If I were advising John McCain
or any other candidate for that matter
By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If, for some absurd reason, John McCain decided to call me and ask me to be one of his campaign advisers, what would be the first thing I'd suggest at this stage of the campaign? Well, I'll tell you.
Read on...
In addition to campaigning hard in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, I would advise him to try to win over talk radio. It's a tall task, but well worth doing.
For the first step, I would recommend arranging an hour or three on Rush Limbaugh, then do the same on Hannity, Medved, Beck, Hewitt, Ingraham, Bennett, Prager, Levin, O'Reilly, Savage, Michael Reagan, Brian and the Judge, Dr. Laura, etc. He should put himself front and center in front of all their listening audiences and make the case that he would be the best choice for president. It'll be hard and excruciating work, but I'm convinced that when these audiences get a second look at John McCain, a fair number will be just fine by him. In many cases, he'll get treated harshly and unfairly, but he should do it anyway. Why? Because I believe, if he works at it, the people will better see the man for who he is.
When he's done with that, he should run through that cycle one more time. In concert with that endeavor, John McCain should get in contact with major local talk radio shows in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan, and run through the same process. After that, if he has a few spare moments, perhaps he can spend a few minutes with Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Randi Rhodes, just for the heck of it. After all, if he gets nominated, then the Left should also hear his case.
Why would I propose this? Because talk radio is that influential, and I'm speaking from personal experience. In 2000, while driving here and there for both business and pleasure, it was Limbaugh and Reagan and Medved who helped convince me that George W. Bush was a better candidate than McCain. Quite frankly, McCain did poorly on talk radio back then. He was defensive and impatient, treating his time on the air as a nuisance instead of an opportunity. The listening audience heard all of that, not to mention the last words of the hosts and their supportive callers, all of which were invariably negative on McCain. He looked good on television and in print media, but he sounded so bad on talk radio, so his talk radio appearances engendered a sense of distrust, and with a Rove-engineered campaign in full throttle, the rest was history.
Anyway, those are my two cents. This advice should work just as well for Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson. The latter two already have an inkling, and I hear their voices aplenty on talk radio, and I think the better of Thompson and Giuliani for their efforts. If a candidate really wants to win, talk radio is a one place where he must go.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Media Conspiracy Refuses to Cover Almost 30,000 votes for Ron Paul — Comments (15) »
If I were advising John McCain 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Not a chance. Rush would never invite, tolerate, or allow John McCain to appear on his show. To do so, would destroy the years of negativity that Rush has built up against McCain.
I don't agree with McCain all the time but he's not as bad as Rush makes him out to be. If you listen to Rush, McCain is the root of all evil in the world. He rarely gives McCain any credit for anything, much less the improved situation on the ground in Iraq, where McCain does deserve credit.
McCain going on there and making some sense -- any sense -- would be incredibly painful for Rush to hear. He wouldn't have it. I wouldn't hold my breath.
he might not want to be left out because it could make him look spiteful
(i say "might" - your point is a good one)
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Going on radio would help with conservatives but he should stay away from Hugh Hewitt. Hugh is just a Mitt Flip Flopper Romney mouthpiece.
IMWITHMCCAIN
He'd be treated harshly? Yes. Unfairly. Nope. He'd have earned every bit of the scorn he'd receive. But yes, he should do talk radio like you suggest. Hearing him have lie about the amnesty bill, and try to defend the gang of 14 debacle and McCain-Feingold will remind everyone why they dislike him so much.
Oh, and there was an immigration bill, not an amnesty bill. Words mean things, which is a fact that too many conservatives seem to forget when it comes to this issue.
Let's see, from the page you linked:
"an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period"
That sure seems to describe portions of the bill, doesn't it? And if you're going to try and argue that because the illegals would have to pay some back taxes and a fine it disqualifies it, it doesn't. That just makes it a qualified amnesty. from later in the same link:
"Amnesty was used for a similar purpose at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. In 1974, President Ford attempted reconciliation by declaring a conditional amnesty for those who had evaded the draft or deserted the armed forces. The terms of the amnesty required two years of public service (the length of a draft term), and gave evaders and deserters only five months to return to the fold. Many of those whom the amnesty was designed to benefit were dissatisfied, viewing the required service as punishment."
So from that it's clear that merely attaching conditions and requirements to it doesn't make it not an amnesty.
Look, it's the other side that debates what the meaning of the word "is" is. Let's not have our side pull Clintonian crap like that.
To stay here, they would have been required to pay fines and back taxes. That's why it's not amnesty, no matter how times you and others say it.
One other thing, the person pulling the "Clintonian crap" is you, my friend, for redefining a word to mean something that isn't, then using it to demonize your political opponents. Such an act is quintessentially Clintonian.
But you aren't doing him any favors with this "look up the definition of amnesty" junk. Those who consider his proposal amnesty could just as easily tell you to "look up the definition of punishment."
Paying an optional fee to be given a work visa that you can't normally buy at any price, and if you could buy it, would cost much, much more than you are being asked to pay, is not a punishment. It's a bonus. People outside the US who never came here illegally would LOVE to get in on this "punishment," but they would be ineligible because they didn't break the law here first. That should be your first clue that it isn't really any kind of punishment.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There was no "optional fee" in the immigration bill. To get legal status, illegals would have been required to pay thousands in fines and back taxes. If it were amnesty, they would received a full pardon with no penalities, free to go about their business.
Look, I'm sorry that you're unwilling to use words accurately, but English is the language of this nation and I'd rather not see folks abuse it, especially when such abuse comes from the conservative fact-based community.
Hmmm
Looks? Check
Quacks? Check
Sh*ts? Check
It's a duck!
It's amnesty for a nominal fee! Get it while it's hot! Everything must go!
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
And I mean the language, not the piling on of Mr First Amendment_For_Me_But_Not_For_Thee.
You could have used, for example....
P*ops? Check
Cr*ps? Check
Cl*ntons? Check
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
and paying thousands of dollars to obtain legal status is not amnesty, then the immigration bill doesn't equal duck.
Don't you see what you guys are doing? It's the exact same thing that liberals do when they call GOPers fascists. Let's be consistent and apply the same higher standards here. If you want to say that the cost is too low, fine, then that's a point worthy of discussion, but using false labels and stating them as fact should be beneath this community.
One other thing. I truly don't have a strong opinion on the immigration bill, and at best I was mildly in favor of it, mainly because if a Democrat gets elected, we will have no bill for another four or eight years and no real border enforcement.
rather than using vague terms.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
It's a "pay this if you want a gold card" fee, not a "pay this unless you want to go to prison fee." So it is optional. And well worth the small price they are asking, since if we offered this deal overseas people would be standing in line for weeks outside our embassies to get in on it.
People from China routinely pay 5 figures to get smuggled into this country illegally in horrible and life-threatening conditions and are then forced to work off their debt at sweat shops (and worse) once they get here. How much do you think an actual work visa would be worth to these people?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you stay and seek legal status, you must pay
Sort of like if I want to fish I have to pay for a fishing license... or if I want to drive I have to pay for a driver's license (and insurance)... or if I want to eat a pizza I have to pay for it... Who knew I was being "punished" for all those activities. This really gives "punishment" a whole new definition, that's for sure.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
(1) If it is true that "they" are all just good-hearted types coming here to work hard, (commit document fraud and other assorted felonies and misdemeanors related to their immigration status), do The Jobs Americans Won't Do(tm) at depressed wages, and provide a better life for their families back home -- then they are poor.
(2) Consequently, they do not have any money to pay back-taxes. But, being poor, they really owe no back taxes. "Paying" back taxes actually means "filing the paperwork to get their Earned Income (Refundable) Tax Credit". In other words, *I* get to pay *them* for the privilege of having them in my country illegally, breaking immigration and employment laws, for N years.
(3) Fines: again, no $$. So, what happens if they don't pay? We Can't Deport Them All(tm). But now, they each have a green (or gold) card.
Hmm: no actualy penalties, plus a big reward (what's the going rate for a forged green card? Then how much is a valid one worth?) plus EITC back-pay. What a deal!
If that ain't amnesty, I'm a monkey's uncle.
Of course those freeloaders would and should get deported.
Charles, it is simply folly to suggest that We Cannot Deport Them All™ now but that we're going to DEPORT! the people who have the least ability to pay a fine equivalent to the insurance surcharge on my car for a minor accident 2-years ago.
There. Will. Be. No. Fine. Period.
You know this. Right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"amnesty (ăm'nəstē), in law, exemption from prosecution for criminal action. It signifies forgiveness and the forgetting of past actions. Amnesties are usually extended to a group of persons during a period of prolonged disorder or insurrection."
Hmmm, "exemption from prosecution for criminal action," and "forgiveness and the forgetting of past actions."
Sounds just like the proposal John McCain was trying to force down everyone's neck last year.
I don't think you help your cause much with this line of argument. Might want to find another online dictionary to make your case. Either that or you can just admit your guy is wrong on this issue.
That he's claimed it wasn't amnesty, which would only be true if you're using Clintonian doublespeak.
He needs to fix some of his positions before he does this or he will get ripped to shreds. He's already done plenty to fix his position on immigration with his belated realization that enforcement must come first. What hasn't he defused? Tax cuts (which are a deep wound he just reopened last week) and CFR.
Going on those shows would be a great idea... if he was able to offer something people want to hear. If it's just more "Look, I'm right and you guys are all wrong," it isn't going to help him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"For the first step, I would recommend arranging an hour or three on Rush Limbaugh, then do the same on Hannity, Medved, Beck, Hewitt, Ingraham, Bennett, Prager, Levin, O'Reilly, Savage, Michael Reagan, Brian and the Judge, Dr. Laura, etc. He should put himself front and center in front of all their listening audiences and make the case that he would be the best choice for president. It'll be hard and excruciating work, but I'm convinced that when these audiences get a second look at John McCain, a fair number will be just fine by him. In many cases, he'll get treated harshly and unfairly, but he should do it anyway. Why? Because I believe, if he works at it, the people will better see the man for who he is."
I have no doubt about that. And next fall, we'll make sure America is listening.
I support McCain and do believe he will be the nominee. I would, however, love to see him do it without catering to that bunch - most of the people on your right-winger list could disappear and the conservative movement would be better for it.
I don't have a problem with him hitting the local shows, but the national mouthpieces need to be exposed for the irrelevant, self-righteous hacks that they are. If McCain is to maintain any legitimate tie to the Maverick label, he will need to forge his own path.
To be brutally honest, I am not sure that anything can save him or us in 2008 if Obama is nominated. Hillary and Edwards are beatable, but I just have a gut feeling that no nominee of ours will be able to get around Obama.
"We're hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst." -Fred D. Thompson
especially the Republicans-only primaries.
it doesn't matter what one thinks of the radio hosts themselves. the fact is they command a lot of influence among conservative voters.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I'd tell him to drop out and throw his support to Fred!, but maybe I'm biased. ;)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I think you make an overall valid point, but no serious politician should EVER appear on Savage's show.
But as for Rush, Medved, Hannity, etc. fine.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"