Senator McCain was not my first choice among the Republicans.

So you all know the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, know what to do with power. It could 'go ugly early' as some green beenie friends used to tell me.

Just remember how much damage was done by 8 years of Bubba in terms of the impact on organizational culture and capability of critical agencies like the CIA, FBI, DoD, et al, which have made the war against the jihadists so much more difficult. Not to mention the other damage that can be done by unchecked Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches on such things as the judiciary, fiscal policy, health policy, etc etc etc. Ask yourself if you really want to risk more of this by "sending a message" to the GOP leadership by not voting in November. Much of this damage will truly be IRREPARABLE.

Agree with he bottom line and necessity for voting for the (not much) lesser of evils. I cannot agree that McCain is "pro-gun". The Dems are both hardcore hoplophobic anti-gunners. McCain has voted pro-gun most of the time, when it was obvious that was the winning position. Of great concern is McCain's obsession with closing down gun shows (see McCain-Reed) which only serves to force all gun transfers into government databases, or defacto registration. As we all know, registration is a necessity before confiscation, although it could be supported with innocent idealism, not longer term evil motives. VOTE McCAIN! He sucks the least! We deserve better, but that's reality.

any law that produces amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals guarantees permanent Democrat control of the government as soon as those illegals can vote.

here's a thought. Maybe the conservative base could do something about attracting these voters to the party instead of insisting they are personas non gratas? I mean, you don't really expect them to feel all warm and fuzzy when the conservative base wants to kick them all out and everyone with an ounce of reality knows that isn't going to happen.

I have to side with Wolfwalker here. i see this as a truly danged if we do danged if we don't position, and as Immigration is one of my hot spots I see us totally hosed here. I'll be voting, but I think I'll be using my ability to write in Tancredo.

Isn't it enough for you people that I'm happy?

For what it's worth, I live in a country where immigration has reached the point where one in five adult Canadians was born in another country. Yes, the original immigrants will tend to vote for those who let them in and promise to take care of them - up here it was the Liberal Party. But the second-generation kids grow up almost entirely Canadianized - fully integrated. And, depending upon how upwardly-mobile they are, they're voting patterns change at that point. So, for example, many more Chinese- and Indo-Canadians are voting Conservative these days. Still not a majority of them, but more than you might expect. I'd say the trick is to integrate everyone, and try to reduce cultural fragmentation and ghettoization along ethnic lines as much as possible. Obviously I think there's more to it than a blog comment can communicate, but there you go.

My position is that, if you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, the first thing you have to do is acknowledge their way of thinking isn't completely rejected. you want immigrants to assimilate, you have to accept that you are going to assimilate some of their culture, too. (AARRRGGHH! I told someone recently that if I had to hear or read the word "assimilate" one more time I'd scream, so there it is). We have taken many things from different cultures, not just their food or clothes, but ideas. Our job is to bring their ideas into the fold while insuring the basic nature of our society and freedoms are not overly damaged. And, let me tell you that it is not the minority who created welfare systems. It was the majority Euro folks. How would I convince Hispanic or other new immigrants that conservative/Republican positions meets their needs? Well, president Bush started that and no one really listened, so let's go with this: 1) What are the values of most new immigrants? Are they generally liberals or conservatives? Most of the people here believe that they are liberals or at least more closely socialist based on their originating nations. But, I believe that is wholely wrong. In the case of man Hispanic immigrants, they originate in rural areas, move to urban areas in their own nations for work, where they congregate with others of similar rural, conservative, CATHOLIC background. When work is not forthcoming or is limited in these urban areas of their originating countries, they immigrate here. They typically end to immigrate to areas where similar communities exist, includes friends and family from the old country or simply networked individuals that recommend them to that network. In short, they tend to congregate in conservative neighborhoods. At least socially conservative. Does the fact that so many immigrants end up on medicaid or state assistance mean that that is what they want or where they want to be economically? The answer, I believe, is no as evidence supports the likelihood that many are working more than one job to support their families. So, we have two things on which to approach them that are common to conservative Republican values. The first is social conservatism. The second is about the "American Dream" where the individual is empowered to make of themselves what they will, by their own hands and hard work. Someone who immigrates to the United States, legally or illegally, cannot be said to not have some serious drive to improve themselves and their situation. We should be appealing to both the social conservatism and the drive for self improvement through individual empowerment. But, how can we do that when we deny them the one thing that insures the ability to achieve both the safety of a common society and the ability to become part of the common work force with all of the ability to advance or achieve that which is only limited by their own drive? By, in short, demanding that this long term work force (we're talking over ten years) must remain part of the underground labor market? What do conservatives have to appeal to immigrants? The American Dream which is not constituted by hand outs, but by every man having the benefit of the fruits of his own labor. We've basically been saying that we benefit and they cannot. As to legal immigration, the increase thereof, I am wholeheartedly and adamantly for that. However, have you ever looked at our system? We have instituted a very intensive system that places a limited value on immigration and, in fact, seems much more geared towards keeping people out than letting them in. For our economy, for our aging population, for our ability to compete on the global market, that is SO WRONG. We focus on techno immigrants and family members of residing immigrants. We do not have a good system to focus on the unskilled labor we actually need. When the president tried to put the worker's visas in place, everyone started screaming about not allowing that until we have some control over our borders. That was also wrong. We needed to implement that system at the same time we were securing our borders. It's like equalizing pressure to insure we don't implode. I honestly, though, could not tell based on some of the rhetoric, whether the true objection to these worker's visas was due to the demand to "secure the borders" first for security's sake or because people feared the "brown invasion." Either way, we've taken away the one real possibility of maintaining some control on immigration in the mean time, while still not getting a fence or any systemic process to increase security. In short, you got nothing by demanding an all or nothing strategy. Last word on that: Reagan.

Kat, I agree with almost everything you say as to what should make up a sensible and sober immigration policy. The only thing I would add is border security is critical, not because I want to keep all immigrants out, but because I want to ensure that those who do come will respect our laws. If they start out their tenure in this country by breaking the law to enter, why should I believe they have any intention of following the law later? But there remains one problem, which is apparently insurmountable. You wrote:

My position is that, if you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, the first thing you have to do is acknowledge their way of thinking isn't completely rejected.

No. This is, at most, the third thing on the list. The first thing you have to do is establish lines of communication. The second thing you have to do is establish your credibility. And therein lies the problem. How do you establish communication and credibility if the other party in the conversation has been conditioned to believe that everything you say is a lie?

This is pure nonsense: "we haven't been able to change the attitudes of blacks or legal immigrants toward conservatives in thirty years of trying. The left's propaganda machine, plus their rigid control over the mass media, together mean that immigrants hear a biased version of real-ity." It is also insulting beyond belief, as if there is a monolithic universal unintelligent and unsophisticated 'immigrant' or 'black' who is too damn dumb to think for him- or herself. And where does the 30 year timeframe come from!? What? blacks and immigrants only arrived here in 1978, or did they only get smart enough to pay attention since then, or did 'we' only start telling them what to believe back then? And what 'we'? I've been more conservative than liberal for 30 years, but I don't remember putting any special effort into trying to educate blacks and immigrants. Really, that's just too much.... Frankly, I'd say reality is being distorted as much by the Right as it is by the Left, since sane, informed discussions about the real issues can't be heard above the din of rabid protest. We're all hearing a biased version of reality, it seems, and as I see it, the only way to counter that is to start spending more time learning facts and less time passing along other people's poorly formed opinions. As to that, if anyone wants a good idea about what influential blacks in America think about conservative causes and ideals, try starting with the book "Enough," by Juan Williams. I don't like him and I haven't for years, but that book is wonderful, and it's a real eye-opener. Ignore Williams' pedigree. Read the book. Get a clue. And for goodness sake, can we please stick to things in our discussions that have some basis in reality?

SangerM, I think it's been just about thirty years (maybe 35-40) since conservatives woke up and realized that the Democratic Party had stolen a march on them and gained almost-exclusive control of the nonwhite vote. Today blacks consistently vote D at 85-90% rates, and hispanics consistently vote D at 70-80% rates. This despite the fact that Democratic Party policies are demonstrably damaging to both those ethnic groups and Republican Party policies would in many cases benefit them substantially. With voting rates like that, I think it's safe to conclude that something other than actual, intelligent consideration of the candidates and the issues is driving voting patterns in those groups. I don't know what that something is. It might be stupidity, but I don't believe that for an instant. I think it's merely ignorance -- that members of those groups are ignorant of the facts because the sources they trust to tell them the facts are actually lying to them.

Heh. Jim does this to tweak me... Nancy's grasp is tenuous, but I haven't see diddle of her challengers. I would *love* to see Moore fall.