McCain's attack on Romney
this one makes me uncomfortable, but at the same time, romney opened himself up to criticism with his comments last april
By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Update at the end]
I can understand why John McCain would want to question Mitt Romney's credentials on Iraq and the current strategy. The race in Florida is too close to call and Romney has been doing better recently. You could even say that, in the last week or so, Romney has finally found his own voice. Romney is less well-versed on national security matters than McCain, so of course McCain wants to focus on issues such as Iraq and the War Against Militant Islamism. I'm sure McCain also went after Romney because there is no love lost between the two candidates, especially after Romney launched negative and misleading attack ads all over New Hampshire.
More below the fold...
Personally, I have no problem with negative ads and negative statements, so long as the charges are accurate. So the bottom-line question is, did McCain's statement about Romney's "secret timetables" meet the standard of accuracy? I don't think so, but it's hard to tell because Romney's comments last April were so vague and hedging and incoherent that he opened himself up to interpretation and criticism.
When Robin Roberts asked Romney, "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?" Romney gave a strange answer. The first part:
Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone.
I find this response troubling because, other than us deciding to withdraw troops because we're losing, why keep those "timetables and milestones" secret? The answer is that we shouldn't, provided the new strategy is successful and if we're turning Iraq around. In this U.S. News article, General Petraeus was fairly open about troop levels, recognizing that we'll be withdrawing 30,000 between now and July, but resisting a drastic cut down to 100,000. Petraeus will go into more detail when he reports to Congress in a month or so. If the surge strategy is working (which it is), then that means we should be setting withdrawal timetables on our terms, not al-Qaeda's or al-Sadr's or al-Pelosi's, and publicly announcing those timetables can be used as a propaganda tool because it tells our protagonists that the situation is secure, political progress is happening, and sufficient Iraqi troops are being trained so that fewer U.S. troops are needed.
It seems to me that, in April 2007, Romney had little confidence that the strategy would work, so he hedged his bets, leaning toward the defeatist side of the equation. What kind of support for the surge was that? Remember, Romney was speaking these words during one of the darkest hours of the war. The Republicans had lost the majority in November 2006 and Bush was forced to change strategy. The decision he made was highly controversial. Al Qaeda was in the middle of a major suicide bombing spree in the first half of 2007, and the newly-in-charge Democrats were trying to force Bush to undertake unilateral phased surrender.
As I also read it, Romney was suggesting that it wasn't just he who supported these undisclosed timetables, but that Bush and al Maliki "have to have them". Romney was agreeable with that proposition, and he was also agreeable with Roberts' question that, yes, we should have timetables for withdrawing our troops, just as long as they're secret.
Perhaps Romney was trying to broaden the issue by talking about "timetables and milestones" in general, but why would he say in the next sentence that the timetables should remain under wraps? It doesn't make sense to me. For an issue as vitally important as Iraq, and for a candidate who is claiming to back this new strategy, Romney gave a startlingly poor response.
The second part of his answer doesn't shed new light. Quote:
You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
None of this negates his earlier agreement with Roberts that we should have timetables for withdrawing our troops, provided that they're not made public, except in the above paragraph he added the wrinkle that these timetables should be shifting depending on how things go. But if we've accomplished all these good things, why all the need for secrecy? It still doesn't make sense to me, and that's why I find that his comments vague and hedging and incoherent.
And let's revisit this Romney sentence: "You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone." This tells me that Mitt Romney doesn't understand the surge strategy well enough to give Robin Roberts a concise and clarifying explanation of where he stands on this top-two issue. Counterinsurgency operations take a long time before they bear fruit and show signs of success. Historically, five to ten years have been the norm. Even if all goes swimmingly, our troops are going to be in Iraq for years to come. It is unlikely that they'll be "gone", as Romney stated, for perhaps another decade. As D.J. Elliott noted, we're going to have troops in Iraq until 2018, well after Romney's theoretical second term in office.
Last April, the politicians who were talking about timetables for withdrawing troops were defeatist Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and a small gaggle of weak-kneed Republicans like Chuck Hagel. Sixteen days after the Roberts interview, Harry Reid declared that the war is already lost and he was leading the clamor for de-funding the war effort and demanding timetables for surrender. This is the context in which Romney made his statements. The day before Romney was confusing the GMA audience, John McCain was the subject of a hit piece by the New York Times. The writer just couldn't stand the idea that McCain would dare say there was progress. Several days later, General Petraeus backed up what McCain said (transcript here). No other candidate put himself out like that. McCain went further out on a limb when he appeared on the Daily Show two weeks later, taking all kinds of flack from Jon Stewart (clips here and here).
So what should Romney have said on April 3, 2007? How about this: "Well, Robin, we already have timetables in effect for our troops, and right now we're in the process of adding 30,000 by this June. We're undertaking a new strategy and it would be premature and irresponsible to be talking about withdrawals until we've given General Petraeus a fair shot." They're plenty of other equally good answers, but basically he should have rejected her premise in the first place. The folks who want these timetables have made their minds up about Iraq, deciding that we've already lost and that the only course of action is to withdraw in the least damaging manner possible.
So to go back to McCain, was his comment about "secret timetables" inaccurate? I still can't tell for sure, but if he followed up with something like "that's what it looked like to me, but his comments were so incoherent that it's hard to be certain," I'd feel better about it.
I think McCain was mostly in bounds when he said that "...like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked and reversed himself." I don't think Romney reversed himself on that GMA segment, but "hedged", "equivocated" and "ducked" sound accurate to me.
I think McCain went too far when he said, after Romney demanded an apology, "the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform." McCain should have explained why he said what he said, not wrapped himself in the flag.
Update: Last Saturday in Fort Myers, McCain said that "Gov. Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq]..." McCain went too far and he is clearly in the wrong. He should retract that statement and apologize to Romney. Michael Dobbs did some additional checking on Romney's statements and unearthed a June 7th interview with Associated Press. He changed his position on secret timetables and milestones:
In a wide-ranging, hourlong interview with AP reporters and editors, Romney said the Bush administration would be wise to publicly disclose some goals for success in Iraq to restore public confidence. Benchmarks that would tip off adversaries, however, should remain private.
His comments are somewhat better than last April, but he still doesn't appear to have a great understanding of what this counterinsurgency strategy is all about. He also really does want all American troops gone from Iraq, which is an arguable position considering the length of time it will take to secure the country and train Iraqi forces. The U.S. has a major geo-strategic interest there, but ultimately the decision to keep U.S. forces on Iraqi soil will be up to both the Iraqi and American governments.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Frank Rich: Clinton Hater — Comments (6) »
McCain's attack on Romney 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But that actually fits pretty well.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Hmm, I don't think so. Charles didn't suggest anyone's argument was false, and certainly not on grounds of consistent action. Claiming something is true on those grounds, or understandable on those grounds, isn't tu quoque. It's specific.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
Charles has attributed to Romney something he did not say. And is accepting as "stated" by Romney something that (and I believe it's certainly playing out this way) reasonable people cannot conclude is stated. He is therefore rejecting as false, out of hand, Romney's assertion that he did not say what he, well, did not say. And further Charles certainly seemed to imply that, well, it's Romney we're talking about after all - so we of course cannot take anything he says at face value.
Sorry, man - we disagree.
If I may continue a bit along the lines of the general subject of the thread...
That McCain has now upped the ante to claim that Romney supported QUOTE "a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq" CLOSE-QUOTE - well beyond construing something from the Roberts interview - in other words, that Romney's position is in principal no different from Hillary Clinton's - goes unaddressed by Charles. Which, if we're being honest, is BS. I'll happily give Charles the benefit of the doubt here - perhaps he wasn't aware of this new line of attack from McCain. In which case an update certainly seems to be in order.
I was going to continue but it was quickly devolving into threadjack bait. I'll blog it presently.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Without him explaining what he meant in that interview, I can only go by my best interpretation of his words.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
I said you have ascribed to Romney something that (it seems) most reasonable people cannot ascribe to him and based your entire argument on that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
....what this means:
Charles has attributed to Romney something he did not say.
That's absolutely saying that he mis-quoted Romney or simply made up something Romney didn't say.
The quote was accurate - it's just that Charles attributed the response to Roberts' question, which Romney never really answered. (Roberts asked "A" and Romney answered to "B", in other words).
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Here is a more accurate accounting of what was asked and answered:
QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there’s no question but that — the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.
I do not see ANY AMBIGUITY in Romney's response.
McCain is sleasy in his attempted smear...I mean, on the topic of national security, I'd say Juan Hernandez makes McCain more of a threat to the USA than any other candidate.
Furthermore, McCain likes to tell the story of “the soldier whose wife is illegal...of course we won’t deport her.” I have two problems with this:
Problem 1. Since he cares so much about this woman, can he tell us about the illegal alien that came in just before and after her? NO HE CAN’T. Were they honest but hungry...or Al Qaeda?! THAT is the real-world consequense of his policy.
Problem 2. I assume that the US Military does not hire foreigners to serve, therefore the “soldier” in question is either a US citizen or a legal immigrant. As such, he is required to ensure his wife is registered here legally by filing the right documents and paying the right fees. Therefore, McCain is actually “covering up” for TWO individuals acting illegally.
McCain succesfully turned our attention back to the central issue of our time, national defense. This is politics, and Mitt Romney is now in the big leagues. You don't apologize for excellent stradgey. All Mitt had to say is: That misrepresents my position, look at my quote again. Now, this is just a distraction from the McCain's economic weaknesses, let's talk about them. But no, Mitt took the bait, and started defending himself. He should have left it up to the professional pundits. Because he bit, now he just looks defensive. It might cost him Florida. Can you imagine what the Clintons would do to this man. Eat him alive. And don't start talking dishonest politics with me, did you see the stuff Romney was spitting out about McCain and Huckabee in Iowa and N.H. Geez.
Your comments reflect everything that is wrong with politics. Big Leagues? I didn't realize that there is such a difference between local politics and national politics. Apparently, this user feels that the dealings in my hometown are of little consequence to my daily activities. Rather national politics defines my life...yeah right. They are equally important.
National defense is the central issue of our time? Are you kidding? National defense is contingent on the ability of the US to produce enough GDP to covers its expenditures...which includes national defense. The US can not successfully defend itself without a stable economy. But apparently you flunked Economics 101.
"McCain succesfully turned our attention back to the central issue of our time, national defense."
I think the President of the United States needs to focus on all issues there guy. National Defense is not the only problem we are facing right now. But pushing the focus to a single issue is indicative of someone defending a candidate with strength in one issue only. We need someone who can deal with the whole enchilada as that is in the job description. This is a all-or-nothing job. I personally can say that I feel none of the remaining candidates have the mojo to deal with it all.
--roxer
American soldiers are dying for you and I every day. Yes, there are many important issues and the President must deal with them all. But in a time of war, national security must be the most important issue.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
The adoption of a pre-9/11 mindset by the majority of not only the American populace, but of the Republican electorate is distressing.
you don't include McCain's plan for securing the border as part of his great fight for WOT. Since he is the man to save us from harm, wouldn't it help to start at home. He has no interest in securing the border, and that my friend is pre 9/11 thinking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't care if he curses me personally for every mile of the fence that gets built. If it's built, I'm happy.
Presidents usually don't make a high priority of doing things they don't want to do. He's certainly not going to be pushing Congress to appropriate money for it or pushing the bureaucracy to complete it in a timely manner and try to get around the legal obstacles that are certain to be thrown up in its path. In other words, it isn't going to get done, but you still won't be able to say he "lied" about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Heard a McCain radio ad today, all wrapped up in the flag and patriotism and how he's the only one qualified to deal with the terrorist threat abroad.
Near the end, he said he'll "protect our shores."
Not a word about "borders." Funny. It's pretty strange not mention the "borders" when you're mentioning the "shores." That is, unless you're either terrified of people associating you with who you really are regarding "borders" or can't actually spit out the word "border" without sounding absurd.
Not a peep about immigration either. Just a "trust me."
Yeah, right.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
takes place on more than just the battlefield. This is an extremely expensive war and I have zero confidence in John McCain to come up with an economic plan that will allow us to continue the war as long as needed, continue our status as THE world's superpower, and keep us the envy of the world.
Quite frankly, I don't particularly like McCain's constant criticism of Donald Rumsfield. I have a lot of respect for that man and despite his errors in Iraq, he was/is a military genius.
I would much rather have a president that has the right vision and plan for Iraq and lets the generals decide the tactics, than someone like McCain who thinks he's as smart, or smarter than the generals.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
but judging by his answer to Roberts, he did say he wanted non-publicized ones. Based on that response, do you really believe he understood and truly supported this barely two-month old strategy? BTW, you didn't explain why you saw no ambuity. All you did was cut and paste, then divert your argument to McCain-bashing.
1. McCain
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
He said, essentially, "of course we have an war plans that include exit plans, and the Iraqi government needs to know that. But we don't tell them to our enemies, because otherwise they have a date to just hold on til and out-wait us".
So let's look at McCain's statement.
Last April, Governor Romney said he supported ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and keeping them secret. When he suggested secret ‘timetables,’ General Petraeus’ new strategy in Iraq was just starting.
So far so good, mostly, although it eliminates half of what Romney was advocating. Romney was advocating "timetables and milestones". "timetables" by itself implies nothing more than a withdrawal date. "Timetables and milestones" is an entirely different creature.
Opponents of General Petraeus’ strategy all argued that we should not increase troop levels, but establish ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our forces from Iraq.
Once again, this is a true statement, but the implication here is clear. that the 'timetables' that Romney spoke of were the same, and thus that Romney was in this group. THIS is the dishonest smear part of the statement.
It was clear at the time that some were hedging their bets on Iraq, positioning themselves politically by being deliberately vague on their support for General Petraeus’ new strategy.
Fair enough, but the statement in question doesn't really support this. There probably are other statements he's made that could.
Governor Romney also said that there wouldn’t be any real difference on Iraq policy between the Republican nominee and Senator Clinton during the general election. Well, Senator Clinton advocates withdrawal from Iraq within 60 days. Should that be the policy of the Republican nominee in November? Would it be Governor Romney’s?
I haven't found exactly what Romney said here, but judging by the liberties taken with the statement above, I suspect that there's more to this. And once again, the implication is that Romney supported withdrawal, and that is dishonest.
I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.
Once again, dishonest. Even the questioner acknowledged Romney supported the surge, and that was part of the baseline for the question. "QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge."
The only people who are owed an apology are the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq, who have a right to expect their leaders to stand by them and their mission not just when it is easy, but when it matters most — when it is hard.
And the implication here is that Romney didn't do that. And you may be able to make an argument there. But not on this article. So once again, dishonest, dishonorable and disgusting.
Remember, W did announce a draw down of troops several months ago already I'm sure we had private ones before that. You always need to have something to plan against. They are certain to get revised or thrown out down the road, but even going in you have some plan on what troop levels are going to look like going forward. I don't see anything controversial about these statements.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...more of a threat to the USA than any other REPUBLICAN candidate.
Every war in history has had an exit strategy,this is just common military sense. If Bush and Rumsfeld had an exit strategy Iraq would not have become the mess it has.
Do you think for one minute Roosevelt and his WW2 advisers did not have some concept in mind as to how to end the war and what to do after it was over.
That is basically what Romney was saying an it makes sense.
Just look at the mess Bremer presided over in post invasion Iraq and how it has haunted us ever sense.
Your anti Romney bias has muddied your honesty.
and WW2, to name just a few?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
they had a failed strategy altogether, from day one. Then they failed to adequately respond to a growing insurgency, then they failed to adequately respond to al Qaeda's Golden Mosque bombing, which stoked sectarian violence. It wasn't the lack of an exit strategy that put Iraq in a muddle.
One more thing. By all means, criticize the content of my posts, but you crossed the line when you muddied my intellectual integrity and character. You've been duly warned.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
While bashing Bush and Rumsfeld, you compare favorably the "exit strategy" of FDR and HST that, through Yalta and Potsdam, led directly to 45 years of the Cold War? And gave us the UN?
ROFLMAO!!!
McCain went too far.
On the other hand, Romney left himself open by (1) saying things that were ambiguous when the situation called for strength and clarity, and (2) not stepping to the forefront of the political fight to stop the nearly-successful congressional push for retreat.
If asked again about this -
McCain should, without apologizing, qualify his comments to make them accurate (in the way Charles has suggested), and re-emphasize the difference in how he and Romney acted during the political crisis last summer.
Romney should make a strong statement on the importance of winning the war in Iraq (one or two sentences might do), perhaps refer to a couple speeches he made on the subject over the past year, and make it clear that he will fight for victory even if the polls show a loss of support (as they did this past summer).
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
but the initial link where you describe Romney as having launched "negative and misleading attacks" on McCain in New Hampshire has been convincingly debunked here http://www.slate.com/id/2182138#grufftesty and elsewhere. Simply put, Factcheck got their analysis wrong. Romney's critiques were accurate. Unfortunately, it looks like this argument is becoming one of those McCain myths his supporters like to throw out there in the hopes that no one does any checking or verifying.
Considering that Charles and I had this same debate a few weeks ago and yet he still seems to want to use the talking point, I suppose there's probably little value in hashing this debate out further. Still, I thought pointing out some counterfacts to others might shed a little light and truth on the matter.
What Romney's ad said: "Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security."
It is simply wrong on the facts. Illegal immigrants who gain legal status--therefore making them no longer illegal--would qualify for benefits. Both you and kaus are spinning. Even kaus had to say "so, technically, McCain is right in saying that he's against letting illegals get Social Security checks..."
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
As has been said many times before, would extend to benefits earned while illegal. Thus the shorthand "illegals collect" is as accurate as the codeword "amnesty."
but I'm afraid it is the MSM, you, and the McCain camp who are doing the spinning on this one. It's a matter of the congressional record that McCain voted to allow illegal immigrants to collect social security after they were legal FOR THE ILLEGAL WORK they had done prior to their legalization. Thus, illegals are getting social security benefits for the work performed while they were illegal. How else can you describe that in a single sentence other than to say that this "allow[s] illegals to collect social security?"
Apart from this additional critique from http://www.slate.com/id/2182138#santora, Romney's claim was argued and described the same way by many other conservatives at the time. Here's the brief with citations from the Romney camp:
"In 2006, Sen. McCain Voted To Allow Illegals To Collect Social Security For Work Done While Illegal:
Sen. McCain Joined Sens. Clinton And Obama In Voting To Give Retroactive Social Security Benefits To Illegal Immigrants Who Would Be Granted Amnesty. "Specter, R-Pa., motion to table (kill) the Ensign, R-Nev., amendment no. 3985 that would bar illegal immigrants currently in the country from claiming Social Security credits for work done in years before they are assigned a valid Social Security number." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 11-44; D 38-5; I 1-0, 5/18/06, Clinton, McCain, And Obama Voted Yea)
UPI: "Illegal Aliens Could Collect Social Security Benefits Based On Past Illegal Employment." "Illegal aliens could collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment if a U.S. Senate bill passed Thursday becomes law. That would be the case even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents..." ("Senate Votes Social Security For Illegals," United Press International, 5/19/06)
"The Senate Voted Yesterday To Allow Illegal Aliens To Collect Social Security Benefits Based On Past Illegal Employment - Even If The Job Was Obtained Through Forged Or Stolen Documents." (Charles Hurt, "Illegals Granted Social Security," The Washington Times, 5/19/06)
Sen. McCain Defended Giving Retroactive Social Security Benefits For Illegal Work:
Sen. McCain: "It Would Be Wrong To Deny Hardworking Men And Women Credit For All The Dollars They've Paid Into Social Security From Their Often Meager Wages." (Dena Bunis, "Guest-Worker Provision Survives," Orange County Register, 5/19/06)
- 'We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy,' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz." ("Senate Votes Social Security For Illegals," United Press International, 5/19/06)
Conservative Republican Senators Fought Against Rewarding Illegal Behavior:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The Bill Gave "Social Security To Illegal Aliens." "Social Security to illegal aliens. Under the bill, illegal aliens are not prohibited from getting credit for the money they've put into the Social Security system if they've worked in the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigrants who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security Number did not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social Security benefits. (The Ensign amendment would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.)" (Sen. Chuck Grassley, "Grassley Unveils Top 10 Flaws With Amnesty And Guest Worker Of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill," Press Release, 5/23/06; http://grassley.senate.gov/)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): "It Makes No Sense To Reward Millions Of Illegal Immigrants For Criminal Behavior While Our Social Security System Is Already In Crisis." "'It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis,' said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. 'Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits? The Senate missed a big opportunity to improve this bill, and I doubt American seniors will be pleased with the result.'" (Charles Hurt, "Illegals Granted Social Security," The Washington Times, 5/19/06)
- Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): "It's like giving someone who stole your credit card everything they bought until they get caught. And it's just not a good amendment at all. Obviously, I was trying to stop this, and I think we will stop it when we meet the House with this bill." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 5/19/06)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): "'It's That Illegal Conduct That They Will Be Allowed To Use To Qualify For Social Security." "Senators also blocked an effort to deny Social Security benefits to legalized immigrants for work they performed while they were illegal or which they obtained through identity theft. 'It's that illegal conduct that they will be allowed to use to qualify for Social Security,' said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who tried to limit Social Security payments." (Gebe Martinez, "The Immigration Debate," The Houston Chronicle, 5/19/06)
- Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): "'There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me,' said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. 'It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment.'" (Charles Hurt, "Illegals Granted Social Security," The Washington Times, 5/19/06)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Said The Bill Would Allow Illegals "To Use Their Past Illegal Work To Qualify For Social Security Benefits." "Top Ten Reasons to Oppose The Senate Amnesty Bill... 6. Social Security Benefits, Tax Credits for Illegal Work ... The Senate rejected Senator Ensign's amendment that would have prevented Social Security benefits from being awarded to immigrants for time that they worked illegally in the United States. If the immigration compromise bill before the Senate were enacted into law, an estimated 12 million illegal workers would be able to use their past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits." (Sen. Tom Coburn, "Dr. Coburn Votes Against Senate Amnesty," Press Release, 5/25/06; http://coburn.senate.gov/)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) Said The Bill Allowed Social Security To Those Who "Stole Identifies To Work In The United States Illegally." "Below are the key problems that remain in the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611... Rewards illegal document fraud by allowing Social Security payments for those who stole identities to work in the United States illegally." (Sen. John Cornyn, "Cornyn Statement On Senate Immigration Bill Passage," Press Release, 5/25/06)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Said The Bill Would Allow Illegal Immigrants "To Accumulate And Collect" Social Security Benefits. "In addition, this bill contains a number of provisions that just defy common sense, such as allowing illegal immigrants who fraudulently use a U.S. citizen's Social Security number to accumulate and collect benefits from an already tight Social Security trust fund!" (Sen. Elizabeth Dole, "Dole Opposes Immigration Reform Bill With Amnesty," Press Release, 5/25/06)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Illegal Aliens Are "Not Entitled" To Draw Social Security. "Sometimes you have to make decisions. Somebody who came here illegally and worked illegally and submitted an illegal Social Security number is not entitled to draw on the Treasury of the United States." (Sen. Jeff Sessions, "Senator Sessions On The Ensign Amendment," Press Release, 5/18/06, http://sessions.senate.gov/)
The Measure Angered Conservatives:
Conservative Economist Stephen Moore: "I Do Not Think They Should Be Eligible For Social Security Until They Start Working Here Legally." MOORE: "I'm very much in favor of immigration. But I don't think that illegal immigrants should be rewarded for the time they were working in the United States when they were illegal ... And so I do not think they should be eligible for Social Security until they start working here legally." (CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," 5/19/06)
The Washington Times Editorial: Senators Moved Social Security Closer To Insolvency By Offering Benefits To Illegals. "On its way to bankruptcy, Social Security will get there a bit sooner... During the Senate debate on immigration reform in May, Mr. Ensign proposed that no illegal alien whose status would be adjusted by the Senate bill be permitted to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity. ... In addition to Messrs. McCain, Hagel and Brownback, other still-serving Republicans who opposed the Ensign amendment, which lost by a 50-49 vote, included Sens. Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens and George Voinovich." (Editorial, "Social Security Siphon," The Washington Times, 1/5/07)
Rush Limbaugh: Sen. McCain Supported Social Security Benefits For Illegals Who Used Fraud To Obtain Social Security Cards. "[Sen. McCain] was one of the senators that voted to go ahead and allow Social Security benefits to be paid to people who had used identity fraud to get their Social Security number. ... Senator McCain, none of the others that support this will recognize or acknowledge any of the negative aspects of this, of the stolen Social Security numbers. ... Imagine that his Social Security number is swiped and that his identity is stolen. I'll guarantee you he would have an entirely different view of this." (Rush Limbaugh Website, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, Posted 5/22/06)"
Romney wrongly used the term "collect". In the bill, part of gaining legal status involved paying back taxes, of which part of those back taxes goes into Social Security. Beyond that, you and kaus and Romney are parsing.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
that people who heard this thought Romney was arguing illegals were immediately sent their Social Security checks. Let's be rational here: to the man in the street there is no difference between accrueuing social security benefits and collecting social security benefits. Substantively it's the same thing.
Put another way, that would be the equivalent of me arguing that Romney didn't raise "taxes" but that he instead raised "fees." Same difference. I'm not going to try to make silly distinctions in order to defend Romney and neither should you in order to attack him.
Words like "accrue" and "collect" mean things. Like I said, my standard for negative ads and negative statements from politicians is that they're OK as long as they're accurate. Your standard appears to be something else.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
This is the same type of argument that people use when they call Mitt's plan "socialized." Technically you can call it socialized because government is involved to an extent - that fits within the definition. Therefore when someone uses THAT argument, I have to concede, even though anyone who knows what socialized medicine really means, knows that it is not socialized medicine.
McCain's plan was amnesty but it technically had a fine. Therefore under the technical definition you have to admit that it's not amnesty as per one of the footnoted definitions of amnesty - much like Bill Clinton's "is" defense. But we all know why it's called amnesty, it is amnesty per the common definition. It's misleading to argue otherwise.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
and I don't believe we can keep it up unless we fix our current economy. McCain can cut pork all he wants, but much more will be needed to sustain this effort and he has shown ZERO knowledge of economic issues. Wars don't pay for themselves do they? I don't here his straight talk telling the American people the true cost of granting amnesty in dollars. I don't hear the straight talk talking entitlements and how they are bankrupting our future.
Anyone who thinks the economy is not tied to the war is mistaken and you need someone to manage both and McCain is the wrong answer.
If McCain is Mr. Military, why is he not crusading around complaing about universities that have kicked ROTC and or recruitment centers off campuses.
To my dismay I actually heard Obama and Hillary discuss this at the last debate and that any school receiving gov't funds should have to allow them on campus. I know it's pandering on their part, but don't you think he could be out front in complaining of this practice.
A very long 'tu quoque.'