusted this way, there is no real difference between him and the dem candidate, except Iraq. By the time of the election our success or failure there will most likely be already determined. Hillary is clearly the most despicable human in the race, but McCain is not a pillar of virtue.
I think some people have gotten the impression from this post--or maybe from my own post--that I'm angry that McCain is the likely nominee. I'm not. I endorsed McCain a year ago.
Let's all remember a couple things from the Gipper:
The 11th Commandment [something about not speaking ill of a fellow Republican]
Someone who agrees with me 70% of the time is not my enemy.
You can't win by losing.
Holy crap! Was that the Ramesh? Ramesh Ponuru?? Wow, Althouse! You bring in the big guns.
"Oh, they'll get over it. They hate Hillary Clinton much more than John McCain"
Wanna bet? I'd rather see our country destroyed under a Democrat administration than 'aid and abet' a RINO administration to do the same.
That's pretty much my attitude as well. I hate Hillary, but I'll vote for her over McCain.
I don't care if he counts as "conservative", "liberal", or anything else. I know that he is anti-freedom, violently hostile to any political opposition, and completely unwilling to compromise. He is unfit to be President. Hillary may be as crooked as a corkscrew, but history shows it is possible to get a Clinton to compromise on doing the right thing.
Someone who agrees with me 70% of the time is not my enemy.
Depends on what the other 30% is, Ruth. After all, Wahabbi Islam is probably about 70% in agreement with Judaism or Christianity.
You can't win by losing.
Sure you can. Any chess player knows that sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to make a larger gain. 2008 isn't the last election we'll ever have -- it is just one step in many larger campaigns to shape the politics of the United States.
I'd also note that so far as I'm concerned I already "lost". Nobody I want for President is still in the race, and the one person I'd be comfortable settling for (Romney) is losing. So the question isn't "do I want to lose" but "who do I want to lose TO".
Revenant: Just curious. If the match-up is Hillary v. Romney, who gets your vote. More importantly, why?
I'll amend the Gipper's adage: If you're not dealing with suicidal religious extremists, some one who agrees with me 70% of the time is not my enemy.
madawaskan: "Incumbency is a HUGE factor and that's something these threaten to sit at home and not vote factions never seem to realize.
"It takes yeeeeaaaarrrsss to recover from that."
Yeeeeaaaarrrsss didn't help Howard Dean, as I recall...
I'm very conservative politically and not particularly excited about McCain, but I cannot understand letting dislike of him push you to vote for Hillary or abstain.
And I don't get the overwrought hysteria from conservative pundits.
It is interesting that this will be the first election in a long time where two Senators face off.
"We are doomed."
Yeah, but in the meantime we can yuck it up. ;^)
National Review needs a fresh outlook. They are pompous, humorless scolds with no balls. And they art the ones who literally think it really is 1996. That is their big problem- always looking back and never forward.
It's really fun to be able to whale on Republican leaders for awhile.
They remind me, collectively, of Marie Antoinette. Or of that Wizard of Id comic strip where the wizard says "the peasants are revolting," and the king answers, "you're telling me."
Hugh Hewitt is comedy gold these days. Nothing that happens has any possible outcome other than to the benefit of Mitt Romney. He is constantly lecturing his conservative and Republican readers about what they "should" think and "must" do. When the voters ignore him, his conclusion is: The wrong people voted! In New Hampshire, too many independents crossed over. In South Carolina, too many military voters. Now, in Florida, the Republicans-only primary that Hewitt assumed Romney would win, McCain wins by 5 points. How could this be? Well, he looks at the exit polls and it turns out some Republicans identify themselves to pollsters as "independent," even though they are registered Reeps. And McCain won that group, which I guess is supposed to prove something dire but God knows what. Democrats, independents and Republicans all get to vote in November.
I hope, if McCain wins, that he torments Republican snobs like these. That'd be fun to watch.
PS the Dole/McCain comparison is facile and wrong. The GOP had no chance that year, and Dole's nomination was kind of a gold watch. This is different. This is going to be hard-fought. I don't know what will happen, and I don't know who I'm voting for. And it's my son's first election. So far, this is the best political year of my adult life.
Revenant: Just curious. If the match-up is Hillary v. Romney, who gets your vote. More importantly, why?
Romney, because his political views are closer to my own.
And sure, Romney has had some positions that I've disagreed with, but the point is that he's been willing to change. For example, Romney has been soft on illegal immigration, but compared to John McCain, whose position on immigration is best summarized as "everyone who doesn't love illegal immigration is a racist bigot", Romney is the soul of reason.
If you're not dealing with suicidal religious extremists, some one who agrees with me 70% of the time is not my enemy.
I happen to think wiping his ass with the Constitution and telling Americans that we have no right to decide who gets to live here represent a sufficiently important "30%" to count him as my enemy. Can you give a reason for not doing so beyond "Ronald Reagan wouldn't approve"? Because while I think the Gipper was a great President, I don't live my life to please him. :)
PS the Dole/McCain comparison is facile and wrong. The GOP had no chance that year, and Dole's nomination was kind of a gold watch.
Bill Clinton got less than half of the popular vote in 1996. The only reason the GOP "had no chance" is that they ran a lame candidate. Remember, the public had overwhelmingly flocked to the Republican ticket in the 1994 midterm elections.
Give me a break:
John McCain, whose position on immigration is best summarized as "everyone who doesn't love illegal immigration is a racist bigot"
I happen to think wiping his ass with the Constitution and telling Americans that we have no right to decide who gets to live here
I mean, c'mon. I get hyperbole, but this is absurd.
Revenant:
W ran and won two national elections and his position was to grant work visas to people who are currently here, who came illegally, whose only 'crime' is coming here to work. Remember, he had a close relationship with el Presidente Vicente Fox. That agenda [supported by corporate America] was tightened up after 9/11 to focus on border security, but also create a way which the current illegals who are already here have an incentive for coming out into the open and making their stay somehow legitimate. That bill, a W proposal based on his campaign promises, is what McCain was dutifully moving through the Senate.
The fact is: there are 12-20 million who are already here who are living in el segundo America. Nobody asked either of us when they were breaching the borders. But they're here now. I support beefing up the border security, building big fences and having wide gates, requiring penalties for illegal entry, requiring back taxes to be paid, requiring English proficiency in order to stay, evicting illegals who are criminals, eliminating the salt lick of "anchor babies," require biometric IDs, and other measures that recognize that they're here now and we have to be realistic.
Ruth Ann:
I agree we have to be realistic. And I would add no chance of citizenship to anyone who entered illegally. I would support some form of legal permanant residency but no right to vote ever.
And the ID you recommend is OK too.
Hell they do that now on the Galapagos Islands to restrict illegals and protect the environment.
AJ Lynch: I agree. No citizenship ever for those who came here illegally. My sister-in-law is from S. Africa and the hoops she had to jump through to get here legally were difficult and expensive. But she did and soon she'll be a citizen. And it only took 7 years!
John Stodder wrote: I mean, c'mon. I get hyperbole, but this is absurd.
True, but it is not meant to be, apparently. Then again, it is no more absurd than this:
Romney, because his political views are closer to my own.
Seriously, how can any of us know what Mitt Romney's political views really are? They change according to the audience of the day.
I mean, c'mon. I get hyperbole, but this is absurd.
I don't think it is hyperbole at all. McCain did accuse opponents of his amnesty of being racists, and his response to criticism of McCain-Feingold was this:
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government."
John McCain is an enemy of the United States Constitution. I don't see how you can honestly argue otherwise.
That bill, a W proposal based on his campaign promises, is what McCain was dutifully moving through the Senate.
Ruth, if you think that McCain was pushing Bush's bill out of a sense of duty to the President then I have to honestly ask you, where *were* you during the last eight years? McCain has had absolutely no reluctance to openly oppose Bush on issues where the two of them disagreed.
No, the reason McCain supported that amnesty bill is that McCain supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. That's why the guy he has working on Hispanic outreach is the same guy who used to run the Mexican government's department of "citizens living abroad", i.e. illegal immigrants in America.
I support beefing up the border security, building big fences and having wide gates, requiring penalties for illegal entry, requiring back taxes to be paid, requiring English proficiency in order to stay, evicting illegals who are criminals, eliminating the salt lick of "anchor babies," require biometric IDs, and other measures
Good. But John McCain doesn't.
Ruth Anne: Just checking to see if you've changed your name or something. Let me know if you have.
Revenant:
I'm recalling a lot of stalwart Republicans vociferously opposing W on things like Harriet Miers' nomination, joining forces with Teddy Kennedy for education reform, financing stem-cell research, the surge, & how to prosecute the war. Agreeing with W 100% of the time is not the test of whether one is conservative. To continue to call it "Amnesty" when it has all those safeguards that you and I agreed upon, is wrong. Amnesty is a get-out-of-jail FREE card. All those safeguards and the guarantee that you can never become a citizen is NOT amnesty.
And, if the Republican Party has any hope of being dominant in this century, it had better get its act together when it comes to the Latino vote. It's not a monolith, but it's sizeable. At bottom, most immigrants come here to manifest the American Dream. We should be known as the party that still believes in the American dream.
Randy: I am missing something.
"At bottom, most immigrants come here to manifest the American Dream. We should be known as the party that still believes in the American dream."
We should also be known as the party that enforces laws, abides by the Constitution of the Untied States, protects and defends the soverienity of our nation and curtails the invaison of our country by illegals.
Immigration is NOT the same as what we have now, an invaison by illegals. My grandparents were immigrants, my aunt is an immigrant from Argentina. My family, other grandparents, father, aunts and uncles were "legal" residents of Mexico for over 20 years and I still have close ties in that country. I RESENT the charges by McCain, Graham and others that because I opposed the AMNESTY provisions of their bill I am a racist bigot. I opposed it on the illegality and economic grounds.
The bill was anmesty pure and simple. Illegals were to get provisional Z visas that were to be issued without any attempt to check status of the applicant for criminal history, identity, a 24 hour turn around and the visa was a done deal. It takes longer than that to get a license for your dog in many counties. Chain immigration once the Z visa was established that allowed importation of all the illegal's relatives....no questions asked. It was unworkable and meant to be that way. They thought they could fool us once again.
When the conservatives, who mostly agreed that you cannot deport the millions of lawbreaking illegals, requested that we go slow...secure the borders first and THEN devise a rational plan to deal with those in our country, we are accused of bigotry. But, no.....we must have this rammed down our throats.
Ptooey on McCain. I'd rather see our country be destroyed under a Democrat regime than to vote for a false Republican.
DBQ: You've said this more than once today--
I'd rather see our country be destroyed...
Seriously?!
Further: do you think that a President Hillary [G4b1000x*] could destroy our country? I think we're a better country than that. Garden variety gridlock can thwart her intent on many things.
*God forbid a thousand times.
Ruth,
If you think McCain's bill had the requirements you're listing then you simply never bothered to read it. The "enforcement" provisions were, empty threats -- and, more importantly, not requirements for the amnesty portions. Under his original bill illegals were essentially granted a six-year reprieve on deportation. That's amnesty; I don't care how you sugar-coat it.
As for the notion that Republicans desperately need to suck up to the illegal-immigrant vote in order to hold on to political power -- well, they're welcome to try it and see if it works. Lets see if they gain more Latino votes than they lose in white, Asian, and black votes. They'll certainly lose mine. I live in the United States of America, not Northern fucking Mexico.
Ruth Anne:
My compliments on on your forbearance.
No Ruth, I don't want our country to be destroyed. It just seems to be hell bent on slip sliding away now.
I do believe we need a good hard bitch slapping. 9-11 almost did it, but I guess the 30 second attention span of the general public who is twaddled by the media (ooooh look something shiney!!) requires a harder lesson.
I think 4 years of Hillary would just about snap us out of it. If it doesn't, well then..... I guess we deserve every thing that our lazy selfish indulgent ignorant butts get.
I guess we deserve every thing that our lazy selfish indulgent ignorant butts get.
Speaking of and for yourself, I assume.
"Speaking of and for yourself, I assume"
No.. speaking FOR myself and about people who have decided it is just fine to settle for the lesser evil because it is easier, expedient and expected.
Interesting definition of those who disagree with your point of view.
Interesting definition of those who disagree with your point of view.
Does the phrase "stupid enough to cut off your own nose to spite your face" ring any bells? Spare us the snark about DBQ's tolerance of disagreement; you're in absolutely no position to criticize on those grounds.
That aside, you prefer the short-term strategy if choosing the lesser evil over the long-term approach of discouraging the party from nominating bad candidates. Your own words paint you as a person who expects everyone to pick that easy way out, and as a person who considers everyone who doesn't to be an idiot. So it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable and accurate to describe you as a person who votes for the lesser evil because it is easy, expedient and expected -- or at least as a person who expects *us* to vote that way for those reasons.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, based on your decidedly novel interpretation of the facts.
Oh, do please share your non-"novel" interpretation of "you just could be one of those people stupid enough to cut off your own nose to spite your face".
I long to hear it.
Oh, an please explain the deep political principle behind opting for the lesser evil, and why it isn't taking the easy way out.
The fact is: there are 12-20 million who are already here who are living in el segundo America.
Mmmm. Actually, that's what we call "a widely believed fact" around here, after a line from "Futurama":
Fry: "Too bad he wasn't an alligator. Y'know, when you flush those things, they stay alive in the sewers."
Bender: "Really?"
Fry: "Yep. My friend's cousin's caseworker saw one once. It's a widely-believed fact."
But the fact-fact is we just plain don't know how many illegals are here. That's sort inherent in the "illegal" part. One organization has suggested the range is between 20-38 million, though the more interesting thing in the link is the dissection of the methodologies used by various agencies to come up with their numbers.
I'm an open borders guy but I found the closed borders arguments a lot better founded than [my side] in the most recent kerfuffle. The "pro-" arguments seemed to consist largely of "you're a racist if you disagree."
And I think the double-speak is despicable. As if, as long as they didn't actually use the word "amnesty", no one would see what was going on.
The other thing that kills me is the reluctance to acknowledge and take action against what should be non-controversial. Deporting criminals, for example. Why wouldn't that be a given? Better tuition breaks for illegals (a la Huckabee)? Isn't the country enough of an attractant without that? Can we stop the various quasi-military incursions at least?
If this bare minimum were done, I have to believe the closed-border crowd wouldn't have so much ammunition.
It's also a lie that we can't encourage illegals to leave, if that's what we choose. All it takes is cracking down on employers and restricting social services. No need to put them on trains.
And it's not true that a wall can't work. And let's be honest about who is hurt by a large influx of unskilled laborers. And let's not distort where people stand on the issue. And so on.
And most of all, let's not pretend that any of this is going to stop because this time--this time--those guys in DC are really going to take enforcement seriously, after they've gotten what they want.
As I said, I'm an open borders guy, but I'm also into the democracy thing. If we're going to have open borders, let's vote on it, straight up, and not pretend otherwise.
That was not the fact which you misinterpreted in your post, and to which I was referring, Revenant. I don't believe that I have advocated everyone choosing the lesser of two evils. At the same time, it is patently easier for someone to pick up their toys and go home when things don't go their way than it is to spend a significant amount of time examining two less-than-ideal alternatives in order to determine which alternative poses the greater risk to the future direction of the republic if elected. The first is easily done within seconds, as you and others have demonstrated here repeatedly. The latter requires abandoning such self-indulgent and lazy behavior, performing a great deal of due diligence, and accepting that there is no such thing as perfection among human beings, whether they be candidates for President of the United States or commenters on a weblog.
I'll make this simple for you: I don't care what you or DBQ do or don't do. It is your choice. If you don't like people questioning your statements, I suggest you not make them.
So there might be 20 million or more illegal immigrants in this country. The estimate has nearly doubled just in the past year?
I'm not defending the fact of illegal immigration, but I just wonder, why are we so worked up about it? This "major problem" has managed to walk right past us without most Americans feeling any ill-effects.
But now, anyone who doesn't subscribe to the harshest possible measures to deal with it is a traitor?
I don't think this is selling at all. Perhaps those who hate McCain ought to be thinking about whether attacking him on illegal immigration is pointless, dumb and counterproductive. It's not high on the list for most Americans, not even most conservatives.
I'm not saying the issue doesn't need to be addressed. But perhaps the McCain approach, in rough terms, is the one that makes the most sense to most Americans.
I don't mean the mythical "wiping his ass with the Constitution" McCain approach. I'm talking about an approach that tries to address the problem holistically, without sacrificing the economy or causing massive dislocations in various industries and communities.
McCain's biggest mistake was his comment that "I'll build the damn fence." To some conservatives, that was like saying, "go pray in your damn church," or "go buy your damn guns." But that's not enough to discredit the broader approach he seems to favor -- a classically conservative gradual approach to an aspect of society that is now deeply entrenched.
I think what McCain's really saying is, the fence is a panacea. It won't get you where you think it will. It will work, but only up to a point. It's not the first priority, even though it seems like it should be.
The other point is, McCain's foes do not have a better idea. There is no "true blue" conservative plan out there to address illegal immigration that is in any way workable. So why should we all get on board the hate-McCain-train for his terrible immigration policies when the alternative is non-existent?
It might feel just great to bash McCain, but it's a jerk-off. Spend the energy coming up with another answer.
Whether I hold my nose and vote for McCain, not vote at all, or vote for Hillary, McCain's real problem will be that, in the general election, those of us who have done so in the past won't be volunteering to spend our evenings stuffing envelopes, calling strangers, doing lit drops, delivering yard signs, photographing campaign stops, going door to door, transporting voters to the polls, etc., on his behalf.
And no, I am under no obligation to help McCain, so don't bother trying to FUD me into spending time campaigning for him as I've done for others in the past.
McCain's moderate appeal may be a mile wide across the grass-roots-less middle ground, but the moderate middle's a la carte commitment to him will never be more than an inch deep.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा