Comments for Senator McCain was not my first choice among the Republicans.

Senator McCain was not my first choice among the Republicans.

2008-03-05T14:15:42Z

But Senators Clinton and Obama were, frankly, not on the list.

The choice this fall is pretty clear.

This November we’ll have two choices:

1) A flawed, but at least pro-gun [well, moderately so, as John noted in the comments] budget hawk who takes national defense seriously, or

2) A socialist of whatever flavor.

And a reminder - a socialist of whatever flavor who will probably have a party in pretty commanding control of both houses of Congress.

If we conservatives really lose our focus, a socialist with a filibuster-proof Senate, meaning the Dems will pretty much do as they please.

I frankly would not be happy with a Republican administration in that position. If you pretty much own the government, you can do sooooooooo much damage soooooo quickly. And you get stupid, too. Just look at the Republicans.

Even in just two years.

Eye on the ball, fellow consevatives. Sitting this one out because you didn't get what you were hoping for may just hurt you one hell of a lot more than you realize.

Comment from AFSister on 2008-03-06

2008-03-06T14:50:56Z

"Vote McCain! He sucks the least!" is pretty much my battle cry at the moment too. feh.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-03-05

2008-03-06T03:08:11Z

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.

Comment from jim b on 2008-03-05

2008-03-06T01:44:59Z

jim b clears his throat and steps up to the mike... and now on the local front comes this: "Recently, the Rothenberg Report, a top Washington, DC publication that ranks Congressional races, named 2nd District Democrat Nancy Boyda the most vulnerable incumbent in the entire country. Finally, people in Washington are starting to take notice—Boyda cannot be trusted to stand up for the Nation or the people of Kansas." "Over in the 3rd District there is also exciting news. Dennis Moore’s own internal polling shows that 78.69% of his constituents think that Dennis Moore and Congress are failing to address the country’s issues. His constituents are clear—Dennis Moore is part of the broken system in Washington, and he needs to be replaced." ....That said it is now time for a demonstration of who has the the smallest hands in the country. TV announcers ..... ... Wee Paws ... for station identification! Fade to black.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2008-03-05

2008-03-06T01:30:00Z

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.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-03-05

2008-03-06T00:56:04Z

Hmm, if we had just kept those Irish Papists out, back in the 1840s.... Snork.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T23:07:03Z

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?

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T21:59:27Z

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?

There's walking and there's talking. maybe we need to be the walkers, iffin' you know what I mean. I'll say this, if you think that Juan is going to be happy with our party, even if he agrees on the social and economic conservative point, if his wife is deported? Or his three cousins? There has to be something that we can do that shows that we in good faith start out by believing that immigrants come here in good faith for the same things that we love. Frankly, we're not going to win that "good faith" by consistently accusing immigrants, legal or illegal, of being here to steal from us or abuse our benefits. We need a positive message that reflects the positive nature of our belief in the importance and imperative of immigration in this nation while also conveying the positive aspects of security, not just for us, but for immigrants of all nature. But, we also better have a way forward to allow that immigration to flow or we will be, once again, talking and not walking. Our current debate positions are poison. They are anathema to attracting any positive flow from immigrants into our party except on very limited occasions. Iam serious when I say that we have to change how we are talking, what are focus is on and how our debate continually focuses on the negatives of immigration, even if it is illegal. We barely make legal immigrants feel welcome. I will think on this subject this evening and present some ideas on how we turn the subject into a positive. But, I really think that people need to consider that we: a) are not going to kick all these illegal immigrants out because it is impossible b) as long as they stay in the "underground" and we are the people calling for them to stay there by refusing to grant them a good process for citizenship, we are going to be the bad guys and everything we say or do to try to invite them into our party will be a big lie. You see, its not that our political opposition has simply been able to color Republicans as the anti-immigration party without good cause or base to establish this opinion in. We are anti- in the sense that most of what we say about immigrants revolves around illegal immigrants, often when we talk about these "illegals" we don't make a distinction and throw other legal immigrants under the bus with them, and we tend to talk about classes or origins of these "immigrants" with highly unfavorable language. It is not simply that these immigrants have to "assimilate" but we have to reformulate our expressions to remove negative stigmatism from the issue. Otherwise, you might as well do as you suggest is the reality and just forget it. then expect a more democrat, left leaning population in the end because that is what we made it, not simply that they are.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T20:42:49Z

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?

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T20:34:49Z

John stated the problem. Assimilation vs ethnic balkanization. For me, it leads back to the "Salad Bowl" vs "Melting Pot" perspectives of immigration, and the outcome of each strategy can be illustrated thusly: A salad in a salad bowl, wherein each component wholly retains its own unique characteristics, will basically fall apart when tossed into the air no matter how much salad dressing you've applied to enhance its taste or to create a common bond. As opposed to a newer and stronger alloy, created by adding different metals into a melting pot in which you retain the best qualities of the component entities while skimming off the slag and other impurities.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T20:25:09Z

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T19:35:42Z

Damian - I'm with you, with the glaring problem down here of we have an entire industry and one political party that are trying to set identity politics (i.e., balkanizing the populace) as the defining characteristic - actively discouraging assimilation by trying to protect people from having to assimilate in order to prosper. It's frustrating, because via assimilation we do take on many of the good characteristics of the assimilating population - and not just their recipes.

Comment from Damian on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T19:31:18Z

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T19:14:01Z

Oops! We committed the Cardinal Sin. We forgot it wasn't about us, it was All About Princess Crabby! Color me mostly with Sanger on the immigration issue. No over-run us with illegals, but making it easier to immigrate. One reason Europe went the way it did, I submit is that many of their people with gumption came here. I don't mind those people. And they can bring their food, too. But I don't want them to bring all the bad laws and policies that created the mess that they are fleeing.

Comment from Maggie on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T18:43:54Z

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

Comment from SangerM on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T18:38:49Z

> That spells doom for the nation we both love. You are so wrong it hurts to think about it. This is the same thing claimed by every generation of Americans who've had to deal with immigrants since sometime around 1800, and they were ALL wrong too! I know I can't convince you, I won't try, but I really think you all ought to take a step back and look at this country and its past and its future through a different set of not-so-made filters. You just don't realize how little of what passes for 'fact' about immigrantion and Mexico is just flat the result of either ignorance or intentional misdirection by people who have other agendas than the growth and welfare of *all* Americans. As for Obama and Clinton denouncing NAFTA, they are pandering idiots trying to build foundational support. Their plans would hurt this country and the world, not help it. To me one of hte biggest questions one should ask himself is whether he wants the world to improve over time for everyone or if he just wants the US to improve today at the expense of everyone else, even though in the long run, that will ultimately hurt the U.S. Truly. There is so, so much more to the equation than some guy losing his chair-making job in NC or Eurospawn white folks losing control of the country. And yes, that is a big part of it, despite endless denials. I hear it ALL the time here in San Antonio. I can only suggest a lot more research by each of us and lot less taking as gospel the tripe dished out by those who'se agendas are not what they may seem...

Comment from BloodSpite on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T17:54:27Z

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.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T16:53:04Z

Kat, 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 reality. Republicans passed the civil rights acts of the 1960s; a Republican president and a Republican senator championed amnesty last year; Republican presidents have done more than any Democrat to uplift minorities; every time the subject arises you can hear leading conservatives advocating ways to empower and uplift minorities -- and yet, nonwhites continue to overwhelmingly believe that Republicans are exclusively white and racist. And vote that way too. Hell, it was called a great victory when George W. Bush managed to get twenty percent of the hispanic vote. Twenty percent. One in five. Four out of five hispanics voted Democrat in 2004 -- and conservatives called that a victory. If you can think of a way to change that, then I'm all ears.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:58:01Z

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:37:43Z

Okay, I shoulda caveated "pro-gun". Be interesting to see what the Supremes say, and how that affects things.

Comment from John on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:35:01Z

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.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:22:32Z

Sitting this one out because you didn't get what you were hoping for may just hurt you one hell of a lot more than you realize. Doesn't matter anymore, Armorer. All three candidates favor amnesty for illegals, and there's a very high probability that Congress will be pro-amnesty as well. That spells doom for the nation we both love. I've said this before, in a number of places, and I'll say it again now: 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. Permanent Democrat control of the government will lead to societal and economic collapse within thirty years.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:12:35Z

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.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T15:02:39Z

Gulags in siberia

Comment from JimC on 2008-03-05

2008-03-05T14:28:25Z

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.