John McCain for President
By Leverkuhn Posted in Archived — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The primaries have got well under way, and the time for sitting on the fence has passed. Until now I have played a watch dog / bulldog role here, calling fouls on all sides and fighting with the bullies from various camps. I have only been able to do that because I have been uncommitted myself, and in case anyone was wondering, that wasn’t an act. As recently as two weeks ago I honestly did not know who I would vote for, and even after I had made a decision I allowed myself to backtrack and delay announcing it publicly.
But now the moment has come, and as a registered Missouri voter and a Republican I face the prospect of having to make a difficult decision in Missouri’s GOP primary on March 7. [1] At this point none of the candidates is a clear favorite to win the nomination, and that probably will not change even after tonight’s Michigan primary. Moreover, none of them represent an ideal choice as far as I am concerned. All of the major candidates have flaws, and because of the vicious nature of this primary season we now know far too much about their shortcomings.
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity I will sum up what how I view the major strengths and weaknesses of this presidential field. Mike Huckabee inspires the religious conservatives, but antagonizes economic and fiscal conservatives. Rudy Giuliani is the pro-defense conservative with liberal social views and an even more liberal personal life. Mitt Romney has at times impressed me as poised, determined, and articulate, but in the end his obnoxious campaign tactics and inherent phoniness prevents me from supporting him. Fred Thompson is a genuine conservative with a practical, level-headed approach to policy-making that I find refreshing, but he has run his campaign with all the energy and enthusiasm of an actor auditioning for a role he knows he doesn’t want. John McCain is probably the most principled fiscal conservative in the race. On the other hand, he has staked out controversial positions on immigration (which I happen to agree with) and campaign finance reform (which I strongly disagree with) that have angered large parts of the conservative coalition. Last, and definitely least, we have Ron Paul, a muddle-headed lightweight enamored with the sound of his own voice. His political philosophy is a scatter-shot collection of inane nostrums (the gold standard, vaguely anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, etc.) that only sound credible in the insular world of the political Internet. The fact that he has managed to carry his traveling medicine show this far demonstrates both the power and the pitfalls of the “alternative media.”
Ultimately, it all comes down to this: The next president will have to deal with the continuing threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and a difficult diplomatic balancing act vis-à-vis our traditional allies in Europe and our political and military commitments in other parts of the world. The next president will also face an uncertain economic future. He may need to shepherd the American economy through a possible downturn. He will certainly have to address our oversized trade deficit and stop the decline of the dollar in international currency markets before it begins to affect domestic inflation rates and our government’s credit. Most importantly, the next president will face the difficult challenge of steering two foreign wars – Iraq and Afghanistan – toward a successful conclusion. To that end, the president we elect must be fiercely devoted to the goal of victory, not willing to settle for a face-saving withdrawal or a graceful exit from those countries. Either we will leave these two countries with stable, non-radicalized governments, or we will watch them drift into an era of anarchy and terror.
I believe the man for this job is John McCain. I do not agree with John McCain on every issue, and like many conservatives I have found his positions on certain issues (like campaign finance reform, or closing our detention facility in Guantanamo) infuriating. [2] He can be personally prickly and politically stubborn to a fault. At various times I have all but ruled out voting for him in the primaries, and I am sure people on this site can point to instances where I have said as much. But taking a long-term view of things, there is no candidate currently in the race who has the same level of experience, the same commitment to America’s national security, or the same sterling personal qualities as John McCain. Simply put, I would sleep better at night knowing John McCain was running the country than I would with any other candidate at the helm.
The point at which I began to seriously consider voting for him came back in February of 2007, when explained his decision to support President Bush’s troop surge by saying "I would rather lose an election than lose the war." [3] The cynics who doubt the sincerity of his words would do well to remember that back in February the war looked nearly lost, and many people believed Bush’s “surge” was only a desperate gambit to delay the inevitable.
McCain’s political courage a year ago helped to rescue the war-time policy of a president who he has openly fought with in the past, and who thwarted his own presidential ambitions back in 2000. In so doing McCain demonstrated the integrity of a man determined to do what he thinks is right regardless of the cost. In the past he has referred to his campaign as the “straight-talk express,” but perhaps we should call it the “Hard Truth Café.” Over and over again McCain has chosen to tell the American people, including the Republican Party, the things they don’t want to hear.
To the supply-siders:
Tax cuts are great, but we also need to balance the budget.
To the liberal anti-war crowd:
We made a lot of mistakes when entering the Iraq war, but leaving a chaotic mess behind us would be the greatest mistake of all.
To the hard core anti-immigration conservatives:
Yes, we need to beef up border security, but there’s no way in hell we’re moving 12 million Mexicans back across the border, so get used to that fact.
And to the Latino community:
America is a land of opportunity built by immigrants, but some of you broke the law getting here, and if you want to stay you’re going to have to make it right.
[No, these are not actual quotes, which is why I didn't put them in quotation marks. I am paraphrasing.]
I harbor no illusions about what a difficult sell such a candidate is going to be this November, but perhaps America has reached the point where we are willing to listen to the things we’ve refused to hear for so long. In other words, I hope that America is ready to listen to an adult talk to us like adults. If we are not, then more the pity for us, because this election matters as much as any in recent memory, and we really can not afford to get it wrong.
[1] http://www.mdn.org/2000/STORIES/GOP.HTM
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm
[3] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-26-mccain-cover_x.htm
when it's not about illegal immigration. I saw a video yesterday that showed McCain ignoring a valid question about his fatally flawed immigration position. When he "straight talked" the booing crowd on immigration saying he wouldn't want to deport a soldier's mother and then have to tell the soldier, he was using a tried and true liberal tactic; enter the Strawman! It was a great way to save face. How does the fact that yes some infitely small numbers of troops do indeed have mother's here illegally have anything to do with not enforcing valid immigration law? That's utterly ridiculous! I'm sure any soldier with a deep love for his mother could stop the deportation via media attack, so that Strawman defense is torched! How does closing Gitmo and bringing all those islamodevils to American soil help national security? Don't forget, once here they will have much easier access to the willing leftist, hate America first lawyers that love to engage in terrorism by litigation. I know you said you didn't like that, but you're overlooking a huge, gaping chink in his candidacy's existential future, but it appears that's not really important to you. America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
... that a multiplicity of exclamation points and sarcastic rhetorical questions does not make you any more convincing. On the other hand, it does make you all the more annoying, if that's what you were going for.
BTW, regardless of what you may think about McCain's "straw man" responsive, it's not nearly as deceptive as trying to make people believe that you're going to deport 12 million people from the country when you know full well that's never going to happen. The fact is that we have neither the material resources nor the political will to conduct a mass deportation, and in the absence of that option the only sensible course is to provide the illegals who are already here some way to earn their way toward legal status. It won't, and shouldn't be, a pain-free process for them, but keeping them as a permanent caste of undocumented workers would be both morally wrong and politically disastrous for this country.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I know one thing I can proudly take away from this banter with you, and that's that I was the ONLY conservative in the conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
McCain??? LOL!!!!!!!!!! Exclamations for your entertainment!!!
Tim Schieferecke
... I'd take away your exclamation key.
Of course, if I were your mother I'd be a woman, disappointed, and very irritated ... all the time. Fortunately I am none of those things.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
hurtful rhetorical questions. I know truth is sometimes very hard to face. With your unwarrented "traitor" comment towards harmless little ole me, might I suggest you do some meditation or something to deal with your issues?
Tim Schieferecke
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
... that's just my tag line. It appears at the end of all my posts automatically. It's a reference to an entertaining argument I had with Gamecock about secession (him for, me against). I think he's forgiven me since then, at least I hope he has, since he's a nice guy who doesn't overuse exclamation points.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
You can call it annoying when someone challenges your faulty premise with logic and oh so sweet truth. It's your right to be willfully ignorant. I'm sure you're a nice guy, and nothing personal but you've helped me create my own line in response to yours.
Ya can't fix stupid!
Tim Schieferecke
... whereas yours is plagiarized from the fourth best comedian on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I guess we've found something we can agree on!
P.S. You've also made me cognizant of the fact I overuse exclamation points! I still love cutting "rhetorical" questions that slice through ignorance like a knife through butter though!!!
Tim Schieferecke
You asked, so I'll answer. The way you get rid of 12 to 20+ million illegals is to cut off their reason for coming here in the first place and to remove the reason to stay. No more anchor babies! Absolutely no social entitlements! Employer verified employment with medieval punishment for violators! In short, let them deport themselves! Duhhh.
Tim Schieferecke
... involves ending birthright citizenship, reinstating the rack, and outlawing of Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, Social Security, and the value menu at Taco Bell. Gotcha. I'll take that into consideration.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
P.S. I love Taco Bell and would be willing to pay more for those tasty victuals if I knew the law was being enforced, MS13, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and any other ne'er do well didn't have such easy access to our blessed Nation and that yes illegals didn't have access to OUR Social(ist) programs too. I think you should quit while you're (like McCain) hopelessly behind, cuz I could keep doing this all night!!!
Tim Schieferecke
When our blessed, God guided Nation is threatened by conservative redefining rinos like McCain or Huckabee, or vaccuous neocommunists like any on the D side, brother I won't ever back down. I used to be a corrections officer, and I was almost always the first one through the door for a takedown cell relocation. I've had all kinds of stuff thrown at me, and, with my dear ole Ma been called every name in the book while there, and cold cocked a few times to boot, so being called "irritating" or "annoying" is no skin off my back! Oops, I couldn't help myself with the exclamation. Have a great night! (this I sincerely mean)
Tim Schieferecke
...for verifying legal status? This is a classic unfunded mandate, putting the onus on business owners for a task that our federal government should be responsible for. Why not create a path for legal status, hit 'em with fines and background checks, and issue a tamper-proof ID card that employers can easily verify? But there's a problem with that. The idea has been demonized as "amnesty".
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
We just don't give them the proper tools to deal with it. Even the government doesn't have the proper tools to deal with it, since they haven't bothered to create them. That's the status quo right there.
A "tamper-proof ID card" is just a gimmick. It was when W was talking about it. It is when McCain and Rudy are talking about it. It will have absolutely no effect on illegals and we will be dealing with the very same problem 10 or 20 years down the road.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If there were a widely available program that allowed employers to verify SSN#s given to simply verify said #'s validity, then you bet. Any employer who can't responsibly take this simple step in my opinion deserves to have the book thrown at them. What will hitting illegals with fines accomplish? 2 grand and you're a citizen? That sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. If you think we've got an illegal immigration problem now, just wait till your "fines" are implemented. I've got legitimate contractors that are friends. They don't use illegals and for this their businesses can't compete. Where do your loyalties lie?
Tim Schieferecke
...hearing Rush tell you what's in the bill, and I'll just ignore your question about where my loyalties lie, because if you want to go down the road of questioning my patriotism, your stay at Redstate will be a short one. You don't pay fines and then "become a citizen", and if you pay penalties and back taxes and go through background checks, then by definition it's not amnesty. The immigration problem boils down to several basic factors:
(1) the current law is flawed and unenforceable, so with no change in the law we are in a state of de facto amnesty,
(2) we have a "supply" problem in that we don't have an effective way of restricting the supply of illegals coming across our borders. McCain pledged that he would enforce the borders first and deport any illegals who've committed felonies,
(3) they're too many in this country for seeking a program to send all illegals back to their country of origin,
(4) we have a "demand" problem because employers give illegals work, which gives them all the more incentive to come here. It shouldn't be up to employers to investigate whether a person is here illegally or not, and it be unduly expensive for small business owners. If we just enforce the borders, then we've done nothing to dissuade their reason for coming here illegally in the first place. The simplest verification measure is a tamper-proof ID card and debilitating penalties for employers who fail to live up to that basic requirement.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
This is a moderated discussion forum. I'm a moderator. That means that the next statement:
You do not have the right to question anyone's loyalty here, particularly a Contributor's, and you will not do it again.
- is to be followed, in every particular.
Thanks in advance!
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I understand the loyalty clause and will not go there again, but how is it that tagline is allowed that says "Hang All Traitors" often appearing as the only statement in the comment field? I have reviewed the rules and I see where I've gone wrong. I make this pledge here and now that my comments will be completely on policy and past policy record. This is THE BEST site for conservative thought I've found, a 55555555555. I don't think there's another site out there that comes as close to being the proverbial townsquare of the politically engaged 1800's, and I shall endeavor to do my part to uphold its policy. Don't zap me bro!
Tim Schieferecke
I would encourage anyone new to this site to read the unofficial RedState Faq before posting and running roughshod over the rules as I have done. This site is much too valuable to be dragged in the mud by carelessly violating its rules. I am imposing a fine upon myself and making an immediate contribution to RedState and its financial needs, and I encourage everyone else that thinks this site is great to do the same.
Tim Schieferecke
:thumbing safety back on: No names written down, and thank you for not pushing this further.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled vigorous primary debate:
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hey Moe, after picking myself up off the floor from laughing, I think I might need some Depends next time I see one of those video clips of yours!!!
Tim Schieferecke
before hiring someone? Pleeeeeeease.
At least attempt to make a cogent argument.
The path for legal status begins outside our borders while you wait your turn like other law abiding immigrants (like my grandparents).
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
You just engaged in one of McCain's favorite deceptions which is to pretend that our only choices are either a path to citizenship or mass deportations. This is a classic dishonest rhetorical technique called the "false choice".
The truth is that not even Tom Tancredo is advocation the mass deportation of 12 million illegals and neither is anybody else who is playing a serious role on the enforcement side of the debate. The only people who keep setting up that strawman and kicking it down are the pro-amnesty (but call it something else) types like McCain.
In reality there are several other possibilities other than either giving them amnesty or mass deportations. We could let them stay legally but never give them citizenship. Or we could let them stay legally as guestworkers but at somepoint in the future require them to go home. Or we could, as Fred Thompsen has advocated (along with Tancredo, FAIR, NumbersUSA and almost everybody else who is serous on the enforcement side of the debate) set-up a vigorous internal enforcement regime that deprived them of jobs by punishing the dishonest employers who hired them. When the jobs dried up, vast numbers of them could be expected to self-deport.
Being a Senator from Arizona, John McCain should already be aware of this "attrition through enforcement" approach because as a result of their new State law it has been widely reported in Arizona newspapers that illegals were and are self-deporting in large numbers and it began even before the law went into effect.
I didn't realize you were also North Carolina. As you know, McCain remains my second choice behind Fred. I crossed the border today to go to a Thompson rally. I was joking there about my worthless North Carolina vote.
I was being interviewed and the reporter asked why I came to the rally. I said, well I don't want to wait until they all come back for the critical NC primary, which I think is just after the general election this year.
absentee
I may head down to SC to cover some of the McCain campaign this weekend. Hope you enjoyed your trip.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I live about a quarter mile from the border. I'm a Charlotte resident like Gamecock.
Tomorrow I'm going to a McCain event. My boss and my democrat coworker are going with me.
She's gone from working on Hillary's campaign down here to 90% sure she's going to cross over and vote for McCain.
Guess what her big issue is?
absentee
It figures that the very night I come out in support of McCain I'd also have to congratulate the Romney camp on their guy winning Michigan (if indeed the early numbers hold up).
OK, I can be graceful. Congrats guys. You could have quit after New Hampshire, but you stuck with it and now your guy got the win he really needed. Good for you.
You're still gonna lose, though.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
McCain will use a machine gun.
I'm sitting it out if McCain is the nominee. I'd rather rebuild than have to defend this dolt.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
McCain is a dolt. And I don't think he can stab us in the back, because he really has never promised to do anything for us. It's not like it's going to be a surprise when he raises our taxes, and sends a new Amenesty bill to the Congress.
you basically have decided to put Hillary Clinton in the White House. Every time we move left to woo the elusive center, we lose elections. It's quite possible that this country is headed for a recession. With a McCain Presidency, you get Federal Worker retraining programs and a soft approach to Immigration. We live in a global economy. A recession here will also be felt in Mexico. The Senator says he gets it now, that we need to secure the border first. How exactly does he plan to do this? He articulates no plan for said securing of the borders. As the global economy slows, millions of illegal immigrants will pour across the border for free health care, free education, and below minimum wage jobs. Perhaps we can't round up the 12 million illegals (or are we Republicans calling them “undocumented workers” now?), but we can take away their incentive to stay here through tough enforcement against those who hire them. And what does a McCain Presidency and a Democratic House and Senate mean? When is the last time the Senator co-sponsored a bill with a Republican. If the split in the Senate is close, and some issue comes down to a tie, with which side will Vice-President Lieberman vote. I have visions of a President McCain standing in the White House press room saying "The Vice-President is his own man, a man of deep conscious, who today exercised his constitutional duties in the manner he felt was best. Even though he voted with my opponents, I have to support his decision. I continue to be proud of the bipartisanship my Administration has championed during my term."
I respect your decision, especially since you obviously were very deliberative in reaching it, but I'm baffled how someone who sees himself as a conservative can see a McCain Presidency as philosophically viable.
I don't know. I'm just dejected. Would the last true conservative please turn out the light on the way out? It’s the last legal 75 Watt one we have.
First, McCain actually beats Clinton in most of the recent polls. [1] He's also the only Republican who does match up well against her. Although that's not to say that this should be our only concern.
Second, it's simply a myth that we can make all the illegals, or even most of them, go away if we just crack down on their employers. To be sure, many big companies like Wal-Mart and Tyson Chicken have made a practice of hiring illegals in spite of the laws against it. To start with, many of their employers don't even know their employees are illegal. Lots of them have fake ID's, and asking every shopkeeper, farmer, and housewife in America to act like a part time INS officer is an obviously unworkable solution. It's also totally unfair. The government created the problem by ignoring the border problem for so long, so to ask private employers to clean up the government's mess is to shift responsibility. It's also not a very conservative idea, if you ask me.
Lastly, thank you for respecting my decision. I also respect you, and I will certainly vote for your favorite candidate (whoever that might be) should he win the nomination.
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
many big companies like Wal-Mart and Tyson Chicken have made a practice of hiring illegals in spite of the laws against it
The enforcement action dealing with Wal-Mart was not about Wal-Mart employees... it was about janitorial contractors that had illegals on their payroll. So lets not start accusing them of "making a practice of hiring illegals."
You also misrepresent the enforcement argument. Nobody (as far as I know) believes that strict enforcement is possible with the current eligibility verification framework. It would certainly be possible to build a decent verification system that would make those render all those fake IDs and stolen SSNs worthless. All the data is already out there, the system just needs to be built. There's no desire in Washington to actually do anything here, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
... Wal-mart has no idea what its sub-contractors are doing.
In any event, in the sentence you quote I was conceding a point that the other blogger had made. So your rebuttal isn't really germane to my argument.
As for the super-duper verification system you mention, I say that's great. I'd love to see it built. But tell me, which candidate has such a system in his back pocket ready to whip out the moment he enters the White House. Yeah ... that's what I thought. Pardon me if I sound like a Luddite, but I don't think there's a simple technological answer to this problem, because for every new tech application we put in place there's always some new trick or gadget the guys breaking the law can use. No, for the most part I think the solution to this problem is going to be surprisingly low-tech: more bodies, more trucks, and more miles of fence on the border.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
So you are conceding the Wal-Mart point. Wal-Mart doesn't make a practice of hiring illegals. It doesn't affect your argument any, but I think Wal-Mart gets ripped on enough that we don't need to pile on them for no good reason. I'm still ticked about that enforcement action against them. Employers should not be held responsible for the employees hired by their vendors. That is just crazy. It isn't their responsibility. And ICE wouldn't have done it except they wanted to extort some cash out of Wal-Mart so they could make a splash in the headlines. Truly pathetic. That is government at its worst.
As for verification... The "high tech" solution is building a decent database that combines data the Feds already have scattered in different databases with data the States already have in their driver's license databases. There's not going to be some gadget or trick that is going to neutralize a database.
For example: Fake IDs don't work on the local cops. There's a reason for that. Every police car has immediate access to the state's DL database, so no matter how good the card looks, it won't do you a bit of good once the cop plugs the information into his computer. We simply need to handle employment eligibility verification the same way.
Which candidates are proposing this? Who knows? Nobody has gotten that specific at this point, though Fred does talk about electronic verification in his plan.
I do know who has shown that he isn't particularly interested in enforcement, though. And I do know who wants a guest worker program that will become the next enforcement nightmare down the road.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Verification is possible for those employers who are serious about it.
Our office manager checks all new hire SS numbers ... and when she catches illegals (and she does), she sends them packing.
The current system really does work if it's used properly.
The government needs to get serious about punishing employers who hire illegals.
It only does a SSN/Name match. It does not verify identity at all. If you are using your friends name and SSN, you pass. If you are using a stolen SSN/name pair, you pass. There's a page of regulations concerning its use. You can't use it on existing employees. You can't use it to screen prospective employees. There is an appeal process. And of course it is optional.
The current electronic verification system is better than nothing, but not much.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You must be missing a step. The system works for us just fine ... and we can use it for existing employees. Furthermore, when someone is promoted, we do a thorough background check. If they've J-walked, we'll know about it.
Are you sure you're current on the law?
You are in violation of the law if you use it on existing employees. There's a whole bunch of regulations you agree to when you use that system, and that is one of them. You have a 3 day window after you offer them a position to run them through the system. You cannot use it at all until you give them a job offer. You must post notices that the system is being used. And all it does is a SSN/Name match, so if they are using a matched pair, it won't get flagged.
Background checks are not conducted by the government and are a whole separate issue.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am always curious when these arguments are made: First, we can't deport 12 million (I agree with that). Second, we can't have workplace enforcement or deny any benefits (I don't agree with that). But, let's say hypothetically that the solution is to give some status to ALL of the illegals who are here now. Do you plan to do anything about the next 12-15 million illegals who come here? Would you deport them? Would you enforce workplace rules or deny benefits to end the magnet that brings illegals here? In short, will you EVER enforce immigration laws or do you simply want an open border? If you argue that NO enforcement will work now, aren't you also saying that enforcement will NEVER work? Isn't that basically a position that if someone gets into the U.S. he gets to stay forever?
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
... I just said that workplace enforcement alone won't solve the problem. Indeed, for the great majority of the 12 million (or more) illegals already here there probably is no solution. You may not like to hear this, but many/most of those people are likely here to stay.
Don't get me wrong. Some of them will go home if we enforce our laws better. The transient laborers can probably be made to leave, but the ones who've been here for five, ten, or fifteen years likely will stay no matter what we do. They have jobs, property, fake IDs (if needed), and many have American-born children, spouses, in-laws, and extended families. In other words, a large number of them have planted deep roots in this country, and they aren't going anywhere.
My proposal is that we first keep the problem from getting worse by beefing up border security. Bush's program to put National Guardsmen on the border has already born fruit, so we know better border security is possible. Next we should give the ones already here, the ones who've put down roots, the chance to earn legal status and/or citizenship. Make them pay a fine, make them register with the INS, and make them pay taxes. Make sure they know if they skip town to avoid medical bills they'll lose the chance to become legal. In other words, make them pay their dues, but give them a reason to want to pay them.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
After we beef up the border and more aliens still get here because no system is perfect, WILL YOU EVER enforce the immigration laws? Are you ever in favor of deporting illegals or cutting off benefits? What you describe above is a recipe for another amnesty in 15 years because no net will be perfect. "Beef up the border" without real enforcement creates another generation of "ones who have put down roots." AS I suspected, the argument that "we can't enforce" is really "we never will enforce." That's why no one trusts McCain. He will never enforce immigration laws, even prospectively.
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
... yes, I favor enforcing our immigration laws. I believe that the best way to do that is through better border security. No, no border security program is perfect, but the first and best line of defense is at the border.
I am also in favor of workplace enforcement, although I caution you that you can only expect limited results from that approach, especially if you expect private employers to do most of the enforcement work. Remember, when we talk about illegal workers we're talking about a vast and diverse group of people. Many are migrant agricultural workers traveling from farm to farm picking fruit and vegetables and doing other kinds of unskilled labor. Do you really expect every farmer to conduct a background check before hiring a day laborer to pick fruit? Or how about the wealthy American housewife who hires a Mexican maid or gardener? Do you expect her to ask for documentation or record SS numbers? Maybe you think these things will actually happen, but my friend, you might as well wish in one hand and spit in the other. You can pass all the laws you want, but once you get around to trying to enforce them you have to reckon with the innate intransigence of the American people who just don't like government meddling in their affairs.
BTW, keep in mind that I am speaking for myself here, not necessarily McCain. I know that McCain supported President Bush's guest worker program, which I also supported, but since that failed to win approval from Congress it's more or less a moot point. It remains to be seen what solution John McCain would come up with if he were to win the White House. Because I'm not running for office I can afford to be a little more open and a little more specific about the kind of reform I'd like to see. But don't hold my opinions against him.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Your proposal has a hole in it that is always addressed by Romney, and was also addressed by Thompson during the last debate.
"Next we should give the ones already here, the ones who've put down roots, the chance to earn legal status and/or citizenship. Make them pay a fine, make them register with the INS, and make them pay taxes. Make sure they know if they skip town to avoid medical bills they'll lose the chance to become legal. In other words, make them pay their dues, but give them a reason to want to pay them."
No matter how you slice it, it has two gigantic problems. First, it essentially rewards those who broke the law to come or remain here by granting them a place in the line, right here in the good old US of A. If that isn't being placed at the head of the line, I don't know what is. Other than the monetary fine, you're just suggesting that they continue with business as usual like everybody else, and they get to stay in the US, which is why they came here illegally in the first place.
Second, such a policy would obviously be an encouragement for others to continue to try to circumvent our immigration laws, just as our last round of amnesty in the '80s was. And that was what they called it then.
I wouldn't suggest that we try to round up and deport everybody, but I would suggest that those that catch our eye should be fair game. I would also suggest that those who leave willingly be allowed to apply for re-entry with no prejudice. But they would have to follow the same procedure as everybody else. Like you (I think), I'm willing to see what happens.
Off-topic: Congratulations on your BCS Championship Team. They were very impressive.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
... we here in Cajun country are still glowing over our victory. It's nice of you to mention it.
As for the "gaping" holes supposedly present in my proposal, don't imagine that I haven't already considered those points many times. Yes, you could look at this sort of policy as "rewarding" law-breaking. On the other hand, you'd be just as correct to say that it rewards only those illegal immigrants who actually want to make amends for the way they entered the country. In that sense it is not crime, but rather contrition, which is being rewarded.
I also don't think that such a policy would encourage any more illegal immigrants to enter this country than are already coming here. In the first case, we could easily impose a cut off date for the legalization program which denies any applicants after, let's say, a year's time.
Second, a beefed up border security program would go a long way toward preventing any new influx of illegals. We have already seen the amazing effect that Bush's deployment of National Guard troops to the border has had, [1] and this has come from a relatively small contingent of troops, with no training for this kind of work, who have performed almost entirely in a back-up capacity. Imagine what 2,000 or 3,000 more trained border guards could accomplish.
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0215/p01s02-ussc.html
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
so I was a bit disappointed that we didn't meet in that bowl game, especially since we beat Arkansas handily in the Cotton Bowl. Now that you've moved to Missouri, enjoy the winter. (^.^) I'm glad to see you're posting again. Maybe I had just missed your blogs.
No reason we can't have differing opinions about the importance of the problems with McCain's approach. I have no doubt you considered all those things. But if you read our own comment again, you'll see that we don't disagree on everything.
"Yes, you could look at this sort of policy as "rewarding" law-breaking. On the other hand, you'd be just as correct to say that it rewards only those illegal immigrants who actually want to make amends for the way they entered the country. In that sense it is not crime, but rather contrition, which is being rewarded."
Rewarding law-breaking, or rewarding contrition, we agree that it's a reward being granted to people who have taken it upon themselves to set immigration policy for the United States. (Funny, nobody ever thinks about that.) The reward, of course, is to let them continue to benefit from their original misbehavior, at the expense of legal taxpayers of all kinds and at the expense of those people whom they have crowded in front of. So we both agree that McCain's plan rewards illegal immigrants.
But it isn't their contrition that's being rewarded; they're being rewarded for simply being here and not breaking further laws. You and I do that every day, and we get no reward at all.
"I also don't think that such a policy would encourage any more illegal immigrants to enter this country than are already coming here. In the first case, we could easily impose a cut off date for the legalization program which denies any applicants after, let's say, a year's time."
Here, we disagree. By allowing the illegals to stay, a message is sent that the US isn't really serious about enforcing its immigration laws. As for a cutoff date, I think there was one included in the last round of amnesty. You can see how effective that was. It isn't the fact that we have created a new rule. It's the fact that we didn't enforce our old rules that teaches the lesson and encourages further border incursions.
It's just like any other human behavior. If you tell your kids that they've broken a rule at home yet you let them enjoy the fruits of their misbehavior, they have no incentive to behave the next time. But if you take away their benefit, it won't take too many times before they realize you mean business. And you don't have to punish all the kids, either. Punishment for one is understood by the others, too, if it's consistent and sure.
"Second, a beefed up border security program would go a long way toward preventing any new influx of illegals....Imagine what 2,000 or 3,000 more trained border guards could accomplish."
Again, we agree. I checked the link; I wish there were a date on that story. But the fact is, the National Guard troops are not really doing any enforcement at all, and the very bad guys (the coyotes) have figured this out. "With their limited support roles (they can't apprehend nor arrest individuals), they are freeing border patrol agents from routine duties, such as fence-building and repair, so they can spend more time nabbing illegal infiltrators.... (The media can no longer identify the soldiers because border patrol intelligence officers have learned that smugglers have placed a $30,000 to $50,000 bounty on their heads.) "
According to the story, the Yuma Sector has a 125-mile long border. Although apprehensions are down, they are still stopping 36,500 people annually. We don't know how many are getting through, and that's over a relatively short 125-mile stretch.
Why mention this? Because although McCain pays lip service to border security, he has been dismissive of the idea of a physical fence. A physical barrier has the advantage of being permanent. It won't go away just because the President or a Governor decides to re-deploy it.
My problem with using this as an argument to favor McCain is that all the others have similar or more stringent plans, and Romney and Thompson are definitely more committed to the idea of national security combined with legal immigration and true border security than is McCain.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
There are 2 liberals that the main stream media are trying very hard to convince conservatives should be our guys.
1. John McCain
2. Mike Huckabee
If either one of these guys wins the nomination I will be voting for whoever the democrat happens to be. Conservatism is what is at stake in this election. I am a conservative first and that is where my loyalties lie. Think I'm alone here? There are legions of conservatives just like me who would stay home or vote democrat before handing over our party to the RINO's. The faults with McCain and Huckabee are too numerous to list but neither one is a conservative and there are legions of us that are NOT being fooled by their sharades.
So be smug and be warned, they cannot win and will not win.
I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole and Bush II. I will never vote for McCain. And I don't care who the opponent is. I will just vote for other offices and skip POTUS. I don't fear a principled loss. Study 1964, 1966 and the rise of Reagan. Also, 1992 led to 1994. A principled loss can produce future victories. For me, it was over with McCain-Feingold and McCain's abridgement of free speech. The Gang of 14 stopping the work to change the courts only made it worse. I'd like to replace him in the Senate with a conservative from Arizona. I get your media point. I was asking the post one or two above me (who tried to defend McCain's immigration position) if he wasn't arguing for never enforcing the immigration law.
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can some day, let's get to work."
Barry Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention
My family, like virtually everybody else's on this site has won the life lottery simply by being born in this blessed land of ours. That said, nothing in life ever comes without responsibility. Leverkuhn, we are the government, every last one of us. Poor leadership is a problem solved by an involved and passionate citizenry. It is our duty to correct what's wrong and make it right. God Bless America!
Go Fred!
Tim Schieferecke
Second, it's simply a myth that we can make all the illegals, or even most of them, go away if we just crack down on their employers.
This is just total BS...directly from the most denigrating set of talking points ever used by a supposed Republican in a campaign. It's the talk of the weak, the spineless and of losers. It screams "I can't!" when the real message we should take from McCain on this is "I won't."
Why doesn't he just come out and say what he really intends to do? Why does he hide behind straw men, or in his usage, straw mothers?
Nobody can prove or disprove the effectiveness of any attrition by enforcement plan until well after it's been put in place. We haven't even tried. And a President John McCain won't try because he's made it quite clear by his actions that he doesn't care what long-term fallout there might be. What I see is an in your face tough guy when it comes to being militaristic who is determined to turn his back when it comes to doing what is right for today's American child.
McCain has no concern that his desire may lead to my daughter, all today's American Children born to American citizens, inheriting a nation with 80 million or so unassimilated ethnics in diaspora, maintaining their usual foreign allegiances (as Jefferson predicted).
How do I know he doesn't care about my kid? Because he won't discuss this valid concern, and instead bandies about absurd charges of bigotry or uses other word-weapons of political correctness in order to stifle debate. If he had nothing to hide on this, he'd be the same-up front guy on this that makes you admire him for his foreign policy positions.
Considering his feigned weakness over our ability to compel illegal aliens to return to their homelands, I find it quite curious that John McCain was for "the surge" and was willing to give it time to work on behalf of the Iraqi peoples. What's his aversion to allowing the same sort of leeway regarding a critical problem for American citizens? (I know the answer to that, but I'd get booted for using the language I'd like to use in reference to his obvious disdain people who oppose his lack of attachment to conservative continuity, custom and convention. Let's just say that I'd address him pretty much in the same vein of what he said to Senator Cornyn when Cornyn raised the same kind of points.)
What we have done is, for more than two decades, ignored the rule of law at the behest of a greedy few business beneficiaries and created a problem born of "incentive by neglect." It would seem, and initial (albeit inconclusive) signs indicate, that we would likely be successful over time were we to actually create a situation of "disincentive by attention." Further, if government has become so separate from The People that businesses made up of Americans can't take some role in fixing this, then what have we become?
There is plenty of historic precedent for our getting things like this done. We went from last in space to the moon in less than a decade. We built the Panama Canal. We saved Europe...twice. Our ability to unite within the fabric of our historic cultural commonalities, using the ethical standards our ancestors forged as prescriptive toward such challenges is backed by a lot of grit and deed. When our leaders reference history and light the path, there really isn't much...if anything...we can't do.
Where a conservative American mind naturally has pause is in areas in which we do not have historical models as guides: There is no precedent for the size, nature and single source culture of today's mass immigration experience. Since it may affect specifically the nature of who we are, and what cultural and historic prescriptions we follow in the future, the bar...the standard proving a safe path...must be set very high for us to continue in this direction.
So, my challenge for the McCainiacs is this: Prove to me that giving pathways to citizenship, followed by family reunification, will not result in intractable diasporas. Prove that the changes won't shift this nation toward the leftism and despotism that hallmark the governments from where most current migrants come. Prove that it won't mean that I leave to my child an America made less than that which my parents entrusted to me on her behalf. Prove it before you impose upon her any further.
For that is my interest. My sole interest. And I have no respect for any man who would begrudge me for it, or use culturally Marxist epithets against me, as McCain is so prone to do. This is why there is no circumstance on this side of hades that would ever compel me to vote for John McCain. None.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
There is more than enough reasons to not vote for McCain in the first three links (and there are six, which doesn't even include the ANWAR vote). Unfortunately, Mr. McCain abandons us every time he is needed.
Perhaps SecDef, never POTUS.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
... and my mind is unchanged. Listen, I've been over these candidates' records as much as anybody. I could find plenty of reasons to vote against all of them. But I've got to choose a horse or stay out of the race. So I've picked a horse.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Mr McCain has painted a vision where;
-Foreign fighters are brought to our soil and receive Constitutional Rights
-Illegal behavior is rewarded with citizenship, vitiating the legal process
-Second Amendment Rights are depleted
- Taxes continue to increase without relief and without reduction apportioned to the way they are paid
-America becomes more dependant on foreign oil
-Trial lawyers vis-a-vis proposals such as the PBoR further destroy our healthcare system
-The extra-Constitutional blocking of judges is aided and abetted by despicable Congressional vote brokers
While I also appreciate his support for the "surge" his framing in a parochial political context was deplorable.
I can't think of any other major candidate with a more disqualifying list of sins.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
It's not because I agree with the original premise though. I don't want to see this thread fall off, and I would encourage anyone else that thinks it's been great fun and a learning experience to do the same. I've got to go to bed now with visions of Reagan dancing in my little head. America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
You are just interpreting your observation here through the lens of Thompson's opponents.
"Fred Thompson is a genuine conservative with a practical, level-headed approach to policy-making that I find refreshing, but he has run his campaign with all the energy and enthusiasm of an actor auditioning for a role he knows he doesn’t want."
How about this:
Fred Thompson has husbanded his resources to use them in forums where he can make a difference. He doesn't have the personal fortune of a Romney, he doesn't even have the personal fortune of a McCain, he hasn't been campaigning for a year like Rudy, he doesn't have a built-in cheering section like Huckabee does, and he doesn't have the anti-Federal Reserve, anti-income tax, isolationist, survivalist, pro-gold standard vote wrapped up either (as does HWMNBN). He just has a 'practical, level-headed approach to policy-making' and 'is a genuine conservative.' While others were spending money in NH and Michigan, states where his resources would have been wasted, he took his message to Iowa (finished third after only two weeks of campaigning) and is now concentrating on South Carolina, where he should give both Huckabee and McCain a tough fight.
He has written positions on the major issues of the day, and as a conservative, I agree with them and you do, too. That's why he is the man you should vote for.
If he didn't want the role, why did he quit his day job to run?
"I would sleep better at night knowing John McCain was running the country than I would with any other candidate at the helm."
I didn't like it when McCain called everybody who disagreed with him on illegal immigration "bigots." Now, he agrees with the bigots, sort of. Whom will he agree with next? Kennedy? Feingold? LULAC? I'd rather have somebody of a bit more even temperament in charge. Will he deal with the Saudis and our not-so-steady allies the same way? Call them names?
And his opinions and policies on illegal immigration, campaign laws, the Gang of 14, and even water-boarding mortal enemies don't sit right with me. He would be a profoundly flawed candidate for the Republicans.
"To the supply-siders:
Tax cuts are great, but we also need to balance the budget."
OK. Let's balance the budget by cutting tax rates to the optimum rate for revenue collection, while cutting spending too, as you say you'll do. Make the Bush rate cuts permanent, so business won't be wondering "Will they or won't they?" and companies can go ahead with expansion plans. But you don't actually believe that lower rates result in higher revenues, do you, Mr. McCain?
"To the hard core anti-immigration conservatives:
Yes, we need to beef up border security, but there’s no way in hell we’re moving 12 million Mexicans back across the border, so get used to that fact."
That isn't necessary, and it's a straw man argument anyway. Nobody sane is calling for that. Fred Thompson's plan encourages them to return on their own, but it doesn't allow them to stay or encourage more to come.
"And to the Latino community:
America is a land of opportunity built by immigrants, but some of you broke the law getting here, and if you want to stay you’re going to have to make it right."
But the only way they can make it "right" is to go home and start fresh.
"I hope that America is ready to listen to an adult talk to us like adults. "
If they are, they'll be listening to Fred Thompson, not to John McCain.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill
McCain-Feingold speech supression ..err, campaign finance
voted against the Bush tax cuts twice
thinks dunking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in water violats his civil rights
was prepared to sell out Roberts and Alito with Gang of 14
Sorry folks. This is not the record of a conservative.
Go Mitt go!!!!
Happy to have you on the Straight Talk Express and happy to have your vote in MO (since mine won't matter in NC).
But more than that, thanks for a good diary with good reasoning and without a lot of name calling and attacks. Recommended for that reason.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard