A number of commenters, including former WSRP Chair Chris Vance, have in recent days made arguments in assorted threads that John McCain is the most electable Republican for President based on surveys querying voters about hypothetical general election match-ups. I have to disagree with that premise:
1) At the state level it makes more sense, and I for one have found myself agreeing with such arguments as applied at times to our firmly left-of-center state. Simply put, it is logical to expect that the best candidates to win statewide and in swing districts may not well represent all factions of the Republican coalition. In contrast, it makes less sense to make such sacrifices at the Presidential level given the nation's slightly right-of-center politics since at least the mid-1990's.
2) Those hypothetical match-ups are asking many potential general election voters to make a choice between candidates they don't know much about. Only Hillary Clinton and McCain can be fairly said to have a deep, solidified reputation with the American people. In contrast, most non-likely primary voters know comparatively little about who Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and even John Edwards are as Presidential candidates. Voters are going to learn much more in the months after the respective nominees are decided. Even us political junkies will likely learn something substantively more about candidates not named McCain and Clinton.
3) If such early prognostications of electoral viability were sound, Ronald Reagan and Dino Rossi should have mailed it in during the springs of 1980 and 2004, respectively, given their position in the polls.
Moreover, while regular readers of this blog know I am more than sympathetic to the idea of appealing to Democrats and Independents in key electoral battlegrounds, I am highly sensitive to the problems caused by a candidate who deeply dispirits and/or antagonizes significant segments of the Republican base.
We've been down that path before and it isn't very fun. I'd rather we not repeat that, if possible.
UPDATE: 3rd to last paragraph fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 23, 2008 07:19 AM | Email ThisRudy isn't electable because of three marriages? Yet, Slick was allowed a zillion affairs?
Romney isn't electable because he is a Mormon? Republicans should relish that debate.
The people should be allowed a choice. Having McCain as President is like Clinton as President except he would have the opposing party as his allies (that is the Republicans).
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 07:34 AMThe issue of illegal immigration, amnesty, and border security is one of the key issues in the 2008 congressional and presidential elections. And, of course, this is one of the major issues on which McCain has alienated conservatives.
I don't "hate" or "despise" McCain, but I do strongly disagree with his pro-amnesty position, which would hurt the nation and (by the way) would also hurt the Republican Party. I'll vote for the Republican candidate in November, but right now I want to make sure we have the best candidate possible. McCain is not that "best possible" candidate - for many reasons, among which a major issue is his pro-amnesty stance.
To a large extent, McCain is campaigning on the strength of his national security and fiscal conservatism credentials. But his pro-amnesty position, exemplified by the McCain-Kennedy bill, undercuts both his claim to be a fiscal conservative and his claim to be a national security conservative. John McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in trying to push through amnesty for illegal immigrants, but the outrage of the American people killed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. That outrage was real, powerful, and effective.
Amnesty is unfair, amnesty would hurt our economy, and amnesty would burden the taxpayer. But above all, in this post-9/11 world, amnesty, illegal immigration, and border security are issues related to national defense and the war against Islamic terrorism. McCain's pro-amnesty stance would hurt the war against terrorism.
McCain claims he will cut wasteful spending, but this also is contradicted by his position on illegal immigration. The presence of twelve million illegal immigrants depresses the wages of American workers, hurts the economy, leads to increased wasteful spending (providing benefits to illegal aliens), and burdens the taxpayers.
You can't be a consistent fiscal conservative while supporting wasteful spending on benefits to illegal aliens! And you can't be a consistent national security conservative with a weak position on border security and illegal immigration.
McCain's pro-amnesty stance would hurt the economy, and it contradicts his claim to be a fiscal conservative opposed to wasteful spending.
Although McCain now claims his position does not amount to amnesty, he is on record as openly calling for amnesty, and openly using the word "amnesty" to describe his own position. For example, see the following two quotes from the Tucson Citizen:
" 'Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,' he said. 'How can we have a temporary worker program if we're not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?.... 'I believe we can pursue the security programs and at the same time set up a system where people can come here and work on a temporary basis. I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country,' he said." (C. T. Revere, "McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program," Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)
Please Shark, come back! If Chris Vance had done half the investigative work Stephen did, Dino Rossi would be in Olympia.
Posted by: suzihomemaker on January 23, 2008 07:37 AMhttp://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/a-good-day/
Fred Thompson: "This has been a good day for America. For a while, it didn't look like Washington was going to listen to us regarding real immigration reform. Thankfully, we've been spared a serious mistake, but I wonder if things would have turned out the way they did without the work done by the bloggers, talk radio and the American people. Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, RedState, Powerline, Pajamas Media and a lot of others have done a great job. Take that, Fairness Doctrine."
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Immigration_Vote
Mitt Romney: "The immigration bill failed because the politicians in Washington are out of touch with the American people. The voice of the people is loud and clear - secure the border, enforce the law and no special deal for permanent residency or citizenship for illegals. America will always welcome legal immigration, but as a nation we also insist on the rule of law."
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/news/pr/338/
Rudy Giuliani: "Today a majority in the Senate made clear this bill shortchanged the American people by failing to end illegal immigration and failing to secure our borders. The bill did not deserve to move forward. As I have said before, this bill - which I believed was based more on compromise than on principle - failed to do several basic things, including: securing our borders, creating a uniform tamper-proof ID card for all foreign workers and students, establishing a single nationwide database of foreigners, and mandating the full implementation of a biometric 'check in-check out' system. The legislation was a hodgepodge at best, and I believe it would have ultimately made our country less secure. I urge the President to use the authority and funds at his disposal to do everything possible to end illegal immigration and secure our borders."
Also his quote that says "Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years..." doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they have been here that long, why didn't they get amnesty the last time it was offered in 1986?
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 07:52 AMBut this is a national race. So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Ultimately, conservative rank and file will compromise if it means the lesser of two evils with a Progressive like Hillary. But I think what we are seeing in the primary is a reflection of the wish that people have to see a President that is actually a more solid and principled conservative, and not just someone who is electable.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 23, 2008 08:14 AMI just don't see how having McCain as president will result in better judges than a Clinton- DESPITE what the PanderBear (yep, that's right, no StraightTalk) says.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 08:21 AMYou may be right that immigration may be an issue in the fall, but I don't think Republicans can win with a heartless attitude. Pudge stated it best in another thread. When the current law makes it a slap on the wrist, to go way overboard the opposite direction will not win over the Hispanic community, who make up a large voting block in the southwest and some Northern States.
The Bush Immigration bill was a comprimise in order to get something through and have some action on securing the borders. What we have instead is nothing. Lot of good the Republicans that went against the President on this one did. You simply allowed the status quo of insecure borders to continue.
Posted by: tc on January 23, 2008 08:55 AMI have no idea where you get your immigration stats from, but if you look at all the exit polling so far from the Republican primaries, it should tell you something. Only 13% of voters in the Republican primaries are basing their vote on an anti-immigration position. It's been the same throughout the states that voted so far. Additionally 10% of the voters based their vote on pro-immigration stands - that breaks down to a very insignificant positive for the anti-immigration folks.
Additionally, the republicans are split 50/50 on the immigration issue. Half believe in no amnesty and half believe in amnesty. Interestingly it's the same across party lines. You won't see this election be about immigration as both parties would risk turning off a significant portion of their voters. In order for it to be the issue, you'd have to have pundit after pundit try to make the people believe their position is wrong.
The immigration issue is not a Republican/Democrat type issue, it cuts across party lines, it's also not a conservative/liberal issue. If there's any correlation at all it's a urban/rural issue or a pro-business/anti-business issue. Which side are you on? You aren't on the Republican or Conservative side if you are a hard-liner, you actually are on an urban and anti-business platform which you share with about half of the democrats.
Also, McCain now frames his opposition to the Bush tax cuts differently than he did at the time he originally opposed them.
At http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421 Human Events has the "top ten" McCain quotes from the 2000 GOP primary campaign (including from debates with then Texas Governor George W. Bush) and from 2001 to 2003 as he played to the liberal elite media railing about "tax cuts for the rich."
You can click on the above Human Events link to read the "top ten" quotes for yourself. The first six on the Human Events website are particularly interesting, since they are from McCain's previous campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. Here's a sampling:
"I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big--it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans--and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. ... I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich." -- Discussion with media, reported in "Bush, McCain Snip Over Tax Cut Plans," Los Angeles Times, and "GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes," Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 09:17 AMEveryone has got to realize that I, as a small businessman, will not invest in my company unless it is profitable to do so or I get a tax incentive. I will not make capital expenditures based upon a $300 rebate to everyone.
Same goes for big business.
I am like most Democrats and dislike the outrageous profits big corporations make, but you know what, they create jobs. If you make the business environment difficult, they won't party and hoard their cash instead of making it work by creating jobs. Kind of a Catch 22, but that is the way it is. I've lived through too many recessions to think otherwise.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 09:39 AMAs a grandson of four legal immigrants, I certainly don't have a "heartless attitude" regarding immigration. I've offered my own non-heartless four-point plan on border security and illegal immigration at http://www.steveberen.com/1220769.html
I don't expect to find a presidential candidate who agrees 100% with my non-heartless approach, and I certainly will support the GOP nominee in November. But meanwhile - during the primary process - I seek the best possible candidate (not perfect, just best possible) and I cannot support a pro-amnesty candidate like McCain.
Now, regarding your concern about Romney's immigration stance. Back in June, when I posted the views of Romney (and Thompson and Giuliani) regarding the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, my point was not that any or all of them was necessarily consistent or totally correct on illegal immigration. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of those candidates, their statements at the time set them apart from McCain.
McCain not only favored amnesty, he not only agreed with amnesty - he led the fight for McCain-Kennedy, taking on the leadership of pro-amnesty immigration reform bill effort, and wearing it as a badge of honor.
In that respect, Romney's statement in June was a step forward and was on the right side of the debate over McCain-Kennedy. Romney, along, with some other GOP candidates, set themselves apart from McCain on the issue of amnesty.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 09:39 AMJohn McCain is a Senator, and the skills which make a good senator seem to make terrible presidents.
Going along to get along in the Senate is a good strategy to get things done, esp when the other party is consistently running things, but the presidency requires leadership, and he ability to ennunciate a vision and sign other up for it.
I don't see John McCain being a good president, even if he got elected. I would vote for a yellow dog rather than Hillary, or even Obama, but that wouldn't make that yellow dog a good president.
When I look at the history, and the big picture, I suspect that Mitt is our best choice at this point.
Posted by: bfr on January 23, 2008 09:42 AMA few points in response:
In reply to me and TC, you say: "I have no idea where you get your immigration stats from, but if you look at all the exit polling so far from the Republican primaries, it should tell you something."
Speaking for myself, I didn't offer any stats, either about immigration, or about the views of Republican voters on amnesty. Rather, I stated my opposition to amnesty and my resultant opposition to McCain's pro-amnesty stance and his strong leadership in fighting to try to pass the McCain-Kennedy pro-amnesty bill.
Next, you say "Additionally, the republicans are split 50/50 on the immigration issue. Half believe in no amnesty and half believe in amnesty."
I agree that some Republicans support amnesty (one of them is running for president), but I doubt it is anywhere near 50%. I agree that some Republicans oppose amnesty, but I believe it is far more than 50%.
In any case, as a conservative Republican who opposes amnesty, I don't support McCain's effort to be the Republican presidential candidate.
Finally, Doug, you say: "The immigration issue is not a Republican/Democrat type issue, it cuts across party lines, it's also not a conservative/liberal issue. If there's any correlation at all it's a urban/rural issue or a pro-business/anti-business issue. Which side are you on? You aren't on the Republican or Conservative side if you are a hard-liner, you actually are on an urban and anti-business platform which you share with about half of the democrats."
I disagree in two respects.
First, the issue of amnesty is a conservative/liberal issue. All the Democratic presidential candidates along with the liberal elite in the media and on the campuses favor an open borders, pro-amnesty policy. A conservative approach - with heavy emphasis on the upholding and reinforcing the traditional importance of the rule of law - is opposed to amnesty, while supporting appropriately controlled legal immigration. Most conservatives oppose amnesty, very few conservatives favor amnesty.
Second, opposition to amnesty is not an anti-business position. Conservatives favor the free market, and favor wide opportunity for business, but not at the expense of national defense, sovereignty, or the safety of the American people. Amnesty and massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration hurts the U.S. economy and distorts free market forces, in addition to leading to massive wasteful spending on benefits for illegal aliens.
In my own four point plan on immigration, I emphasized how opposition to amnesty is a pro-business position:
"Dishonest businesses that hire illegal aliens should be severely punished. Their goal is to evade taxes, and their goal is to avoid providing workers with proper pay and benefits. My support for severe punishment of companies that hire illegal aliens does not stem from any anti-business sentiment. In fact, this is a pro-business position, because allowing amnesty for such dishonest businesses is unfair to the vast majority of honest businesses that play by the rules. Taking action against companies that hire illegal aliens will dry up the illicit job market that attracts illegal immigration. Some illegal immigrants will decide to return to their country. Others, contemplating illegal immigration to the U.S., will choose to stay in their homeland."
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 09:58 AMDoug,
Giving amnesty to lawbreakers is not a conservative idea. McCain is unlectable to me even without his totally wrong view over law breaking foriegn invaders. Give amnesty again, and the problem continues. The Kennedy-McCain plan is a mega failure and will led to more law breaking. We must do the right thing which is not reward law breaking.
Nominate McCain you elect Hillary by chasing away Republicans. Remember that.
Posted by: AP on January 23, 2008 10:11 AMThis would be incorrect. For example, Barack Obama's immigration outline can be found here.
In it he states, "Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry." He also states, "Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens." This is hardly the open borders, pro-amnesty stance you have attributed with the Democratic Candidates.
One area where I see Republican's as being heartless is how many here state their desire to break up families and/or redefine the 14th amendment (i.e., Anchor Baby issue). I personally disagree with position and classify it as being heartless. Should we have a solid border and sound, legal immigration policy? You bet. To close our borders to legal immigration and turn our back on infants for something their parents did, however, goes too far for me. We can be a better country than this.
Posted by: tc on January 23, 2008 10:15 AMWhat are you talking about? We want to ship the illegal baby back too, so no, the families are not broken up. We need to end anchor babies so we can end illegal immigration. Rewarding illegal behavior encourages more illegal behavior. All illegals should leave and get to the back of the line and let the people trying to do it correct and legally get first shot at citizenship.
Posted by: AP on January 23, 2008 10:20 AMYou say that Senator Obama does not favor an open borders, pro-amnesty policy. I disagree.
As you yourself point out, the Obama website says that "Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."
There is no such thing as an undocumented immigrant who is in "good standing." Violating the law is the opposite of being in good standing. In this broad (virtually universal) defintion of illegal aliens in "good standing," Obama has virtually the same open borders, pro-amnesty position as the other four Democratic candidates and Senator McCain.
Many of the illegal immigrants have no interest in becoming American citizens. Many of them want to live here, work here, and receive social benefits here - without becoming citizens. Some would prefer to receive an amnesty leading to "permanet residence" and a green card, while they retain the citizenship of their homeland.
One of the glaring weakness of McCain-Kennedy was the concept of providing illegal aliens a path to citizenship, without regard to the fact that many of the illegal aliens don't really wish to be citizens as long as they can receive social benefits at the American taxpayers' expense, and as long as they can work here (undercutting the wages of American workers).
Senator Obama's use of the phrase "undocumented immigrants who are in good standing" and his vote for McCain-Kennedy fly in the face of the rule of law.
And this is precisely the open borders, pro-amnesty stance I have attributed to all five Democratic candidates (plus McCain).
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 10:43 AMI'm guessing, AP, that you aren't referring to babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants, but rather babies that were born outside the U.S. then brought in illegally?
I think AP that you are messing up two different things. Giving legal status to illegals after the illegals have paid their fine that is required under federal laws for their misdeamenor offense is one of the big arguments Congress is having, and granting citizenship to those who want to become citizens and whether illegals should move to the front of the line in becoming citizens, is another issue.
Posted by: Doug on January 23, 2008 10:44 AMClinton won primarily because Ross Perot took votes mainly from the fiscal conservatives. Remember, Clinton never won a 50% majority in either 1992 nor 1996. The fact that Bush 41 was not the conservative that people expected from the Reagan VP didn't help (thousand points of light, new world order, ect.)
Electing a candidate who will be democrat-lite will be making the same mistakes that have been made in the past.
If McCain wins the nomination, there WILL be a third party CONSERVATIVE and that person will take votes away from the Republican like Ralph Nader took votes away from the democrats.
McCain is a RINO. There are few democrats who will vote for him and there will be a few Republicans who will vote 3rd party. It's a recipe for a loss.
Sorry...but I view McCain as the most UNELECTABLE candidate of the bunch!
Posted by: drw on January 23, 2008 11:27 AMNot at all. The Republican Party certainly has room in our big tent for Senator McCain, and it certainly has room in our big tent for those Republicans who agree with McCain on key issues.
However, that is not the same thing as saying he should be our standard bearer in 2008. He would not be the best representative of our party. He is not the best candidate to curtail wasteful spending, stop illegal immigration, and win the war against terrorism.
Whatever his other strengths and weaknesses, McCain's pro-amnesty stance cuts across his credentials on spending and national defense.
Amnesty leads to massive wasteful spending on benefits to illegal aliens, severely burdening the taxpayer. "Pro-amnesty" and "fiscal conservative" are in contradiction.
Likewise, amnesty for illegal aliens and a weak position on illegal immigration and border security harms our national defense. "Pro-amnesty" and "national security" are in contradiction.
McCain's age is not an issue, in my opinion. It is neither a positive nor a negative. Unlike the Democrats, we don't select our candidate on the basis of race, gender, or age.
Republicans and conservatives select a candidate, or ought to select a candidate, on the issues.
On global warming, McCain is wrong. On the Bush tax cuts, McCain is wrong. On McCain-Kennedy, again McCain is wrong. On McCain-Feingold, again McCain is wrong.
On his love affair with the liberal media, and on his abrasive negativity towards the conservative base, McCain is wrong.
Reagan conservatism consisted of principles and policies, to be sure, but it also (perhaps above all) was based on a philosophy that included an optimistic, confident, forward-looking moral vision for America's future.
Whatever his other strengths and weaknesses, McCain's policies on many issues, along with his abrasive negativity to conservatives who disagree with his policies, indicate that he is not the best representative of that optimistic, confident, forward-looking philosophy.
Senator McCain is a war hero, and deserves respect and honor for his service and sacrifice. Of course there is plenty of room in the Republican Party for him and his supporters.
I have no doubt that Senator McCain will end up supporting Romney or Giuliani or whoever the eventual GOP nominee is. And that is to his credit.
Likewise, I have no doubt that most of those who are criticizing McCain on this thread would vote for him if it was down to a choice between McCain and one of the pro-surrender, pro-tax, pro-abortion, anti-gun Democrats.
But that choice is not what is before us right now. Let's not jump the gun. Right now, we need to select the best possible GOP presidential candidate. That's not McCain.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 11:39 AMPolls aside, I think McCain is clearly the most electable of the GOP field. Yes, many Republicans may not vote for him, but he'd be able to make that up easily.
But that said, as you imply, just because he can win, doesn't mean he should be the nominee.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 11:48 AMBut when push comes to shove, the guy just isn't crisp or snappy. He's stale. We need some zip...some zing...some panache!
Posted by: John Bailo on January 23, 2008 11:50 AMUntil you stop fighting useless, expensive, and inefficient wars, you cannot call yourself "fiscally conservative" in any way. We now know for certain the there were no WMDs so save your breath on the National Security line. Also, now that we have successfully stirred the pot in the middle east, it is objectively clear that we are doing more harm than good regarding terrorist groups and their future feelings toward the U.S.
If in fact the total for the illegal aliens is higher than $400 billion (and that's not counting the consequential costs to our country of 2700 lives and all of the soldiers at home working or studying)then I think amnesty would be the central issue during this election. Somehow, I don't think it will be.
The numbers here do not lie. $400 billion is not fiscally conservative at all. Regardless of motives or intent or anything else, that number is simply not fiscally conservative. The republicans in office blew the management of the war, and unfortunately, they will get blamed for killing our economy as well. As a result we will not get a republican president and we will not be a fiscally conservative nation (again). The bitter irony is that most intellects voted for Bush despite his clear lack of intelligence, because he was supposedly a fiscally conservative republican.
The frustration for me at least, is agonizing.
At least there is a substantial chance we can get a truly fiscally conservative republican in office here in Washington. Dino!
Posted by: Pete on January 23, 2008 12:12 PMThe first sentence of this amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (my CAPS)
If you review the history of the 14th Amendment, it was meant to apply to the children of slaves. It was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War. The clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is what the argument is about. It was not meant as an incentive for people to come here illegally to attain citizenship for their children. The argument is that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and not the U.S. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether children of illegal aliens are citizens as defined under the 14th Amendment.
It is funny that you are so outspoken in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens and trying to downplay the fact that this is an issue in the Republican primaries. You also make the rather odd intimation that being in favor of amnesty is somehow "conservative" (it's not). Do you employ some illegal aliens yourself, per chance?
As for "undocumented immigrants in good standing". Which ones would those be? If they are working here with a stolen SSN, that's identity theft. If they are working under the table without a SSN, that's tax fraud. If they are not working at all, they are likely abusing social benefits meant for citizens. So are you arguing the there are millions of illegal aliens who are doing none of these things? They are just here living with their legal, working friends or family?
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 12:16 PM1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
4. verb. to grant amnesty to; pardon.
By these definitions, stating that illegal immigrants having to pay a fine and go to the back of the line with regards to legal immigration is not amnesty. What McCain (Obama and others) has stated as his position is not amnesty. It doesn't matter how much Mitt wants to muddy the waters, it doesn't fit the definition.
With regard to war against Islamic fascism, there are six candidates (all five Democrats, plus one Republican) who oppose a victory strategy. If you want a cutoff of funds to our troops, a timetrable for withdrawal, and a surrender of Iraq to the terrorists, you can support one of those six candidates.
With regard to others on this list who, like McCain, have sometimes openly used the word "amnesty" to describe their position on illegal immigration, there are six candidates (all five Democrats, plus one Republican) who favor a pro-amnesty policy. If you want wasteful spending for benefits to illegal aliens, along with weak enforcement of border security cutting across our national defense, you can support one of those six candidates.
True fiscal conservatives (e.g., Reagan) do not seek to carelessly cut defense spending, weaken our military, and ruin our foreign policy. Leave that to the Democrats (Carter and B. Clinton in the past; hopefully not Edwards or Obama or H. Clinton in the near future).
There should be across the board cuts in non-defense, non-military spending, including the elimination (or sharp reduction) of many unnecessary, obsolete, and/or ineffective programs. Those are the cuts advocated by conservatives (fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives).
The liberals and Democrats almost always favor cutting military funding, even if we are at war. They rarely favor reducing the size of government, except in the case of the military.
Of course, conservatives ought to fight for whatever non-military cuts are needed in order that the government can concentrate on its true and necessary (limited) functions, above all the national defense.
It is not "conservative," however, to "balance the budget" or "reduce the deficit" by slashing national defense.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 12:35 PMAccording to polling, McCain is leading in every significant upcoming primary state, and leads every Democrat head to head. If he couldn't attract Republican votes that wouldn't be the case. I'm not sure how you can look at the polling data, and how the four Republican candidates have positioned themselves, and not come to the conclusion that McCain is the most electable of the four.
Electability, however, is just one factor in this race. I understand very well how strongly some conservatives feel about John McCain.
Large numbers of conservative activists are uncomfortable with McCain, Romney, Rudy, and Huckabee. But in a few weeks, one of them is going to be the new leader of the Republican Party. We need to get used to that fact.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 12:37 PMI'm practical, just like Duncan Hunter is. Did you notice that today he endorsed Mike Huckabee? Federal immigration law is very clear, and those who crossed the borders illegally committed a MISDEMEANOR - not an earth shattering felony. For that particular crime they need to pay a fine, if it is not their first offense, then jail time is also an option. By federal law they are not denied the right to be a citizen at some point or put at the end of the law. These laws can be changed, but the changing of the law does not effect those already here - ex-post fact...
It is also reasonable to assume that there are not enough LEGAL immigrant workers in the United States, in fact, the current workforce requirement by some estimates is that we need an ADDITIONAL 12 Million legal immigrant workers to supply the work needed - hence illegal ones are taking their place.
Every so-called Conservative who says deport them all is oblivious to what the consequences would be in our country. It's really pretty simple, we need 12 million more legal immigrants, how do you propose to get them to fill the IMMEDIATE requirements the businesses have in this country?
There is really only one way to do it, and by chance, that is the exact way Congress will deal with it, so better get over it because that's just how it will happen.
As for those illegals who are committing other crimes- if the govt. can prove they are by following normal search and seizure rules, they can get them. That might be a few dozen thousands of them if they put every man and woman in the FBI on the case, and could take years.
Better start being practical, at least I know our government will.
Posted by: Doug on January 23, 2008 12:42 PMThe best way to handle the situation:
First and formost, we must secure the border. Then we can deal with those who are here illegally (and if we can force Pelosi to bring it to a vote) by voting for the SAVE Act--which has a large number of bipartisan sponsors (around 200 last I looked). This Act is a reasonable way of dealing with the situation--requiring over time for all businesses to verify the citizenship of their employees using the e-verify system. It is phased in for smaller businesses and gives them time to get their business in order. It has also been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing more than 600,000 small businesses.
I agree, lets be practical. Let's NOT reward lawlessness and encourage more of the same. Lets make sure that we bring in LEGAL immigrants and not give a better deal to people who came here illegally than those who have been waiting to enter the country legally.
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 01:03 PMThe fact of the matter is that when you run on the other party's platform and adjust a little toward the center..you alienate the base. You're betting that the votes gained by the center will outwiegh the votes lost from the base...but recent history has shown that not to be the case.
Democrats WILL NOT vote for McCain. The center will lean toward the democrat at this time unless they're given someone who will appeal to them on kitchen table issues. I don't see McCain being that person.
The right will go to a third party as McCain is CLEARLY not a conservative. He voted against the tax cuts (I know, because he wanted a corresponding cut in spending)...but that's illogical since the tax cuts were implemented to jump start the economy. Cutting corresponding spending would've negated that tactic. So in McCain's world, we would get higher spending AND no tax cut...a lose/lose.
He's wrong on immigration. He's wrong on campaign finance. He's the wrong person to hold the Republican mantel.
Once again..if you run as democrat-lite, you get nothing. Let's not make the same mistakes the democrats have made in the past.
Much like the recently defeated transportation bill, if you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.
Posted by: drw on January 23, 2008 01:06 PMRudy: 40% fav./45% unfav. with all voters. 38%/48% with independents. 67%/26% with Republicans.
Huckabee: 39%/31% with all voters. 45%/22% with independents. 53%/19% with Republicans.
Romney: 36%/36% with all voters. 42%/35% with independents. 55%/26% with Republicans.
McCain: 60%/24% with all voters. 68%/21% with independents. 78%/14% with Republicans!
McCain is by far more popular with Republican voters that anyone else in the race, despite how base activists feel, and is the only candidate popular enough with independents to beat Clinton or Obama as things stand now.
The rest of the Republicans? The American people do know enough about them to have formed opinions, (Only 10% said they hadn't heard of Huckabee or Romney, and 7 in 10 knew enough about them to have formed opinions) and their favorable/unfavorable ratios are very weak.
Again, if electability is your issue, McCain is your candidate.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 01:20 PMBut, it seems that in this cycle if you are ahead in the polls, it is the death knoll. Kind of like the Sports Illustrated curse.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 01:22 PMSee what I'm saying? Either spend a fortune to put enough cops on the road or regulate the heck out of the businesses, nice solutions. Immigration is the same thing - research clearly shows that the safest speed on a particular road is the speed at which most people are driving it. If a large group of cars are going 70 in a 60, then that car that is driving 60 is the one that is causing the danger.
Congress needs to recognize that one: Labor ain't cheap in this country, either find cheap labor or allow businesses to go to other countries - make the call. Two: there aren't enough cheap legal immigrant workers, either allow more or create the environment we have now where there is an incentive.
Posted by: Doug on January 23, 2008 01:27 PMI'm saying that to most people, they aren't even paying much attention (political junkies on this site and others like it not withstanding).
And I'm saying that in the long run, he's very unelectable because he's a RINO and will not get the votes of the center and won't get the votes of the conservatives.
A vote for McCain is a vote for a third party to come forward and take the conservative votes from the Republicans. I envision a Ralph Nader of the right. Someone who will get 3-5% of the vote but enough to swing the election.
It's just not a winning strategy IMHO.
Posted by: drw on January 23, 2008 01:35 PMWhat Bush, and current republicans have done is carelessly spend resources, lives, and money under the guise of "National Security."
When you speak of "surrender of Iraq to the terrorists," you make it sound like you would prefer to stay in Iraq at $100 billion a year. Great exit strategy. Sounds fiscally conservative to me. Also, I am sure the terrorists at some point will just give up, rather than become more polarized by our presence.
Let's make one thing absolutely certain, the Iraqi's cannot be compared to the Soviets. We could confirm nuclear arms in the possession of the soviets. We could confirm the military build up of the soviets.
Also, let's not forget that the Soviets killed, confined, or deported, at least 20 million innocent people.
For these and many other reasons, the comparison to the Regan era is wrong on many levels.
Again, the question on the table is how is over $400 billion fiscally conservative when the same objective could have been accomplished for much less and without losing 2700 lives?
Posted by: Pete on January 23, 2008 01:49 PMI call the phenomenon you describe as 'buyers remorse' when we wake up with the nominee that won, but isn't the best nominee for the party.
But, like all our talk, Rudy's support is good and if he can do well in Florida, there is a whole new ballgame.
I just wish the Rs remember in time why they booted McCain in 2000 and why his popularity was down last summer.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 01:51 PMhttp://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain
With regards to nonimmigrant workers, they would have to have work here in the country. They couldn't come here and look for work. They would have to pay a $500 VISA application fee. They would have to go through a Homeland Security review. They would have to pay a $1000 or $1500 fine, depending on their status (one section was one figure another section was another). They could switch jobs while under the VISA, but if they were out of work for more than 45 days, they had to return to their country of orgin. If they lost their job, and couldn't find other work, they would have to return. The VISA was good for three years and could only be renewed once for another three years (e.g., six years max).
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I see nothing in the bill that granted permanent resident status to current illegal immigrants (e.g., amnesty).
Ref: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1033:
Posted by: tc on January 23, 2008 02:52 PMLook at this for one second. The Dem's & MSN just love McCain. Now when the time comes and if John did make it.
Do you REALLY think the Dem's & the MSN will not smear John McCain from one end of the US to the other.
Please don't be stupid here.
His own flip flopping will sure make a mess of him and I just wonder he will start losing it as the beat on him in the news.
DUDE your the one who needs to wake up.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 23, 2008 02:59 PMOf course, once the GOP selects its nominee (Romney, McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee) most Republicans and most conservatives should support, and will support, the GOP presidential candidate against whomever the Democrats nominate.
And, of course, "electabilty" and polls are only a part of the story. A good case could be made that they are only a very small part of the story, especially this year. The polls have sometimes been wildly inaccurate and off-the-mark. Both parties have open contests, with no incumbent president or vice-president running. And even an accurate snapshot poll taken today might have little to do with the actual result in November.
But "McCain vs. the Democrats" is not the issue before us now. There are valid policy reasons to rank McCain lower than some of his opponents.
In the Michael Medved article you link to, Medved goes into a lengthy defense of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. Medved (and McCain), of course, have the right to support the McCain-Kennedy bill. So do Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, and all the others who voted for it.
However, most Republicans and most conservatives strongly disagree with Medved and McCain.
Nobody is seriously suggesting that Medved and McCain be kicked out of the Republican Party. In fact, I am sure that most of the Republicans and conservatives on this list will vote for the eventual Republican nominee, even if it is not their preferred candidate.
Medved's argument in support of McCain-Kennedy is clear and comprehensive, but not convincing. The public outcry that defeated McCain-Kennedy is a powerful force, and it would be a big mistake (in my opinion) to select a candidate who was the leader in trying to fight for its passage.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 23, 2008 03:09 PMThe MSM is going to be tough on whomever we nominate, and if you're worried about flip-flops there is a candidate from Massachusetts who should concern you more than John McCain.
It's Army Medic/Vet or AMV for short.
And your right, but the MSN has been beating everyone but McCain.
Might ask yourself why?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 23, 2008 03:48 PMTrue, but Bush won because some liberals decided they wanted to go with a candidate who was farther to the left than Gore. Had Gore captured the votes of a couple thousand Nader voters in New Hampshire things would be very different today. Florida would not have be an issue and the Supreme Court would not have to decide an election.
At the begining of the campaign they attacked McCain for reaching out to conservatives like Jerry Falwell, then they spent all Summer and Fall declaring him dead. I think the media has been plenty tough on McCain.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 03:54 PM
and Limbaugh was none too reticent either:
"I would say to Senator McCain, "Senator McCain, we know about your POW heroism. We know about your stuff on the surge. We know of your allegiance on the war in Iraq with President Bush. We know all that. I want to hear you talk about your immigration record, Senator McCain. I want to hear you talk about your record on free speech, meaningful, campaign finance reform. I'd like to hear what you think we should do with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The people of Florida need to hear this." "
"I want to hear from Senator McCain as a Republican primary voter his manmade global warming thoughts, his record, and what he intends to do to fix manmade global warming. I want to hear from Senator McCain on his opposition to tax cuts. I want to hear the domestic side, and I would hope that he would speak loudly and openly and honestly about his domestic record, not spin it, certainly not deny it, but give Republican voters in Florida some straight talk on the record. He can surround himself with the Schwarzkopf and the generals and so forth and the POW stuff, which we all admire and respect. But, you know, you owe it to the electorate to start talking honestly and openly about your complete public record rather than cherry-picking what you want to say to different audiences in different places. Talk about how proud you are of your service in the Senate, leading the Gang of 14, campaign finance reform, voting against two major tax cuts. Those tax cuts would help millions of businesses and employees, spurt economic growth. I would like to hear of your proud alliance with Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Senator Lieberman on global warming, and others. I'm a Republican primary voter. I would like to hear some straight talk on those issues. Will I? "Don't count on it, Limbaugh." As a voter I can only ask. Well, I can only mention what it is that I would like to hear."
What sort of growth are we having, the DJIA is pretty much at the same point now as it was when Bush took office.
Bush did a incredible job of turning this country around after Sept. 11th, but after that greed took over and now we're paying the price.
Economy is slumping, our banks are posting billion dollar losses, people stopped buying goods, oil prices are through the roof, and our country has a bigger deficit than ever. Is the economy better off than it was 8 years ago? I don't think so.
Oh and big news flash. Anybody that listens to Medved as a conservative authority knows he is smart, but he has his nose so far up defending anything "Republican" it makes you sick. He with John Boy wanted free Mexican passes. Great guy but jeez, totally a programed mouth. Try Rush Chris or other architects of the conservative movement. Find him saying McLefty is just the second coming? Any true Reagan conservative would be sick with McChanger. I like Delay would not even cast a vote. It is really bad vs even worse.
Posted by: REAL LIFE on January 23, 2008 05:58 PMBusiness tax cuts....maybe. May help the bottom line but I doubt they'll pass those saving onto the customer. I do agree they could use some tax relief.
Bush's idea of throwing money at people is the stupidest idea since he did it the first time. I mean it's great that the Govt. gives me $200, but it bites me in the ass next year when I file my tax return. It enough to stick in the bank, but with the interest rates as low as they are that's not going to help Ma and Pa taxpayer.
You know I'm sympathetic to your general thrust here, but I think we should be able to agree that given the volatility of the race (and the polls measuring it), that current leads can hardly be viewed as safe...especially given the crowded nature of the field. We've seen so many rises and falls, even in the course of the last month, that I really hesitate to give much credence to poll leaders until they start converting those advantages into wins. The crowded field accentuates that issue, given that no one seems to be even cracking 30% in Florida or California with any reliability.
Moreover, I think we should both be able to agree that the internals of a poll 10 months before the Election aren't terribly helpful. Are people willing to offer an opinion when polled based on the information they have at hand? Sure. But that information is pretty paltry compared to what they'll have in the coming months so I'm not sure how much stock we should put in those numbers.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 23, 2008 06:12 PMI agree with you that the Republican race is still fluid. McCain has the advantage now, but things could still change dramatically, especially with Thompson out.
On the other hand I do think the current polls regarding November matchups are very meaningful. From Iowa on the American people have been playing close attention to this campaign. They are forming opinions that will be hard to change.
Unless something happens to drive McCain's negatives up dramatically I think he is our strongest candidate.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 06:38 PMThe man given his policies should be running as a Democrat, all he has to do is drop his nominal pro life stand and Iraq and all his other policies would mesh nicely.
Posted by: Mark on January 23, 2008 08:32 PMThe only thing I'd add to our conversation is that I think one of the lessons of 2007 in retrospect is that many likely primary voters, with the exception of perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire, tuned into the race a lot later than us political junkies (and much later than the pundits expected). Based on that, I don't accept the argument that the bulk of general election voters are actually yet paying close attention to the campaign...even if they might be keeping an eye on it at times simply because news of the race is everywhere.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 23, 2008 08:38 PMSending out $800 checks to the masses will do nothing. Sure it will help pay that Christmas debt, but it won't spur or finance any sudden entrepreneurs nor will it be enough for existing businessmen to expand.
Yep, I would love a rate cut, but would rather NOT pay capital gains taxes and a business tax cut is what the economy needs... the US's is one of the highest in the WORLD.... gotta say, as much as I choke on McCain he is right on that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 23, 2008 08:50 PMThe media loves McCain (for now) so we should vote for him because he has the best shot of winning. This same media says this is an election of "change" and the media's idea of change is Clinton vs McCain...ummmmm I think we are kidding ourselves here. McCain will be popular until the day he wins the nomination then all the media will talk about is how old he is.....how about we nominate a conservative who best represents the Republicans and let the chips fall where they may.
Oh and isn't Chris Vance the same guy who goes on TV and claims to be a genius for "finding" Dino Rossi when in fact Dino was about his 4th choice for governor AND he did not spend on a dime on his race until after Dino did all the heavy lifting and the polls started tightening???? Careful who we take advice from.
Neither of those statements are even close to accurate. It is amazing how many myths live on regarding the 2004 election.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 09:50 PMNeither of those statements are even close to accurate. It is amazing how many myths live on regarding the 2004 election.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 23, 2008 09:50 PMFrom a former Arizona resident, John is NOT our man. John vs whatever the Dems put up will be identical and we all will suffer the consequences.
Posted by: pbs7mm on January 24, 2008 04:49 AMI distrust McCain, so I have started listening to Medved (I only get about 10 minutes) instead of Dennis Miller so I can get a feel why Medved likes McCain. He is unpersuasive. I wish Medved had commercial free podcasts like Townhall or even with commercials, like Reagan and Liddy.
tc, you could have done a word search and found that the word amnesty was not used in the bill. "Amnesty" is inherent in one or the other of the different visas and its path to citizenship.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 06:40 AM
I am ashamed to associate with conservatives who seem willing to ruthlessly deport these humans giving priority to man-written rules & laws over the transcendent laws of God - which implore compassion & forgiveness
Is this really what you want ? Do you want to "amputate" your own feet ?
Another "Final Solution" for historians to write about- this is somewhat hyperbolic - but what kind of tactics do you suppose will extricate 10 million + who are integrated into our fabric
If for no other reason the GOP doesnt stand the chance of a snowball in Hell in '08. Most Americans (65%+)want those that are here to be allowed to stay--- somehow
Any form of amnesty would be a huge booster shot for our economy by getting these folks (most of them good & honest) out of the shadows & black markets to above ground spending.
AMNESTY = Forgiveness
and I'm all for it. I believe it the only path will allow our survival as a strong nation.
Posted by: Pedro on January 24, 2008 07:05 AMI respect your right to that opinion, and obviously I respect your right to seek out a pro-amnesty candidate to support.
However, I strongly disagree with a pro-amnesty position (for the reasons stated in my earlier posts on this thread) and I strongly opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill.
Of the current presidential candidates, there are six who are strongly pro-amnesty (five Democrats and one Republican), and that gives you a wide choice.
For myself, as a conservative Republican - a fiscal conservative, a national security conservative, and a social conservative - I oppose amnesty, I fought very hard against the McCain-Kennedy bill, and therefore Senator McCain is not my choice for the GOP nomination.
Amnesty leads to massive wasteful spending on benefits for illegal aliens, contradicting fiscal conservatism.
Amnesty and weak border security harms our national defense in a time of war, contradicting national security conservatism.
Amnesty breaks down and erodes the rule of law, contradicting social conservatism.
Are you equating a plan that would have millions of people who committed misdemeanor offences admit to their crime and pay the fine that goes with that crime with amnesty?
On the contrary, it would be the single largest ever criminal bust in the whole history of the world. And instead of sending most of them through the courts at the cost to the taxpayers, they would be pleading right then and there and paying their fine to society. AMNESTY???
Your statement that amnesty harms our national defense is ridiculous. You could have just as easily said, "Hostess cupcakes and weak border security harms our national defence". My guess is that would be a more accurate statement than the one you used.
The only reason amnesty would leave to wasteful spending is that it would legally put those immigrants on the books - something that would have to be done anyhow in order to supply enough immigrant workers.
These people are paying sales taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc. and as long as they aren't on the books they don't get the benefits, is that what you are saying? Maybe you should spend your time supporting candidates that are for a national sales tax, that would give you the opportunity to tax them even more without giving them benefits.
Pedro, the exit polling of the primaries so far are very clear, only a small percentage of Republicans will vote based on their anti-immigration positions, however on the blogs they make up a larger vocal percentage. Kind of like how on the blogs it seems Ron Paul should be declared the nominee already.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 08:45 AMI am really tired of the apologists for all of the companies that hire illegals and pretend that they have no choice, because no one else will do these jobs. This may be true in the agricultural industry, but not in many other industries--such as construction, landscaping and home-care (cleaning and nannies). Even in the agricultural industry, the availability of cheap illegal alien labor has likely inhibited technological advancement in that industry.
I am all for increasing the number of LEGAL immigrants, but am 100% against McCain's and the Democrat's amnesty. The SAVE Act (introduced by my Democrat Rep Heath Schuler and with strong bipartisan cosponsors) is a reasonable way to address the issue. If it was really true that small businesses would fight against ending the illegal alien problem and really want "open borders" as some of the apologists claim, the SAVE Act would not have been endorsed by The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represents more than 600,000 small businesses in every state. There are a LOT of small businesses that have tried to play by the rules that WANT this issue resolved, so that they are able to COMPETE without hiring illegal aliens.
The SAVE Act requires businesses to use the e-verify system to verify the legality of their workers. It is phased in over a period of years for progressively smaller businesses to give them time to comply. So far, Nancy Pelosi has not allowed this bill to come to a vote.
Amnesty is NOT the answer. The rule of law is! McCain does not understand this.
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 08:56 AMThe problem was in the details. They were unworkable. I think most people would allow the illegals to come back, but the system has to be approved.
But, before that, the fence has to be built and the Mexican army must be told not to invade our country during their skirmishes.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 09:23 AMWhy doesn't Mexico fix it's own labor problem?
Two reasons. The people in Mexico have no desire to push THEIR government to change.
The Mexico government get's half of it's money from the US.
In your post at #12, you said "Additionally, the republicans are split 50/50 on the immigration issue. Half believe in no amnesty and half believe in amnesty."
You are correct to say that some Republicans "believe in amnesty," although it is certainly far less than half. But you are absolutely correct in describing that position as "belief in amnesty." You are correct to equate that side of the debate as supporting "amnesty."
Like Pedro in post #76, and like Senator McCain (for example) in 2003 (see the quotes I provided in one of my earlier threads), you used the word "amnesty" to describe your position.
Not only do some Republicans (a minority, but some nonetheless) believe in amnesty - so does Senator McCain! That's one of the reasons he is not the best choice for the GOP nomination.
You offer various arguments to support your position, but they are unconvincing to me. The pro-amnesty and anti-amnesty positions have been well debated on past threads on this blog, and even a little bit on this thread itself, and by such people as Michael Medved and Senator McCain.
Regarding the word "amnesty," I note that some pro-amnesty advocates shy away from using the word, in much the same way as liberals (with regard to the war against Islamic fascism) shy away from phrases such as "cut and run," "immediate withdrawal," and "cutting off funds."
Amnesty is so unpopular, and so widely opposed, that even many who "believe in amnesty" seek to change the packaging and modify the labeling.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 24, 2008 09:32 AMDishonest businesses that hire illegal aliens should be severely punished. Their goal is to evade taxes, and their goal is to avoid providing workers with proper pay and benefits.
My support for severe punishment of companies that hire illegal aliens does not stem from any anti-business sentiment. In fact, this is a pro-business position, because allowing amnesty for such dishonest businesses is unfair to the vast majority of honest businesses that play by the rules.
Taking action against companies that hire illegal aliens will dry up the illicit job market that attracts illegal immigration. Some illegal immigrants will decide to return to their country.
Some people strongly believe in amnesty, as Doug points out. And some of them (five Democrats and one Republican) are even running for president.
McCain's pro-amnesty stance contradicts fiscal conservatism. He is not the best choice for the GOP nomination.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 24, 2008 09:42 AMI only use the word amnesty because I think that is the only word that irrational meatheads like yourself understand. It is far easier to let you know that half of the republicans support amnesty, than to tell you that half of the republicans support a comprehensive immigration plan that allows the economy to be successfull by not deporting tens of millions of immigrant workers at the cost of misery to hundreds of thousands of businesses.
It is people like you who are to blame for my predicament last year when I sat down to do my taxes for my small business and the Paper Reduction Act notices told me it would take me 840 HOURS to do my taxes, when I had three weeks to get them done. It is people like you who think it's the business' responsibility to check every employee and file all paperwork necessary in order to see if they owe child support in some county 1000 miles away. It is people like you who think that it should be the business' responsibility to assume every person in this country is illegal and to spend the resources to prove a prospective employee is legal.
I'm up to my neck in paperwork, and adding more regulation may not seem like much to you, but after years and years of it, I'm spending over half my time in regulation and my productivity stinks. I should be able to assume my worker is here legally, it's the govt.'s job to protect me and my business - it's not my job to do the government's work.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 10:18 AMBill H.: The SAVE Act is unimplementable. So is for that matter the technology tracking initiatives in McCain's Bill. Designing a computer system by legislation is a terrible proposal. It will not work the way it is outlined. It will be a massive central repository that will have a huge target on its back, or it will be a multi-location decentralized system that will be a nightmare to synchronize the data. Read up Bruce Schneier's review of the RealID initiative and why was a security nightmare. The same analysis can be applied to a centralized Worker tracking database. The issue is the fact that it would have to be a secure system that is also open for all state agencies and federal agencies (even county and city level agencies) to all tap into. The data complexity could be managed by today's database systems, but securing the access and interfaces would be a complexity nightmare. Add to this having designs dictated to you through legistlation. A better approach would be to fund a few research institutions (private or public) to come up with the technical interface solutions that will work, and then design the system. The system has to be designed to be secured from the bottom up and not through top-down legislation.
Posted by: tc on January 24, 2008 10:32 AMWho was going to monitor all this regulation?
Also, if your side believed in the fence, why was it defunded by the Democrats and Bush? Bush has a little excuse, but the Ds don't.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 11:02 AMAnyhoo, I do not believe that Mitt Romney will lose to Hillary. I believe that as more Americans learn who Mitt Romney really is, they will come to support him much more so than others support her. I believe that this will come to be *Almost* on par with the Reagan landslides BECAUSE of Hillary's EXTREME negativity factor. There is an over 50% portion of the American electorate that will NOT EVER vote for Hillary because they cannot stand her.
Because Mitt is extremely likeable when people get to know him, instead of the really short sound bites on TV, AND as more and more people see who Hillary really is on the campaign trail and how DIRTY both she and her husband campaign - the people will be drawn to Romney in droves...
Go Mitt Go! Romney for President '08
The best candidate for the job in these troubled economic times.
Good golly, I couldn't agree with you more, that doesn't mean that of all the candidates he has the worse chance to beat her (except for Ron Paul), that's just the way it is.
If you will enlighten me on who Romney really is, as you put it, that would be great. There isn't an issue today that he hasn't held more than one public position on. It is quite possible that his slickness, like Willie, will be able to convince many voters that he is on their side, but his nomination destroys the one advantage Republicans have on Hillary, that she is distrusted.
My belief is that as the campaign finance reports come out, people are going to wonder if we really want individuals to be able to buy the Presidency and any advantage on Hillary will be gone.
pbs, guess what...we are flooding Mexico, we're flooding them with our businesses so we can take advantage of cheaper, less regulated labor force. We're flooding China and India. Our rich people are flooding small offshore islands, we're flooding our businesses with paperwork, requiring them to pay for healthcare, for social security and medicare. Steve Beren's and your anti-immigration stance is pro-union, anti-business, anti-free trade, it's really not an ideological one based on Republican vs. Democrat. Your position, just like mine, crosses party lines and is based on something other than liberal/conservative groupings.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 12:32 PMFrom all indications Romney is a great human being that I would love to have as a friend. Can you say the same thing for the Slicker?
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 12:58 PMWhich candidate do you think says what he believes? Nice poll question, the one who does the absolute worse is Romney. It doesn't matter to most of the voters, to me it's of absolute importance. I've had enough experiences with CEO's while serving on Boards to realize that brown-nosers can achieve a high level of mediocrity but aren't the people you want to have to get ahead. They look after themselves first and foremost and will sell out their underlings at the first sign of trouble.
As for Romney or Clinton being a friend, I would want neither, I doubt either of them would risk life or limb for anything when the time came to it, but I think I'd rather go barhopping with Clinton.
Among likely Republican primary voters McCain leads, AND he leads among those who describe themselves as "Conservative."
When asked which candidtate was best on immigration McCain finished first, Romney second. And again, McCain was the top choice of conservatives.
It is really only hardcore conservative activists who have a problem with McCain, even on immigration.
And Romney trails Clinton by 12%, Obama by 18%. McCain is dead even with both.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 24, 2008 01:29 PMIt was a nationwide poll.
Polls from reputable firms are usually very accurate, as long as you understand that they are a snapshot look at today, not a prediction of what will happen in the future. As of today every poll shows the same thing: John McCain is by far the most electable candidate on the Republican side.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 24, 2008 02:05 PMYou are misinformed. The E-verify program ALREADY exists and is being used on a voluntary basis.
The SAVE Act has 139 cosponsors, pretty equally split between both parties. It has been endorsed by BOTH the NFIB (as I said in an earlier post), as well as The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which represents more than 725,000 American workers. It will pass if Pelosi allows it to come up for a vote.
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 02:27 PMDemocratic Party and liberal activists are also debating the "electability" of their candidates.
For example, the following Google "exact phrase" searches got the following responses:
hillary is unelectable - 7,300
hillary is not electable - 4,300
hillary clinton is unelectable - 4,640
hillary clinton is not electable - 2,930
clinton is unelectable - 5,730
clinton is not electable - 3,540
Are they correct? Perhaps.
If Clinton is possibly unelectable (as many of these worried Democrats are vehemently arguing amongst their fellow liberals), then it follows that the GOP nominee (whether McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, or Romney) is possibly electable.
Polls can give us a hint, but they can't give us a clear and definite answer. That's okay, since in the scheme of things (especially this early) that is only a small part of the issue facing us.
Polls can't tell us whether the candidates policies are good or bad. Polls can't tell us whether, if elected, a candidate would be effective in implementing their policies.
Obviously, we have to think for ourselves when evaluating policies and competence.
For example, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all are opposed to a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism, and they are all pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-amnesty, pro-tax, anti-business. Therefore, regardless of their electability, and regardless of their competence, I won't be supporting them.
I don't support their policies, goals, and objectives - so (for example) their "effectiveness" in pushing through their awful policies is not a persuasive argument.
Fortunately, whatever their strengths and weaknesses, all four of the leading GOP candidates are far superior to whomever the Democrats will nominate. And if Clinton is (possibly) unelectable, then it follows that all four of the GOP candidates are plausibly electable.
Right now, however, the issue is not who to support in November. The issue is which GOP candidate would make the best president, and which GOP candidate has the best policies.
Who will be the best in defeating Islamic fascism, stopping illegal immigration, and cutting wasteful spending?
Because illegal immigration leads to massive wasteful spending on benefits for illegal aliens, it is not surprising that many fiscal conservatives don't put McCain at the top of their preference list.
Because weak border security and amnesty have severe national defense and homeland security implications in a time of war, it is not surprising that many national security conservatives don't put McCain at the top of their preference list.
No doubt, McCain is sincere in his pro-amnesty views, and if elected president would use all his skills, power, and abilities to fight for policies along the lines of McCain-Kennedy.
However, I think we will see between now and Super Tuesday that many conservatives don't think such a person is the "best possible" person to represent our party.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 24, 2008 02:41 PMWe know that the 9/11 terrorists were able to get Virginia Driver's license through corrupting a DMV employee. With this system of this size, there would be a magnitude larger "people" interfaces that could be targeted for coercian. When you start making electronic systems that we depend on for validation of people, which is what this system is, you need to build in security from the start. You can't throw together some PC's, network them, and think that is good. At a minimum, a full risk assessment needs to be performed prior to any design so that a system on this scale will have the proper safeguards to protect against data corruption (whether intential or unintentional).
Posted by: tc on January 24, 2008 03:31 PMSteve, I agree with you that making a judgement about electability is not the same as making a judgement about who would make the best President. This thread, however, is about electability. Are Ds worried about Hillary being elecatble? Yes, but as controversial as she is she trounces all our candidates other than McCain in all the current polls. We should be very worried about that.
#98
Of course immigration is an important issue, and Americans want the borders secured. But this Fall the debate is primarily going to be about the war and the economy, not immigration
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 24, 2008 03:35 PMWe shouldn't be surprised if, over the next couple of weeks, the field of candidates becomes smaller. I just read, for example, that Kucinich is dropping out, leaving only three serious Democratic candidates (plus Mike Gravel).
Florida and Super Tuesday will shed light on, and affect future considerations about, electability.
We may very soon be down to just two or three serious GOP candidates, as opposed to five just a few days ago. We shouldn't be shocked if one or even two of the current crop soon join Thompson in dropping out of the race.
If the remaining two or three candidates have serious differences over important issues, I hope to see many threads on this blog giving a lot of attention to the substantive policy issues involved.
This fall the debate is going to be about maintaining our victory strategy in the war against terrorism, and it will also be about the economy.
As we all acknowledge, illegal immigration will be an important issue in November. And in many ways, it overlaps the issues of war and the economy, and cannot be separated from those issues.
Whether the Democrats nominate Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, many national security conservatives and fiscal conservatives would like to see a GOP candidate who can directly challenge the pro-amnesty position of the Democrats.
Illegal immigration hurts the economy, and leads to wasteful spending; weak border security and amnesty hurts the war effort.
Because of his pro-amnesty stance, McCain is not the best candidate to win that debate.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 24, 2008 03:54 PMIt's impossible to know that today. It will depend on the situation on the ground in Iraq, the situation with the economy and who the candidates are. If McCain is the R nominee, I agree that there won't be much debate on immigration since the two nominees AGREE on the issue--that is the problem and why McCain should not be the nominee. The R's will not only have a candidate that is wrong on the issue, but they will lose the issue in the presidential race.
The only polls done that acurately reflect if immigration is an important issue in this election are the exit polling data from the primaries so far. If you look at the data, each state is remarkably similar. Immigration is not an ideological issue built on party lines, you said so yourself in a previous comment where you point out solutions are bi-partisan. The polling also shows that people aren't voting specifically because of the Immigration issue. Well, 13% of the republicans are voting specifically because they are anti-immigration, but also 10% of the republicans are voting because they are for the candidates that aren't anti-immigration.
It's the same thing across party lines, immigration may be raised in the general election, but it will be done to no advantage for anyone as it's an equally offending matter.
I want those two Supreme Court positions that will be doled out by the next President, I hope you do to. I know some on here will refuse to vote for McCain if he is the nominee (better to be united against a Hillary presidency....they say), but those two Supreme Court positions - that's all powerful and the conservatives need them.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 04:04 PM2. I don't disagree that a system could be built. What I disagree with is how it is being proposed (e.g., top-down, legislative driven). I have worked in the government and I know that politically driven IT systems fail. For an order a magnitude, look at all the problems the Navy has had with NMCI. EDS has struggled mightily with this effort. A nationwide system to track worker status would be on an order of 5 to 10 times as big as NMCI. It should be done properly with research and risk asssesments of security leading the way, instead of legislated. We didn't get to the moon because Congress dictated NASA how to build the system. We got to the moon due to research and building the systems from the ground up. This is what I am arguing for. It will take 5 to 10 years to properly build the system. To legislatively force a system that isn't built properly is opening it up for potential security nightmares.
One needs to remember in cyberterrorism the enemy is almost on par with our top hackers. The Chinese are attacking military systems constantly. Al Quaeda (sp?) has the money and potential resources to also amount attacks. This system is meant to validate workers coming into this country. What better target for the Chinese or Al Quaeda to go after.
Posted by: tc on January 24, 2008 04:06 PM"immigration may be raised in the general election, but it will be done to no advantage for anyone as it's an equally offending matter."
This statement makes no sense. It will not be significantly raised if McCain is the nominee since he votes with the Democrats on this issue. If McCain is NOT the nominee, it WILL be raised and it WILL help the Republican nominee.
tc--"I am not objecting because I favor amnesty. I never was for amnesty, and neither was McCain. Read the bill. There was not amnesty granted. Amnesty is a work of fiction by the extreme right wing. It was a snow-job that unfortunately a majority of the Republicans now believe is fact."
tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto. A rose by any other name...
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 04:25 PMThe last bill he championed had fatal flaws also.
P.S. I don't appreciate being called a racist because I opposed the bill.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 04:31 PMYou are really digging deep here. You are talking about how immigration will matter in the election and I gave you actual exit polling from people who actually voted....hmmmmmm. Do you not think that is a little more reliable than polling people who may or may not bother to vote?
At least show some semblance of rationality please.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 04:41 PMExit polling in 2004 was within the margin of error. They would have to be more than 3-5% points off to show immigration as that important of an issue, this years exit polls would have to be 30-50% off to show what you want to show.
When asked of illegal immigration is a problem - yes, most of the country would agree. But that doesn't mean that people think it's a problem because they all need deported. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's the most important issue affecting their vote.
As of this moment you have all the Republican candidates (except maybe Ron Paul) that are left will treat illegal immigration the exact same way, there is no advantage to any of them one way or another, except that people know McCain ATTEMPTED to do something about it, while the others actually IMPLEMENTED their own forms of 'amnesty' (not in the meaning of amnesty but the word the furthest right would use to indicate any attempt to treat illegals with dignity).
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 05:10 PMThat's a straw-man and is one of the problems with the exit polls you seem so enthralled with. Let's take the SC exit polls:
They gave three possible answers to the question:
Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be:
1. Offered a chance to apply for citizenship...28%
2. Allowed to stay as temporary workers........19%
3. Deported to the country they came from......52%
I think it is pretty significant that 52% said they should all be deported. But what is more significant is that they don't even address another choice--that being have them self-deport by requiring businesses verify legality with the federal government. You aren't seriously saying that 52% wanting illegals is not significant are you?
You said "As of this moment you have all the Republican candidates (except maybe Ron Paul) that are left will treat illegal immigration the exact same way, there is no advantage to any of them one way or another"
You're almost right. All of them will do something, except that McCain will do the opposite of what the others will do. McCain will give amnesty and will probably not do anything with the borders--I don't trust the guy a far as I could throw him.
Come on--a little rational thinking here...
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 05:24 PMYou aren't seriously saying that 52% wanting illegals DEPORTED is not significant are you?
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 05:27 PMUnder your leadership, you sued WA state for "closed primaries" where a person could only vote for one party. Had these rules been in play in all 50 states, John McCain would not have been a player and not gotten to where he is today. So now you are advocating for a person whom would be unelectable if only Republicans were allowed to vote for president. Please explain your hypocrisy on this issue.
Posted by: elf on January 24, 2008 07:20 PM1. The Party decided to sue over the blanket primary before I became Chairman. The case continued while I was Chairman.
2. The suit involved the then September primary, not the presidential primary.
3. What both parties sued for - and won - was an open primary, where voters could decide on election day which primary to participate in. Exactly the sort of system used in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
As I said, it is amazing how many myths endure regarding my tenure as Chairman.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 24, 2008 10:29 PMHalf of republicans wanting MOST (notice the question didn't ask if ALL should be) illegals deported is significant, but only a small fraction of those are voting on that issue. Close to half of Democrats want them deported as well, but that doesn't mean they are going to vote Republican if we have a deport-first candidate.
But look at that data again - half of republicans DON'T want them deported, that is what is amazing. Just as many republicans want "Amnesty" as don't - contrary to what the media tries to portray as Republicans wanting to deport them all therefore McCain is thumbing his nose at us. It's not an issue that can be run on outside of specific congressional districts.
I also stand by what I said, these candidates if they were president would treat the immigration situation the same.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 10:31 PMI'd also like to point out that aside from the myths, there's also a logical error: clearly, the Constitution prohibits the government from forcing parties to accept the results of a blanket primary for their nomination. The party was standing up for its rights, standing up on principle.
So therefore it's backward: if elf's facts were correct, then this would show you to be NOT hypocritical, since you were standing on principle regarding the primary, regardless of the outcome for your favored candidate.
Posted by: Michelle on January 25, 2008 12:09 AM
Michelle,
It doesn't matter who we nominate, the war and the economy are the immediate issues facing the country and will be the main issues in the campaign.
The success of the surge is making the war much less unpopular now than it was in 2006. I think McCain's long, and public criticism of Rumsfeld/Bush on the way the war has been fought, and his crusade against wasteful spending, will make him strong on both issues.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 25, 2008 06:04 AMMy response was "I actually don't know any "so-called Conservatives" or even any 'actual Conservatives' that suggests deporting them all, although I'm sure there are a few."
I then discussed the SAVE Act which relies on attrition by using the E-verify system to verify that employers are employing LEGAL employees--this would lead to MANY illegal employees going back to their home country and obviating the need for deportation. Significantly, that was NOT one of the answers available to this very poorly worded exit poll question. So which answer would people like me have chosen? Some probably chose the "deportation" answer and others, wanting an answer intermediate to "citizenship" or "deportation", probably chose the "temporary workers" answer.
This leads back to my original point, that using exit polls may be ok for getting an idea for who won the election (although they have had some problems with that as well), but are only marginally useful for the purposes that you are trying to use them. That is why I said that a separate poll on this issue like the ones I linked to before are a much better indicator.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on either this issue or on voting for or against McCain, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 08:12 AMFurther, Hillary was as much for the war as McCain was -- despite her claims of voting only for the authorization for use of force because she didn't think it would be used, she is on the record many times saying she was in favor of Bush invading Iraq -- so she has no real standing in this debate.
I agree that McCain is our best candidate, looking strictly at chances of winning. I've believed that since ... over a year ago, I think. But that doesn't mean we should nominate him, of course.
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 08:25 AMYou get far more accurate reflections when you have surveys that aren't on a specific issue and your target question is just a small part of it.
Posted by: Doug on January 25, 2008 08:29 AMBill H,
I would a assume a Senator who is a sponsor on a bill has read the bill. I am not understanding how you state that McCain didn't read his own bill.
? I think you must have confused me with someone else's comments...
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 09:37 AMAnd no, I don't think the good Senator knew all the details that made this a flawed bill. Good intentioned, yes, but flawed. It was too long in the first place and open to a zillion or two interpretations, and when that happens, it is the worst interpretation that gets implemented.
As simple as the I-Mans initiatives were, the opposing side made them out to be extremely complicated.
Posted by: swatter on January 25, 2008 11:42 AM(FWIW, I opposed the bill too.)
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 02:25 PM"...John McCain was the leader on the other side of the aisle. John McCain was the guy who was working with Ted Kennedy to drive it down our throats, and lectured us repeatedly about how xenophobic we were, lectured us, us being the Republican conference, about how wrong we were on this, how we were on the wrong side of history, and that you know, this is important for his�because having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn�t going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing."
The transcript is here: Rick Santorum Interview
Oh and McCain's poodle, Lindsey Grahamnesty, called us all bigots when he spoke in front of La Raza "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up and we're gonna get this right".
You can see this on youtube here
You can skip through to the last 15 seconds for this quote...
I've lost respect for both of these characters...
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 08:33 PMBill H: Rick Santorum saying he said it is no different from anyone else saying he said it. I'd actually like to hear him say it. Is that too much to ask?
As to Senator Graham, you are quite clearly misinterpreting him. Come on. It's fundamental logic here: saying that bigots support something is not the same as saying that people who support something are bigots.
(That said, La Raza has clearly racist and bigoted elements fundamental to its organization, and it is a terrible shame he pandered to them.)
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 10:32 PMThis was part of a coordinated campaign here with Graham and McCain and all of the others (primarily Democrats) that were pushing the immigration bill--Try to push it through with no time for discussion or for the public to get involved and call your opponents racist and bigots if they oppose it. You can see and hear with your own eyes and ears, Grahamnesty saying "we're gonna tell the bigots to shut up". Do you think Rick Santorum was lying about the meeting with the Republican Conference? You certainly MUST have heard all of the voices calling opponents racists and bigots when this legislation was being bulldozed through.
Geez, I know you like McCain, but you are putting blinders on if you can't connect the dots here.
Posted by: Bill H on January 26, 2008 04:45 AMNot true. An anonymous person on a blog saying something is quite different from a former Senator saying something from his own personal knowledge on a nationally broadcast radio program. If you have evidence that McCain has denied it or that others in attendence have refuted it, then lets see it--otherwise you are just calling Rick Santorum a lier without any proof.
Posted by: Bill H on January 26, 2008 08:01 AMNeither.
This was part of a coordinated campaign here with Graham and McCain and all of the others (primarily Democrats) that were pushing the immigration bill--Try to push it through with no time for discussion or for the public to get involved and call your opponents racist and bigots if they oppose it.
Fine. Give me an example of this.
You can see and hear with your own eyes and ears, Grahamnesty saying "we're gonna tell the bigots to shut up".
Yes, and because I know English and basic logic, it is quite clear that this was not directed at the whole of people who opposed the bill, but certain elements -- people who are bigoted -- who oppose the bill.
Do you think Rick Santorum was lying about the meeting with the Republican Conference?
That's a ridiculous question. Because I cannot know for sure, because I wasn't there, because I do not have firsthand information, I therefore cannot accept his word. Period. That doesn't mean I think he waqs lying, it means I require something more than his word to take it as fact, as I would require from anybody.
You certainly MUST have heard all of the voices calling opponents racists and bigots when this legislation was being bulldozed through.
Yep. But this is not about "all of the voices," this is about one voice in particular: Senator McCain.
An anonymous person on a blog saying something is quite different from a former Senator saying something from his own personal knowledge on a nationally broadcast radio program.
Not to me. It is hearsay either way, and is generally inadmissable to my mind. My personal standards for evidence have nothing to do with Santorum or McCain. It will not be considered a fact unless I have actual proof in front of me.
If you have evidence that McCain has denied it or that others in attendence have refuted it, then lets see it
If you have actual evidence it was said, instead of just hearsay, let's see it.
otherwise you are just calling Rick Santorum a lier without any proof.
Again, that is simply bullshit. Saying I do not accept someone's word as proof because my standard of proof is higher than that, is not the same thing as calling them a liar.
Posted by: pudge on January 26, 2008 08:57 AMObviously this is not a court of law.
Nevertheless, if I am going to accept something as true, I need more than someone saying they heard someone else say it.
Yes, you do not need to prevent further evidence ... unless you want me to actually believe it. Then you need to show evidence that isn't merely hearsay.
Posted by: pudge on January 26, 2008 10:56 PMIt's neither my goal nor my purpose to convince you of this. My purpose was to dispute your comment to Swatter where you said "I have listened to most of what McCain said on immigration, and I believe you are misrepresenting him to claim that he said or implied that anyone who opposed the bill is racist."
The evidence I gave does dispute that--whether you believe the evidence or not is irrelevant. There really are only two possibilities here. Either McCain said it, or Santorum is a liar. You can say that you won't believe it without additional proof and that's fine. It just means you that you are open to the possibility that McCain called opponents racists but you think it more likely that Santorum is a liar. What you CAN'T say is that McCain did NOT call his opponents racists AND Santorum is NOT a liar...because one or the other of those two statements is true. QED
Posted by: Bill H on January 27, 2008 06:21 AMThen why did you bother mentioning Santorum at all? You should have just said "you're wrong." You offered what you think of as evidence because you thought it should be convincing. But it's not.
The evidence I gave does dispute that
Not to the point where a reasonable person can accept it as fact, no.
There really are only two possibilities here. Either McCain said it, or Santorum is a liar.
Nope. That is utterly illogical, and you know it, because there is at least one other obvious possibility: Santorum is merely mistaken.
You can say that you won't believe it without additional proof and that's fine. It just means you that you are open to the possibility that McCain called opponents racists but you think it more likely that Santorum is a liar.
That is also utterly illogical. My studied belief that hearsay evidence on its own should be disregarded does not imply liklihood one way or another.
What you CAN'T say is that McCain did NOT call his opponents racists AND Santorum is NOT a liar...because one or the other of those two statements is true. QED
"QED" means you have logically demonstrated your claim. But you have merely asserted it, and have committed an obvious logical error in the attempt to do so.
Oh, and by the way, I just need to correct your understanding of the rules of evidence and the hearsay rules. My telling you what Rick Santorum heard is hearsay. Rick Santorum reporting what he, himself, heard is direct evidence--not hearsay.
No, hearsay is any claim of an out-of-court statement used to support an allegation. If you're trying to prove that McCain said, or believes, that people who oppose the bill are racists, then any statement claming he said that is definitionally hearsay. Direct evidence, such as a recording, is required, unless it falls into an exemption of the hearsay rule (which are complex and differ significantly by jurisdiction).
Now, this very possibly could fall under an exemption to the hearsay rule, as a statement against interest, the theory being that McCain would not have said this unless he really believed it to be true, because it would be against his interest to do so, and so therefore it is more likely to represent truth. However, that does not make it not-hearsay, it merely COULD mean that particular instance of hearsay is admissable in court (that depends on jurisdiction). But even then, it is far from any standard of proof (either reasonable doubt or preponderance), and alone, it won't win in the overwhelming majority of cases.
You are not convincing and you are simply wrong on the hearsay rule--Santorum's statement would, in fact, be evidence if presented in court (not that that matters, since, as I have already pointed out, this is not a court of law and will never be presented as a case in a court of law). Perhaps the point you are attempting to make is that his statement was not subject to cross-examination. I will grant you that point, but, again, that would be impossible since this is not a court of law.
Again, all of this just distracts from the point--is there a credible reason to think that McCain referred to opponents as racists (not necessarily whether McCain BELIEVES that to be the case, but whether he SAID it). I clearly showed you that there was. Whether you believe that evidence is irrelevant.
You bring up the "other possibility" that Santorum was "merely mistaken". Ah, so your agument is NOT A and NOT B are BOTH true because there is another possibility--C. Here is, again, what Santorum said "...having come from Arizona, knowing the strength of the Hispanic community, that we were going to be seen as racists, and he wasn't going be part of that, that he was not a racist, and that if we were for tougher borders, it was a racist thing." Sorry, I don't agree with you that "C" is a credible possibility--perhaps, politically, you need this fig leaf to protect yourself, but I, and most others, don't. I think we're left with:
A--McCain referred to opponents as racists*; or
B--Santorum is a liar.
I couldn't care less whether YOU believe Santorum or not (or whether you want to hold on to the fig leaf that he was "merely mistaken"). What I do care about is you leaving the impression that there was no basis for Swatter (or anyone else for that matter) to believe that McCain did in fact refer to opponents of the Immigration bill as racists. There is a basis to believe it and that basis is that someone who I, and many others, believe to be a credible person (i.e. Rick Santorum) HEARD him.
I'll leave it to other, more logically oriented people, to come to their own conclusions on this. From what I know of the character of McCain and that of Santorum, I believe Santorum. You go right on defending McCain if you want.
You may respond or not as you wish, but I'm finished with this discussion.
*I grant you the probability that this was merely an attempt to intimidate his opponents, but I think that is almost as bad as if actually BELIEVES it.
you are simply wrong on the hearsay rule
No, in fact, I am not. I am exactly right about it. But more to the point is the simple fact that we don't know what was said. This is unassailable fact.
And the sad part about this whole thing is that you somehow find statement of this fact exceptional.
Again, all of this just distracts from the point--is there a credible reason to think that McCain referred to opponents as racists
No, there is not. I've been around far too long and have seen far too many cases of information being passed around like this that turned out to be incorrect. Direct evidence of him saying it is credible. Someone saying he said it is not.
I don't agree with you that "C" is a credible possibility
You're wrong. It is.
What I do care about is you leaving the impression that there was no basis for Swatter (or anyone else for that matter) to believe that McCain did in fact refer to opponents of the Immigration bill as racists.
I did not attempt to leave that impression. I meant it to be stated directly. So let me do so now.
There is no basis for anyone to believe that McCain, in fact, referred to all opponents of the immigration bill as racists, unless they have a verified quote, such as a recording, or a personal recollection, of him saying it.
You may have reason to suspect it, but not reason to believe it is a fact, no.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2008 02:31 PMYou pretend like you know things, when you simply do not. You have not the least clue what constitutes hearsay in a court of law. I gave you a chance on that by telling you to go ask an attorney, but you just spouted on. Here's a clue, if someone is testifying on what they heard someone SAY (i.e. the words), that is admissible. If they are testifying on the TRUTH of what that person said or as to whether that person BELIEVED what they were saying, it is hearsay. As I said, go ask an attorney instead of embarrassing yourself with statements that are simply false.
Your zealousness in trying to "protect" McCain is really pretty pathetic. I don't think you've convinced anyone other than yourself.
Shrug. I have nothing prove. I already did.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2008 05:46 PM