You Might Call This the GOP’s Chickens Coming Home to Roost
Author: Langley6 May
Remember how John McCain promised that he’d learned from the McCain-Kennedy-Bush immigration fiasco last summer, and that he would seek enforcement-first as President because he respected the message he had received from the American people?
Well, so much for that.
The Arizona senator also seemed to move past his usual “secure the borders first” mantra in favor of calling for, as he put it, “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Last summer, McCain and Sen. Edward Kennedy led the charge on an immigration reform package that aroused the ire of conservatives and ultimately threatened to undermine McCain’s then-frontrunning presidential bid. (McCain also supported immigration reform bills in 2005 and 2006.)
“Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don’t think you can take it piecemeal,” he explained Monday, answering a question about providing visas for skilled workers.
Oh boy.
Recent Comments
- Langley: Yeah, and regardless of his
- Barbara: Michael says: "Choosing Romney solidifies
- Barbara: I've been thinking Romney is
- ChemistryDave: Yea, this sucks. But it
- Sam: The Enquirer actually claims to
- ChemistryDave: Im pretty sure this story
- Oly: I am going to guess
- Langley: I make it clear in
- jim: and let me guess, edwards
- Michael C: Its a crap shoot. But
Categories
- Activism
- Authors
- Campaign 2006
- Campaign 2007
- Campaign 2008
- Campaign 2010
- Campaign Science
- Civil War
- College Republicans
- Conservative Movement
- CPAC 06
- CPAC 2007
- CPAC 2008
- Culture
- Daily Kos Stupidity
- General
- Herman Cain
- Issues
- Local Politics
- Religion
- RINO Watch
- Sports
- Supreme Court
- Tech
- The Site
- UK Politics
- Unions
- White House 2008
Blogroll
- AK's Rapid Fire
- Alarming News
- Alexander Brunk
- Bates Line
- Brain Terminal
- Captain's Quarters
- Carolina Politics Online
- Club for Growth
- ConfirmThem
- GOP3: The Triumvirate
- GrassrootsPA
- Instapundit
- Kansas Progress
- Langley Perry
- Martin Andrade
- Matty N's Blog
- Michelle Malkin
- National Journal's Blogometer
- National Review
- New England Republican
- NoMAR for HIM
- Outside the Beltway
- PA Water Cooler
- Peach Pundit
- Power Line
- Red Jersey
- RedState
- Republican Senate
- Republican Study Committee
- Right Wing News
- Rob Bluey
- See Jane Mom
- Senate Conservatives Fund
- Stromata Blog
- Talk Show American
- The American Mind
- The Columbia Conservative
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
32 Responses for "You Might Call This the GOP’s Chickens Coming Home to Roost"
Galatians 6:7, once again borne out.
Sorry to post something completely irrelevant to what Langley has written here, but I didn’t want ChemistryDave to worry about me. Tomorrow I leave for my summer job- playing with sharks in the Florida Keys- and I won’t have internet access. I shall resume posting in August. Thanks for some interesting discussion, everyone, and have a good summer.
Not surprising. He’s only reversed course on nearly everything he originally stood for. I wonder what’s next…
Hey David, have a good summer man.
I do not think McCain ever said he gave up on the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. He said he wanted to focus more on securing the border.
The fact is that most Republicans obviously do not care enough about the issue in the first place or McCain, the champion of comprehensive reform, would not have got the nomination.
Avoid the “tuna-wetsuit” at all costs.
Damn you McCain…
And have a good summer, David. If a shark gets too close, just punch it in the nose. That should work…
I guess we shouldn’t be all that surprised. McCain ran to the right to get the nomination and now that he has it he is running back to the center.
That’s why I didn’t buy the “just trust him, look at what he says about x y and z now!” schtick from the mainstream GOP then, and I don’t buy it now.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192604.php
The Jawa Report puts it in a bit more blunt way:
“Now that John McCain has the nomination locked up, he’s willing to admit that his talk of “securing the borders first” was a load of bullshit.”
“Don’t piss on us and tell us it’s raining.”
Touche.
We have it on low authority (very, very low authority) that Republicans fall in line whereas Democrats fall in love. Low authority notwithstanding, it’s true that Republicans fall in line. So, how are Republicans enjoying this whole fall-in-line strategy? Is it producing good nominees?
If McCain is ticking off conservatives now, wait until he becomes president. And “conservatives” will gnash their teeth for four years, and then rush to the polls to put him back in office so they can have four more years of abuse because they can’t stand the idea that the Democrats might win… even though the Dems will definitely win eventually. Unbelievable. It’s like the GOP WANTS to make itself miserable.
Should the Dems win when the GOP has a lousy nominee like McCain, or should they win in another year, when the GOP might actually have a good nominee to put up against them? For me, it’s no contest. Throw McCain under the bus and try to nominate someone who hasn’t made a career out of pissing off conservatives.
Remember, there’s no way in hell we’ll get a Republican president elected after Bush and McCain. One party won’t hold the White House that long. There’s just no way.
I wouldn’t be overly worried about losing the White House if it looked like Clinton would be the President. I can tolerate Hillary. It’s Obama that really frightens me.
I wouldn’t worry about a blue White House just yet. It’s looking more and more like the Dems have self-destructed in their most creative and spectacular fashion yet.
Its because he is black right sam? Its always race with you republicans…
Yea, I think its fair to say they call them as they see them in the south!
I think the desire to see Clinton over Obama among some of us deals with the fact the Clintons are a known entity and thus we know what we are getting. Furthermore, I doubt the Clintons are anywhere as naive as Obama.
You “conservatives” who have such a paralyzing fear of Obama… if you think the Dem who gets nominated in 2012 is going to be any better, stop dreaming. The Dems aren’t going to look at their loss this year and think, “Gee, the solution to this is to nominate someone more moderate.” They’ll nominate someone to the left of the salad fork, and they’ll go further and further with every election cycle.
Stop pretending that if Obama gets elected the whole country will go down the tubes, whereas if McCain wins then the whole course of history is changed drastically for the better. I hardly think that John McCain, of all people, would be the one to save us from irreversible decline. Quite to the contrary, he’s the one driving that decline.
The bogeyman politics of the RiNO Right will push this country further to the left than Obama himself ever could. Keep settling for people like John McCain and see how far left the party moves. Keep this up, and soon enough, George W. Bush is going to be remembered as one of the most conservative presidents we’ve ever had, if only by default. All because you just couldn’t stand up and say “Enough is enough. I’m not settling for just anything with an R next to his name. Give me a reason to vote for this party, or this party faces extinction.”
Alan, that is the unending fracture of the right….the “not going to vote” group. I see the virtue, but it achieves little in the end. So you arent gonna vote in the fall? Didnt vote in the primary? Big deal, you and half the country. Politics was never about perfection, our founding fathers knew that and practiced it. In fact, for a group of people who claim to be the heirs of the “founding fathers” so much, it is often overlooked that they were themselves bargainers and designed the government in that fashion.
The problem is that our political system has been bastardized by money and influence so badly, that these people are the best it can produce. As I have previously stated, the real blame lies with the people who have continually supported these losers throughout their entire political career. Dont like McCain?….go tell Arizona to drop in a hole. Maybe its the fact that New Hapshire of all places put this guy into motion. If the people would rise up and decide that we dont want Iowa and New Hampshire picking everything for us, then maybe things would change. McCain could not have been the dog catcher in my home state of Georgia. Me? Well, Im going to the polls in november and telling Obama that he can go back the poverty and crime ridden democratic paradise of Chicago. Im not waiting for the perfect candidate to come along, because Ill be crude oil by time that happens. Im going to claim the smallest of victories, even if it just prevents one absurd policy from being put in place. Id rather be in the game now and limit the damage, then wait for it to get further down the road. That is the same attitude that has gotten us where we are with social security, medicare, and govt spending in general.
that is the unending fracture of the right….the “not going to vote” group.
Based in part on the fact that the GOP nominee only carried 75% of the voters in his own party’s primaries today, I’m thinking the right is going to have a significant “not going to vote” group this fall. Perhaps he can win some of them back with his VP choice.
It is a fallacy to think that those people will not come out and vote in november for McCain. Plain and simple.
These people are protest voters. They voted for candidates who aren’t even in the race to show their disapproval of the nominee. In November it’s true that a lot of these voters will vote for McCain simply as the lesser of two evils. But I think it’s safe to say we’ll see a significant number of voters stay home. I don’t have time right now, but I can check polling data later.
“Politics was never about perfection, our founding fathers knew that and practiced it.”
I never insisted about perfection. Stop distorting my comments. Just because I can’t have a perfect candidate doesn’t mean I should settle for the man George Will correctly called the favorite Republican of those who regret that there are Republicans.
This is why I have no respect for so many McCain voters. You keep saying these patronizing things like, “Politics was never about perfection.” Well, I never asked for perfection, but the problem with McCain isn’t that he’s not perfect; the problem is that he’s EVIL.
McCain hates the freedom of speech, and wants to silence everyone who disagrees with him. He filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the 2003 campaign-finance case–McConnell v. FEC–in which he justified his fascistic campaign-finance law by saying that politicians shouldn’t have to put up with attack ads, so of course government should be able to regulate the content and timing of speech. He shoved a 92-year-old man on the Senate floor–Senator Strom Thurmond. He called the chairman of the FEC “corrupt” because they didn’t see eye to eye on campaign finance. He panders to a racist group, La Raza. He compared Jerry Falwell to Al Sharpton, a man who actually incited MURDERS (remember the “white interloper” speech). He lies endlessly about opposing amnesty for illegal aliens. He’s the only Republican nominee who’s going to make it impossible for Republicans ever again to say that they care about family values, because he cheated on his first wife. (I remember a time when Bill Clinton’s infidelity was half of what Republicans were attacking him for–back in 1992, when they didn’t have the perjury excuse for hating Clinton–and boy did they go after him for that.) I could go on forever about McCain.
“Id rather be in the game now and limit the damage, then wait for it to get further down the road. That is the same attitude that has gotten us where we are with social security, medicare, and govt spending in general.”
No, it’s the fault of people like you that we are where we are on these issues. Because people like you voted for George W. Bush. Bush gave us Medicare Part D, which may very well be the fiscal death of this Republic. Bush has been spending more than any other president since Johnson. It’s you RiNO enablers who’ve let things get to where they are now–and you’re going to make it even worse by voting for McCain.
“the problem with McCain isn’t that he’s not perfect; the problem is that he’s EVIL.”
“McCain hates the freedom of speech, and wants to silence everyone who disagrees with him”
“He’s the only Republican nominee who’s going to make it impossible for Republicans ever again to say that they care about family values, because he cheated on his first wife”
“It’s you RiNO enablers who’ve let things get to where they are now–and you’re going to make it even worse by voting for McCain.”
You sound like a balanced, well-reasoned person.
Alan, who would you have us vote for?? I didn’t vote for McCain in the primary, so I haven’t enabled any RINOs. However, he won our nomination fair and square and that’s the way it is. So again, I would ask you, what would you have us do? Staying home allows one thing to happen. Barack Obama becomes President, which have far worse consequences than McCain.
Furthermore, by staying at home you’re also helping the Democrats win against conservatives that might be running for U.S Senate, House, or state offices in your area. How exactly does that help?
We fight these things out in primaries. We lost this time. Next time we’ll hopefully get someone more desirable. That’s life.
Enough of your evilness Sam. Dont you realize that McCain and bin Laden are the same person?
Okay, I checked the polls.
Sunday’s CBS/NYT poll shows 18-22% of Republicans planning to stay home or crossover, depending upon the Dem nominee. That’s awfully high. On the other hand, this is small potatoes when compared to the Democrats, who have over 45% threatening to crossover or stay home regardless of which candidate wins the nomination.
Obviously, there’s a lot of bluffing going on, but there’s a core truth there. There are Republican voters so disillusioned with their nominee that - while they might not end up voting against McCain - they’re certainly not going to vote for him. Alan is one example, and I know others as well. I don’t know whether theirs is a rationally defensible stance, but for whatever reason it seems you couldn’t pay them to vote for McCain.
Of course there are people that dont like mccain, I dont like mccain. Thats what the polls show. The dem polls say the same thing about that race. Its all nonsense at this point. Come november, there will be two men on the ballot, and voting americans who care about the country will go to the polls. People who do not can be lumped in with the rest of the idiots in this country that dishonor all that our nation has sacrificed to give us the right to vote. McCain has the added benefit of drawing out large numbers of seniors and people who like his tough spending stance. It will more than make up for the nitwits that bring up his affair from ages ago.
“Barack Obama becomes President, which have far worse consequences than McCain.”
Not over the long run. If McCain is elected president, the next president will be a Democrat. And here’s why.
If McCain wins in 2008, he will run for a second term. There’s absolutely no reason to think McCain will step aside in 2012. He’s in good health, he’s got good genes (especially in respect of longevity), he’s ambitious as hell, and it’s clear that the only thing more fun than driving conservatives to distraction for four years is driving conservatives to distraction for eight years. (And wouldn’t it be wonderful for McCain if he gets to pick the justices who’ll replace Scalia, Kennedy, and maybe Thomas– the three members of the Supreme Court who pose the greatest threat to McCain’s signature achievement in Congress.)
So if McCain wins in 2008, he’ll run again in 2012. And when he runs, he’ll win the Republican nomination no matter how liberal he’s been. There’s no chance that a Republican will knock him off in a primary–Republicans never primary a president. So either a Democrat defeats McCain in 2012, or McCain will get a second term.
If McCain gets a second term, that means sixteen consecutive years of Republican presidents. After sixteen years of that, it would be insane to think that a Republican would win the 2016 election. That would entail Republicans’ winning five consecutive presidential elections, which hasn’t happened since the nineteenth century. It’s not going to happen again.
And you know the Democrats will win the White House SOMEday. What I can’t understand for the life of me is why Republicans think that THIS election is the one that’ll so crucially affect the country’s future. McCain isn’t going to be our savior in the War on Terror. He wants to close Guantanamo, he’ll shackle the military interrogators, and he’s an unpredictable lunatic, so emotionally unstable that giving him access to nuclear weapons would be like playing Russian roulette with the entire world.
Some people say, “We’re one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade.” But McCain isn’t going to appoint judges who’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. The last time he ran for president, he said Roe should never, EVER be overturned, and he repeatedly invoked the shibboleth of the pro-choice movement that if we overturn Roe tomorrow, thousands of women will die. Why do you trust him to do the right thing when he becomes president? Just because he speaks in these empty platitudes about how judges shouldn’t make law? He’s just saying that to get your vote. When he becomes president, what do you think he’s going to do–appoint more Robertses and Alitos? You can’t even tell me what that means. Promising to appoint another Roberts or Alito doesn’t mean promising to appoint someone who’ll overturn Roe. And we already know that McCain doesn’t want Roe overturned, because he himself said so when he let his guard down. You can’t trust McCain to keep a promise that you don’t really understand. Hell, you can’t trust him to keep a promise that he laid out in plain English–he promised to secure the border before giving illegal aliens citizenship, and now he’s backing off from that. McCain has spent his career speaking out of both sides of his mouth. How on earth can you trust him to be any good at all?
Whichever Democrat comes after McCain is going to be at least as liberal as Obama. If the Dems lose this election, that’s not going to convince them to stop nominating far-left candidates. Why would they learn that lesson now, if they didn’t learn it after McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis? Do you have any reason to believe that Obama is somehow worse than the Democrat who’ll be nominated next time? If so, please share. Because Republicans seem to think that Obama presents a unique threat, and they’ve given no evidence of that whatsoever.
So if McCain wins, we’ll have eight years of left-wing fiscal policy under Bush, followed by four to eight years of McCain reminding you why Republicans hate him so much (something they apparently forgot along the way), followed by who knows how many years of a liberal Democrat. Over the long run, that means the country moves more and more to the left. Why is that better than losing now and coming back with a candidate who doesn’t embrace as many left-wing causes as McCain embraces? Could someone explain that to me? All I ever hear from the party faithful is that Obama is worse than McCain. But (and this is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know this) what reason do you have to think that Obama will be worse *over the long run?*
“Come november, there will be two men on the ballot, and voting americans who care about the country will go to the polls.”
Right, because it’s unpatriotic to sit out an election between candidates like these. Here’s a joke I picked up from Patterico’s Pontifications, with a few changes to fit this argument.
Q. What’s the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain?
A. One has a history of financial scandal; has spoken of setting benchmarks for withdrawal from Iraq; has said the Bush tax cuts benefitted the wealthy at the expense of the middle class; has derided Sam Alito as too openly conservative; has supported amnesty for illegal immigrants (and then lied about it); has spoken out against overturning Roe v. Wade; has repeatedly said that overturning Roe will lead to thousands of women dying in back-alley abortions; has said that we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because it’s “pristine”; has misrepresented the positions of Republican candidates; wants to close Guantanamo; has spoken of sending “greedy people on Wall Street” to jail for their roles in giving subprime loans; has been endorsed by hard-core liberal editorialists; has said pharmaceutical companies are bad guys; supports blatantly unconstitutional limits on free speech; and is hated by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin . . .
. . . and the other one’s a Democrat.
“People who do not can be lumped in with the rest of the idiots in this country that dishonor all that our nation has sacrificed to give us the right to vote.”
You really shouldn’t call other people idiots in the same sentence as you’re making embarrassing errors in logic. You think that not voting is a dishonor to the sacrifices that were made to earn the right to vote. That makes no sense. Obviously, the right to vote includes the right NOT to vote; otherwise the right to vote wouldn’t be a “right.” You’re saying that exercising this right dishonors the sacrifices made to earn the right. As far as stupid arguments go, that one’s a beauty. Who needs Publius when we have you?
“McCain has the added benefit of drawing out large numbers of seniors and people who like his tough spending stance. It will more than make up for the nitwits that bring up his affair from ages ago.”
Part of my point in bringing up McCain’s failure to abide by the Seventh Commandment is to remind Republicans that they’ve long prided themselves on being the party of family values. That all ends with this election. Family-values voters (or family-values-oriented political commentators, or anyone who thinks that politicians should talk about family values) who pull the level for John McCain are hypocrites. Months ago, Ron Paul said that if Republicans vote for Rudy Giuliani, they owe Bill Clinton an apology. The same is true of Republicans who vote for McCain. After this election, no one will ever again take Republicans seriously when Republicans talk about family values. It’s not just “nitwits” who’ll bring up McCain’s adultery. Anyone who has a functioning memory will bring that up. And you’ll hear a lot more of it as time goes on. You’ll hear it more as Election Day gets closer, and you’ll hear it even more after the election passes. Get used to hearing about McCain’s infidelity. You’ll hear it a lot more, from people who have nothing in common with me except their disdain for hypocrisy.
By the way, you talk about McCain’s “tough spending stance.” How did he vote on the No Child Left Behind Act? Oh, that’s right. He voted for it. He’s tough on spending when it comes to earmarks, but even if he eliminates all earmarks, that won’t even come close to wiping out the deficit, because earmarks are only the tip of the iceberg. McCain is perfectly happy to see the government flush money down the toilet, as long as the wasteful spending isn’t called an “earmark.”
But of course McCain won’t succeed in his campaign against earmarks, so he won’t even get to make that teensy-weensy dent in the deficit that we’d get if earmarks were abolished. McCain is running for the presidency, not the crown. If Congress wants to keep earmarks, McCain can’t do anything about it except complain. He says he’s going to identify which members of Congress are getting money for stupid pork project and “make them famous.” That’s actually not going to happen, because it would entail naming a large majority of the people who’re serving in Congress. When you have to single out that many people, you’re not going to succeed in singling out anybody. McCain won’t be able to make the porkers famous, because there are far too many of them.
McCain isn’t serious about tackling the major spending issues–there will be no entitlement reform in a McCain administration–so McCain is just focusing on one small part of the problem: earmarks. And the one part of the problem he’s focusing on quite simply isn’t going to go away, no matter what McCain does, because McCain doesn’t have the power to do what you think he’s going to do. So we’ll have all this talk about McCain the spending hawk, and then when McCain becomes president we’ll see pretty much the same deficit spending we’ve had for eight years under George W. Bush. So what have you gained? You’ve temporarily gained the support of some people who really, really care about spending–and then they’ll be furious because they were duped. McCain promises no more business as usual, and some people will believe that, and then they’ll see they were lied to. That’s not going to sit well with the voters who support McCain this year because they think he’ll change the spending situation in Washington, D.C. It’s only going to reinforce the message that Republicans are incapable of balancing a budget. That’s the only lesson (on the spending issue) that people will take away from a McCain presidency–no matter how convicing the Republican candidate is, in the end they’ll never balance the budget. Is that a good thing for the long-term health of this party?
Alan, you can vote for a third party candidate in the very least instead of not voting for anyone. By not voting at all you’re just as guilty as enabling the two bad choices as those you are complaining about. You should still show up to support your local conservatives that are running, assuming there are any.
“…McCain isn’t serious about tackling the major spending issues…”
^^
This is my concern. The Republicans in power like to proclaim the evils of “tax and spend” Democrats. But right now the only alternative the GOP is offering is “spend and spend.”
Somewhere Goldwater is weeping.
Leave a reply