McCain reverses course on immigration reform (again), drawing far-right rebuke
By Steve Benen Saturday May 24, 2008 12:00pmWhen John McCain’s presidential campaign faltered badly last summer, there were a variety of problems, but near the top of the list was McCain’s work on a comprehensive immigration reform measure, which most Republican activists hated with a vengeance. McCain ultimately decided to abandon his own legislation, and announced earlier this year that he wouldn’t even vote for his own bill.
Now that he’s locked down the Republican nomination, McCain has decided to reverse course again, re-embracing the position he abandoned in order to gain GOP support.
In yet another sign of his pivoting toward the general election, Senator John McCain said at a roundtable with business leaders here today that comprehensive immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president. […]
Mr. McCain largely stopped talking about the issue and repeatedly invoked a mantra that he had gotten the message from voters that the borders needed to be secured first, before any solution for the illegal immigrants already here is addressed.
Sure, but that was when he was pandering to far-right activists, who he needed to get the GOP nomination. Now that he’s vanquished his Republican rivals, McCain feels comfortable pulling the hard-to-execute flip-flop-flip, gambling that conservatives will hate Obama enough to give McCain a pass.
Indeed, yesterday, speaking at a business roundtable in Silicon Valley alongside Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, McCain boasted of working with Ted Kennedy and said, “[W]e must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item.” McCain went on to take an anti-deportation position on immigrants already in the U.S. who entered the country illegally, saying “they are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion.”
McCain does so many reversals on this issue, I’m surprised he’s not dizzy. The far-right, meanwhile, is not amused.
2006 John McCain was absolutely certain that a comprehensive approach to immigration reform was the only way to go.
“Our nation’s immigration system is broken. And without comprehensive immigration reform, our nation’s security will remain vulnerable. That is why we must act.”
By November 2007, he’d given up on his policy and agreed to accept the conservative line.
“I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,” McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. “I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.”
That was his position in February 2008, and as recently as last month.
But now McCain no longer agrees with himself, and is back to supporting the approach he recently vowed to reject.
Conservatives aren’t responding to the news very well. Far-right blogger John Hawkins called McCain a “liar,” adding, “He’s a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration.” Hawkins concluded he won’t support McCain in November.
Malkin is similarly incensed, writing, “McCain has shed every last pretense that he ‘got the message’ from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ euphemism is a notable milestone.”
Truth be told, I’m skeptical of just how many Republican voters there are who’ll let this issue dictate their vote. For that matter, I’m equally skeptical that all of the far-right voices who are threatening to withhold their support for McCain now will actually follow through in six months.
Either way, this is a rather striking example of the extent to which McCain will shift with the wind, abandoning promises and pledged principles whenever he thinks it will suit his purposes.
Login or Register to post comments.
shorter John McCain: "Gotcha, bitches!"
Nothing new for Johnny McNapalm. When he said four more years of Bush he meant it;
The lies.
The waste.
The destruction of the Constitution.
The trainwreck called the McGoof Express.
McCain flip flops.
McCain lies.
McCain is senile.
McCain is a war monger.
McCain is owned by Joe Lieberman and AIPAC.
McCain has no honor and didn't defend his family and his name when he was
attacked by Karl Rove.
McCain made 32 Pro Propaganda videos for the VietCong.
McCain confuses AlQuada with Terrorist and Iraqi fighters.
McCain wants to attack Syria, Iran, N.Korea, Russia and China.
McCain is ignorant regarding the economy.
McCain is a songbird and Traitor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvXEsW4Fgg
Please, can we all stop calling McCain a flip-flopper? It doesn't work. It worked on Kerry because he was largely unknown nationally in 2004, and Rove thus had a free hand to created Kerry's national image for him: A wussy, weak, effeminate liberal politician with his finger perpetually in the wind, who can't take a stand on anything. Think of the photos of Kerry missing the football catch, or in that ridiculous pastel jumpsuit at the moronic NASA photo op -- wussy! Flip-flop plugs into THAT image, and that's why it was so deadly effective in the last election. "Flip-flop!" It even sounds wussy and effeminate.
McCain, however, has a long and firmly established image as an alpha-male, one that's just not going to go away. Flip-flop doesn't plug into that image. It just bounces off him and sounds ridiculous. McCain, I think, should be called a LIAR, because that's what he is. The Two McCains idea is good too, a la "Campaign McCain triumphs over Senator McCain again!" or "With nomination secure, McCain throws right-wing loonies under bus." Give the man his due. He's not a wussy flip-flopper, unable to make up his mind -- he's downright lying and scheming his way towards the Presidency.
This is McCain's last possible shot to get to the White House before he dies, and he is willing to say or do ANYTHING to get into the Oval Office. This is what to stress, I think. He's not some goofy flip-flopper trying to take the popular side, he's a downright dishonest man trying to get to be President at all costs.
He should be known as McPretzel.
MSNBC (from Washington Post): Worries in GOP of disarray in McCain camp
The far right won't vote for McFeeble because they see him as "liberal". Independents won't vote for someone who courted far right wackos like Hagee and Parsley. No wonder the gop is seeing his camp in disarray, as Barack Obama surges forward toward the nomination.
I admit that he has a certain charm, but does he have any idea what he actuallly believes in. He's slicker at the ambition thing than Hillary, but it seems to own him just as much.
If these wingnuts actually had the integrity to support another candidate at least I might respect them even if I completely disagreed with them. But they'll never go to anyone else because they like to give their batshit insanity the veneer of respectability, as if to re-assure themselves that they are sane. But all they want is little Johnny McCain to kiss the ring again, which undoubtedly he'll do when he's back in the Heartland (registered trademark) and not out in crazy lib-rul Kah-lee-for-nee-yuh.
Hurrah for Sid #3, you're exactly right and we have to be careful to put the message in the same phrasing every time: he would say anything to be president - and has.
Cheap Labor Conservatives
Instead of saying "reverses course again"
why not just lean heavily on Flip-Flops! ??
It worked great the last time...
I hate to bring this up in a totally unrelated subject,
[Then why do so? Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
One thing to remember is that Gov. Charles Crist von Florida is on McFlipflops campaign team.
And one of Charlies priorities is free trade NAFTA and similar, seeing as Florida thrives of 'free' trade' being a portal type state.
Republicans outside of Texas and Florida dont realize that Rtypes in those two states enjoy mega benefits from cheap labor from undocumented workers.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
it pleases me to no end to see malkin torpedoing the republithug candidate. godspeed little trooper!
Neal @ 12:
I did so because this is odd behavior coming from you guys. That's why. Maybe you should respond to your emails.
Neal @ 12:
I understand non-bias to a point. CandL also conveniently forgot to mention Hillary was for the gas tax cuts as McSame. I think it's more benign than it is some malice via HIllary, though. I think they just want to keep the focus on the repubs. God I had this two party system we have here.
Neal @ 16:
Maybe you should start your own blog if you're so hot to control the content...
SO frellin tired of people griping about what is and is not covered on a free-to-all blogsite. Put up or shut up.
And this is the guy progressives are supposed to fear? If the American people vote in this sad, confused man to be the leader of the world, we all deserve a place in the hell that we'll be asking for. McWar is nothing but an old, ugly, pandering whore, who just like Hillary, will do and say anything to get a vote.
Hey it's their blog, but I can complain as much as I please. If they are blacking this out for the reasons I suspect, I won't be visiting this "blog" any longer.
Gross bias is expected from Repiglicans, but from the other side? That's even worse.
I’ll tell you something. If I was a Republican (I just threw up a little in my mouth just typing it. Ugh) I would find it hard to go to the voting booth on election day. I just could not vote for a guy who can’t seem to make up his mind. Yes, if I was a Republican (It happened again, damn) I would not vote. Would you?
The so called "immigration problem" is a manufactured issue to keep us at each others' throats so that we don't focus on the true threats to our nation that exist from within our borders.
Captain Bitter Elitist Husein Kangaroo @ 21:
Oh, I don't think, unfortunately, the Repugs will stay home. After all, if they watched
Faux Noise this morning, and listened to the "fair and balanced" group of idiots discusssing the V.P. choice, and deciding upon Condi Rice(Ugh), many of the Repug
voters will go to the polls.
How about a treasonous lying flip-flopper born in the Canal Zone? (Works for me.) In McSenile’s case, multiple descriptive adjectives are allowed, I would think.
I don’t think he has as much to fear from the Malkenites as he does from the Dobbitts. Louie will undoubtedly explode over this one. Oops, and he has a national audience, too. Look for another treasonous lying flip-flop as early as this evening. You know, a clarification.
(I hate to be Mr. Obvious here but this site does contain at least one open thread daily. Perhaps someone needs a chill pill.)
Roket @ 24:
Now it makes sense. He forgot what position he was suppose to take. lol
I remember once a year or more ago McSenile was asked a question on some subject and he turned to one of his handlers and asked him, "Where do we stand on this?" I sure wish I would have saved that remark so that I could show it.
mcpingpong ball?
My wife immigrated to the US in 1993 from a third world country. She became a US citizen before we met. I have learned the struggles she went through to legally migrate to the US.
I now have friends and family who are "working through" the system. We do need to reform our immigration system. I have been to her home country twice and I look forward to going back. I have seen poverty like we do not have in the US. The poorest in the US still have more than a large percentage of the world's population. I do believe that we need to do more to help the poor (I have many disabled friends living on $500 a month but that is another discussion). The poverty that the world experiences is what drives people to immigrate to the US even if they do it illegally. I have compassion for them. I would like to make it possible for them to do it legally. I believe that our immigration situation is complicated and comprised of several issues, which include securing our borders, improving the application process, overhaul of the types of jobs and number of people we allow each year and we also need to do something with the people here illegally. I would like to see us come up with a way for them to stay. Locking them up and sending them back would put a tremendous burden on their families both in the US and in their home country. I can employ 10 people for a total of $200 a week to build a house in my wife's home country. That is why many come here to work. They can easily earn in one hour what they could make in a week back home.
As I stated, I see immigration as a complex issue with several subsections all of which need to be addressed. I would like to see them treated separately so that common ground can be found on each. A candidate is not flip-flopping if they are talking about different sections if they are consistant with the solution for each section.
My views on immigration have changed since 2005 when I married my wife. I have learned about the immigration problem. I also realize I have more to learn. I do believe it is possible for a person to change their view on an issue over time. I would like for them to explain what caused them to change their mind. Senator Ted Kennedy is a good example of that. He originally supported the no child left behind bill. He is now against it. I am not sure why he is against it now but I believe it is at least partially due to how it was implemented and the subsequent results. I would not call him a flip-flopper. He is allowed to change his views when given new information. I want my leaders to be flexible when given new information.
mcflipflop owes everything to the corporatists
does anyone really believe that he wants to open the borders because he cares about these people?
the corporatists need their slave labor
I'll add to commenter #3 -- we don't need to just stop using "Flip-flopper" for McCain; we need to stop using Republican-invented labels as a weapon. It only reinforces their claims and alienates the converted.
Example: When a republican says Dems don't 'support the troops', complaining that a republican vote against a GI bill 'does not support the troops' is ineffective. A) It cedes ideological ground to the Republicans by reinforcing their black and white characterizations (say, dividing the world into 'troop supporters' vs. 'not troop-supporters'). B) It smacks of a kid who, when accused of behaving badly, points the finger at the other kid and says "but they did it too". It doesn't work.
Democrats need either to refuse to argue the point (remaining above it) or to get down and dirty with their own insults. I prefer the former route, but if the Dems don't have the power to respond with the inner conviction necessary to demostrate the absurdity of the charges, then they must at least fight back with their own soundbite-atacks that shifts some of the ideological ground back to Democratic turf.
McCain: " I was for it before I was against it. Now that I am once again for it, due
to political expediancy, does not mean that I was previously against it for the same
reason. Now I hope you understand...next question? "
I live in the south, calling him a flip flopping weasel will work and make him lose votes.
gus @ 31:
Don't forget to add "Bless his heart."
McCain's positions on issues is like Texas weather, don't like it, wait a few hours, it will change.
So today, is his name McFlip or is he on McFlop now? I've lost track.
Have you thought McCain decided after 2000 he would beat the core at its own game? They lied. They smeared. So he's decided he would do the same. Tell them what they want to hear, not what he believes. Embrace lobbyists because they bring talent and money. Use them like they used him. Even go so far as to lie about voting for Bush when we know he didn't. He's holding his enemies in a death hug, keeping them more than close to his vest. Perhaps that picture of him hugging Bush symbolizes something different, an embrace of hate.
And you know what if I'm right, his strategy worked. And worked brilliantly.
He is the party's nominee. And now what's he doing. Severing ties with all the right wing nut job ministers who endorsed him. Severing ties with all the lobbyists who gave him lots of money, not to mention use of their talents. This immigration flip flop is the latest. He has always wanted comprehensive reform and now he's the nominee he can tell the base of the party to go pound sand.
He's going to move alot closer to the center, maybe even to the left. Don't be surprised if, as the election nears and Iraq shows no progress, he decides it's time to pull chocks and get us the hell out.
gus @ 31:
Yea, the Republicans spent plenty on institutionalizing the term,
which means making it widely known, commonly understood, and a
great short-but-sweet way to communicate what's wrong with McCain.
this guy doesn't swerve, or flip-flop
he's tacking in the wind
the straight talk express is a sailboat searching for a breeze
to quote Freddie Mercury:
Any Way The Wind Blows, Doesn't Really Matter To Me
That man needs Aricept! Stat! Oh, and he needs to check out his lobbyists a little more thoroughly.
Sid @ 3:
..you are right, flip-flopper is too kind. he's a LIAR. that sounds more clear. yes, i like that word much better. nice ring to it. John McCain: veteran, politician, Republican, liar.
Robert59 @ 34:
John McCain is a blatant opportunist, just like Howard Dean described him. A politician through and through and has clearly shown that he will do and say anything to get elected. His ego has to be satisfied and he feels he's entitled to the Presidency. which he isn't.
THE VIDEO in the LAST THREAD is telling here.
brooks describes mcAin't quite accurately: an issue here, an issue there...
and the press will always give mcAin't a pass, just like brooks described.
Left&Left @ 19:
In this case, he's willing to drop the most loyal GOP base to get votes from independents. They knew he was the 'devil' but many Repubs voted for him anyway. This is what happens when you vote for someone based on name recognition and not based on sound research. You get stuck with a lemon sometimes, and McCain sure as hell ain't makin' lemonade.
As often as the party can, run the clip of McCain hugging George Bush. Sheer association will nail McCain as an idiot. Then the American people will have to decide if they want another idiot in the the white house.
McCain is telling one thing to English speakers and another thing to Spanish speakers. Check this out: Linguists Help Politicians Have It Both Ways: So Much for Straight Talk?
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth. I'm not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I am the author of "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
Login or Register to post comments.