John McCain > General Discussion

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:15:45 PM EDT

another poster here felt too much credit is being given to mccain for his service in vietnam; that he was no hero and only got shot down and tortured a little, that he didn't do anything exceptional. not so. this is from wiki and i thought it might be worth clarifying exactly how he did more than simply endure.

this starts after his previous 22 air missions against the north:

On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying as part of a 20-plane attack against a thermal power plant in central Hanoi, a heavily defended target area that had previously been off-limits to U.S. raids. McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile while pulling up after dropping its bombs. McCain fractured both arms and a leg in being hit and ejecting from his plane. He nearly drowned after he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him, spat on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. Others crushed his shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area; he was then transported to Hanoi's main prison. Although badly wounded, his captors refused to put him in the hospital, deciding he would soon die anyway; they beat and interrogated him, but McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care and announce his capture; at this point, two days after it went down, McCain's plane going missing and his subsequent appearance as a POW made the front page of The New York Times.

McCain spent six weeks in a hospital, receiving marginal care, was interviewed by a French television reporter whose report was carried on CBS, and was observed by a variety of North Vietnamese, including the famous General Vo Nguyen Giap, many of whom assumed that he must be part of America's political-military-economic elite. Now having lost 50 pounds, in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white, McCain was sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in Hanoi in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week (one was Bud Day, a future Medal of Honor recipient); they nursed McCain and kept him alive. In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would be for two years. In July 1968, McCain's father was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC), stationed in Honolulu and commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater. McCain was immediately offered a chance to return home early: the North Vietnamese wanted a mercy-showing propaganda coup for the outside world, and a message that only privilege mattered that they could use against the other POWs. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation due to the Code of Conduct of "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. McCain's refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese officials to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman at the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.

In August 1968, a program of vigorous torture methods began on McCain, using rope bindings into painful positions and beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery. Teeth and bones were broken again as was McCain's spirit; the beginnings of a suicide attempt was stopped by guards. After four days of this, McCain signed an anti-American propaganda "confession" that said he was a "black criminal" and an "air pirate", although he used stilted Communist jargon and ungrammatical language to signal the statement was forced. He would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." His injuries to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head. His captors tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions". On one occasion when McCain was physically coerced to give the names of members of his squadron, he supplied them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line. On another occasion, a guard surreptitiously loosened McCain's painful rope bindings for a night; when he later saw McCain on Christmas Day, he stood next to McCain and silently drew a cross in the dirt with his foot (decades later, McCain would relate this Good Samaritan story during his presidential campaigns, as a testament to faith and humanity). McCain refused to meet with various anti-war peace groups coming to Hanoi, such as those led by David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, and Rennie Davis, not wanting to give either them or the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory based on his connection to his father.

In October 1969, treatment of McCain and the other POWs suddenly improved, after a badly beaten and weakened POW who had been released that summer disclosed to the world press the conditions to which they were being subjected. In December 1969, McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa Prison, which later became famous via its POW nickname of the "Hanoi Hilton". McCain continued to refuse to see anti-war groups or journalists sympathetic to the North Vietnamese regime; to one visitor who did speak with him, McCain later wrote, "I told him I had no remorse about what I did, and that I would do it over again if the same opportunity presented itself." McCain and other prisoners were moved around to different camps at times, but conditions over the next several years were generally more tolerable than they had been before.

Altogether McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, ending direct U.S. involvement in the war, but the Operation Homecoming arrangements for POWs took longer; McCain was finally released from captivity on March 15, 1973, having been a POW for almost an extra five years due to his refusal to accept the out-of-sequence repatriation offer.

man, if they ever do a movie on mccain, who do you think would play him???

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:18:08 PM EDT

[#1]

this is from wiki

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:19:31 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

this is from wiki

therefore it's ALL FALSE

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:20:35 PM EDT

[#3]

it is what it is.

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:21:41 PM EDT

[#4]

it's not his service in Vietnam that's the issue with John McCain.

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:23:38 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

man, if they ever do a movie on mccain, who do you think would play him???

Owen Wilson?

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:24:35 PM EDT

[#6]

man, if they ever do a movie on mccain, who do you think would play him???

Heath Ledger is out of the running.

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:32:11 PM EDT

[#7]

how about tom cruise?

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:34:56 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

this is from wiki

therefore it's ALL FALSE

Okay. Post the truth.

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:35:02 PM EDT

[#9]

The man endured alot, and no one should diminish that. With that said, I will never vote for him.........unless Fred is his VP

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:35:21 PM EDT

[#10]

Maybe John McCain stayed true to Republicans but Conservative thought moved further to the right?

Remember Reagan passed Amnesty & the MG bill.

I still won't vote for McCain in the primary.

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:38:58 PM EDT

[#11]

well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:46:49 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
man, if they ever do a movie on mccain, who do you think would play him???

Guy Pierce?

Posted: 1/23/2008 12:51:06 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The man endured alot, and no one should diminish that. With that said, I will never vote for him ~~.........unless Fred is his VP~~

+1

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:14:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

You know, this is getting pretty old. There's a lot of things you can slam John McCain for, but the 2nd Amendment really isn't one of them. Yes, he proposed NICS checks for non-licensed sellers at gun shows. He also wanted gun locks to be included with guns (so what?). That knocks his RKBA arms score down a bit, but overall, I'd say he earns at least a B, if not an A-

Did the NRA slam him during the Gunshow "loophole" debate? Yes, but that's just a typical NRA fundraising tactic (and yes, I'm an NRA member). I'll bet dollars to donuts that if he's the Republican nominee, he gets the NRA's endorsement. You can be damn sure they'll endorse him before they give the nod to Hillary.

Again, there are lots of reasons not to like John McCain, but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I'll take him over any of the other plausible candidates any day. Forget Ron Paul, he's not going to get nominated. The Democratic nominee will be Hillary or Obama. THe Republican will be Rudy, McCain or Romney. Given these five options, McCain is clearly the most supportive of the 2nd Amendment.

It probably won't change your mind about McCain on the 2nd Amendment, but take a moment and read his campaign propaganda on guns:

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability

John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines

John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks

John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition

John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection

As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Criminal Background Checks

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period

John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The confiscation of firearms after an emergency

John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.

And his recent speech to the NRA:

September 21, 2007

John McCain delivered remarks to the National Rifle Association Friday, September 21st at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Below are McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery:

It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning. I see a lot of old friends here, friends like Jim Baker whom I worked with as long ago as the 1980s in the struggle to preserve firearms freedom. His hair was not so gray back then -- and I had a lot more of it.

This is a sophisticated crowd. You know politics, and you know politicians. You are pretty used to hearing aspirants for public office come before you and pledge fealty to the cause of the Second Amendment. You know you need to dig into a politician's record to find out where they really stand. You know some will change their position or have little record for you to judge. That is not the case with me.

When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners and the National Rifle Association. For more than two decades, I've opposed the efforts of the anti-gun crowd to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and paint gun owners as some kind of fringe group, dangerous in "modern" America. Some even call you "extremists." My friends, gun owners are not extremists, you are the core of modern America. The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners -- and those who make and sell firearms -- for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun crowd comes up with a plan to capitalize on tragedy and limit Second Amendment rights for all Americans. I opposed the ban on so-called "assault weapons" which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. I thought it made no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I opposed waiting periods for gun purchases. We lost on both of those in the short run, but it has worked out better in the long-run. Fortunately, that gun ban sunsetted after 10 long years. And, I was proud to vote against those who tried to extend it in 2004.

I also opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities. Fortunately, we are able to protect manufacturers from these frivolous lawsuits.

In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable -- even necessary -- to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it's really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation's capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.

The second myth is that of the "bad gun." This was at the core of the debate over so-called "assault weapons." Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable -- for now -- but others are not if they have certain features -- like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.

Finally, there is the hunting myth -- if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.

Over the years, we have not agreed on every issue. We had differences over my efforts to standardize the sales procedures at gun shows and to clean up our campaign finance system. I understand and respect your position. But while we may disagree on the means we do agree on the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and, in light of the number of my colleagues who have been disgraced, are under investigation and are worried about indictment, agree that Washington needs cleaning up. Americans have lost trust in their government and that trust must be restored.

But these minor differences pale in comparison to our shared vision of a Second Amendment protected from political vagaries. And we have real differences with many of those running for President. Democratic presidential candidates have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They pose for the cameras in camouflage. But that is all they are doing -- posing. Just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they don't want gun control. Let's be clear. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards are elected President, they will go after the rights of law abiding gun owners -- just as Bill Clinton did when he was president. Moveon.org, which seems to be calling the shots in the Democratic Party these days, will have more influence on gun control in the Oval Office, not John Dingell. These Democratic candidates voted to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existen ce as Senators. Think how much worse it would be if they had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, name Attorneys General and use the full power of the federal government.

And just as the Democratic candidates are fundamentally wrong about the Second Amendment, they are fundamentally wrong about the key threats facing America in the 21st century.

As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the war in Iraq has not gone well, and the American people have grown sick and tired of it. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything -- seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life.

In the coming month we will face a fork in the road. We can pursue our opportunity for victory in Iraq, strengthen our hand in the larger war against Isl amic extremists, and make our nation more secure. Or we can fold our tents, embolden our enemies, throw a region into instability, and increase the risks faced on our home soil. Which way requires greater leadership? I am leading the fight on the floor of the United States Senate to support our troops and in support of victory and against a plan for surrender.

We have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a counterinsurgency strategy that I have advocated from the beginning of this war, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, we must give General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and I cannot be complicit in it. I will do whatever I can to help avert it. That is all I can offer my country. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that and am humbled by it. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my fellow Americans, as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others -- and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted so we can defeat our enemies. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

Thank you for your attention.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:26:41 PM EDT

[#15]

www.amazon.com/Nightingales-Song-Robert-Timberg/dp/0684826739/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201127063&sr=1-2

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:30:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

We are? You're the first one to mention it.

And my beef with McCain is his stance on illegal aliens and McCain-Feinfold, not guns. If he'd just get a clue about the illegals, I could vote for him.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:30:41 PM EDT

[#17]

I can respect and thank him for his service.

That does not automatically mean I think he would make a good president, or frankly even a good senator.

John Murtha and John Glenn come to mind in the same group. Honorable service to their country in the military arena, not so much in the political arena.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:32:29 PM EDT

[#18]

Charlie Wrangel and John Murtha were Marines too but that don't make them good politicians.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:37:13 PM EDT

[#19]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I honor McCain's military service but I will not vote for him in any leadership race, let alone for POTUS.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:48:30 PM EDT

[#20]

He can't be trusted. He's for open borders. He's for siding with liberals. NO!

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:50:33 PM EDT

[#21]

Isn't John Mcain the guy running for prez of new aztlan ?

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:53:18 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

We are? You're the first one to mention it.

And my beef with McCain is his stance on illegal aliens and McCain-Feinfold, not guns. If he'd just get a clue about the illegals, I could vote for him.

Regarding McCain and illegals:

1.) I can understand why he takes the positions he does. He represents Arizona, which is probably at least 30 percent Hispanic. Seems like smart politics to me.
2.) Hillary is currently working on an Hispanic strategy, by courting the workers in California, Nevada and elsewhere. She understands that if she's got the brown vote, she can afford to lose a lot of the black vote to Obama. The Republicans need someone who doesn't spew a bunch of anti-Hispanic rhetoric if they have any hope of taking the White House.
3.) I live in the middle of America so I don't see the illegal immigration situation as others do. We have them here but they come to work in the pork and poultry plants. It's awful work and employers truly have a hard time finding and keeping Americans to do the jobs.
4.) Finally, I believe that many Americans are being played on this issue. The politicians use it as a way to rally the masses but it's clear they don't really mean to do anything about it. If they did, they'd fine the hell out of employers. It's a demand problem, not a supply problem.

Bottom line: Illegal immigration is not my issue and I'm afraid it will play into the Democrats hands and ensure a Hillary victory. To me, McCain's position is a plus come November.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:57:52 PM EDT

[#23]

McCain is a true american hero. As a human being, he has my utmost respect. I don't like people trying to disparage his military record. He's gone through more shit than I EVER will.

That being said, I wouldn't vote for him. Liberals and moderates love him, and that should tell you something. Border security and 2A rights are big to me, and not to him. Screw him being president... that would be aweful.

You think Illegal immigration isn't a problem? How about the crime rate among hispanics being 4x as high as the population average? They aren't just here to make an honest living. At least, not all of them. In Colorado we are being overrun w/ illegals, although the last 2 cold winters might help us out a little.

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:00:04 PM EDT

[#24]

George Clooney would play him.

They're probably buddies since their political beliefs are almost the same.

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:01:27 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

We are? You're the first one to mention it.

And my beef with McCain is his stance on illegal aliens and McCain-Feinfold, not guns. If he'd just get a clue about the illegals, I could vote for him.

McCain-Lieberman.

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:03:32 PM EDT

[#26]

IIRC McCain was on the USS Forrestal during the great fire debacle that killed so many sailors in 1967. It wasn't too long after that he was shot down. I believe his plane was one of those involved in the original explosion on deck, or it was damn close.

I'd vote for him if he was president of policy outside our borders---i.e. "kick ass and take names" on the bad guys. But when it comes to inside our borders (and that starts right AT our border) I don't like him.

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:07:12 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
IIRC McCain was on the USS Forrestal during the great fire debacle that killed so many sailors in 1967. It wasn't too long after that he was shot down. I believe his plane was one of those involved in the original explosion on deck, or it was damn close.

It was his plane that got hit. He climbed down the nose of his aircraft to escape the inferno and the whole damn thing blew just after he got clear.

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:08:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
You think Illegal immigration isn't a problem? How about the crime rate among hispanics being 4x as high as the population average? . . .

You can say the same thing about African-Americans. It has everything to do with income and social class . . .

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:09:23 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
IIRC McCain was on the USS Forrestal during the great fire debacle that killed so many sailors in 1967. It wasn't too long after that he was shot down. I believe his plane was one of those involved in the original explosion on deck, or it was damn close.

It was his plane that got hit. He climbed down the nose of his aircraft to escape the inferno and the whole damn thing blew just after he got clear.

Yeah, live through that and then get shot down and live in the Hanoi Hilton for a few years!

Talk about shitty luck......

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:11:55 PM EDT

[#30]

man, if they ever do a movie on mccain, who do you think would play him???

Shawn Hatosy:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444626/

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:15:37 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
well that's all wonderful. and your comment about the movies is nice. But we are talking about the second amendment here.
AJ

We are? You're the first one to mention it.

And my beef with McCain is his stance on illegal aliens and McCain-Feinfold, not guns. If he'd just get a clue about the illegals, I could vote for him.

Regarding McCain and illegals:

1.) I can understand why he takes the positions he does. He represents Arizona, which is probably at least 30 percent Hispanic. Seems like smart politics to me.

I think the Hispanic population is approaching 50%. however the legal Hispanic population votes about 50/50 in favor of the anti illegal alien measures, compared to 80/20 for the white and black population in AZ

2.) Hillary is currently working on an Hispanic strategy, by courting the workers in California, Nevada and elsewhere. She understands that if she's got the brown vote, she can afford to lose a lot of the black vote to Obama. The Republicans need someone who doesn't spew a bunch of anti-Hispanic rhetoric if they have any hope of taking the White House.

you're confusing Hispanic with illegal alien again, 2 completely different animals. Also Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block.

3.) I live in the middle of America so I don't see the illegal immigration situation as others do. We have them here but they come to work in the pork and poultry plants. It's awful work and employers truly have a hard time finding and keeping Americans to do the jobs.

give it a few months, they're leaving here and moving your way since we turned the heat up on them.

4.) Finally, I believe that many Americans are being played on this issue. The politicians use it as a way to rally the masses but it's clear they don't really mean to do anything about it. If they did, they'd fine the hell out of employers. It's a demand problem, not a supply problem.

you're right the pols aren't doing jack about it, probably due to campaign contributions from big Ag, but it is a huge problem and people are starting to take note.

Bottom line: Illegal immigration is not my issue and I'm afraid it will play into the Democrats hands and ensure a Hillary victory. To me, McCain's position is a plus come November

Mccain's position is going to bite him in the ass big time. he'll get swiftboated over his involvement with the Keating 5 and a shit load of other skeletons in his closet.
.

got to disagree with you on a couple of points

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:35:42 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

you're confusing Hispanic with illegal alien again, 2 completely different animals. Also Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block.

No, actually, I'm ignoring the difference. These are people who come to America for a better life. Everybody says "I'm for legal immigration, but against illegal immigration." But I bet nobody who says that can explain what's involved in becoming a legal immigrant. What's the process? Is it fair? Is it overly complex? Is it adequate to meet the needs of American employers? Clearly, the "legal" system of immigration isn't working. I say change the "legal" system so that it better reflects reality and big part of the problem goes away.

But the bigger issue is racism directed at Hispanics. Legal hispanics may not want a bunch of wetbacks streaming over the border, but they don't like the general sense of animosity toward brown people either. That is NOT the way to win them over to the Republican party. It's a damn shame, too, because traditionally Hispanics are hard working people with good family values. They're generally pretty conservative on a lot of issues and could easily find a home in the Republican Party if all the angry white men weren't working so hard to run them off.

Mccain's position is going to bite him in the ass big time. he'll get swiftboated over his involvement with the Keating 5 and a shit load of other skeletons in his closet.
.

His Keating involvement is minimal at best. He attended a couple of meetings with a constituent (that's what legislators do). While three of the five were pretty clearly up to something, nothing really ever stuck to McCain. Besides, he came out of the situation determined to address campaign financing and authored the McCain-Feingold bill. Which is it? Is he a crook or is he the one that shut down political influence to the point that it violates the First Amendment? (BTW, I notice you use the term "Swiftboated." Ironic, since such "527" groups still manage to function and get their word out, despite McCain-Feingold.)

But, finally, on immigration, I guess I'm just poisoned by my upbringing. You see, I went to grade school at a time when they still indoctrinated kids into American values. One of those values hit home pretty squarely in my mind. It's expressed by the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I find it inconceivable that at a time when the descendants of Irish and Italian and German Americans are raising money to restore Ellis Island, we have this debate going on . . .

Posted: 1/23/2008 2:51:29 PM EDT

[#33]

Kato Cailin

Posted: 1/23/2008 5:45:33 PM EDT

[#34]

Six Big Lies About John McCain

Michael Medved on Townhall.com

LIE #1: John McCain isn’t a loyal Republican.

TRUTH: McCain has been a stalwart Reagan Republican since he first entered politics in 1981.

He has never backed Democratic candidates for president or lesser posts – other than supporting his friend Joe Lieberman in his Independent campaign for US Senate in 2006. Over the years, he has campaigned tirelessly for Republican office-holders in every corner of the country – including vigorous campaigning that helped win elections for his former rival George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. McCain has earned a lifetime rating of 83 for his Senate voting record from the American Conservative Union; his friend, Fred Thompson, won a very similar lifetime rating of 86 and appropriately dubbed himself “a consistent conservative.” While some of McCain’s harshest critics regularly talk of abandoning the GOP for some third party option (and some did so to back Pat Buchanan’s embarrassing run in 2000), McCain has never abandoned his party. On three crucial items in the Bush agenda – taking the offensive against terrorists, cutting wasteful government spending, and comprehensive immigration reform – no member of Congress has provided more loyal or significant support for the President of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party.

----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #2: McCain represents a betrayal and rejection of the Reagan coalition.

TRUTH: McCain is a consistent, passionate Reagan Republican who, like the greatest president of recent years, is unabashedly pro-life, pro-second amendment rights, pro-military, pro-peace through strength, pro-small government, pro-spending cuts, and pro-tax cuts.

Many leaders of the Reagan Revolution – Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.

--------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #3: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to Block the Confirmation of Conservative Judges.

TRUTH: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to win- not to block -the Confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate.

This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats (representing a full 14% of the US Senate, obviously) ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush. Because of McCain’s leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats. He also secured the previously blocked confirmations of Appellate Judges William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Brett Kavanaugh, previously filibustered by Democrats. At the same time, McCain and his “gang” managed to protect the right to filibuster – an important tool with obvious value now that Republicans find themselves in the minority. McCain has never opposed a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court; unlike some of his prominent fellow Republicans, he actively supported the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. His disagreement with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist on the “Gang of Fourteen” issues involved questions of tactics, not the goal of securing a judiciary that honors the principles of strict construction.

-------------------------------------------------

LIE #4: John McCain supports higher taxes.

TRUTH: John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has acknowledged that even though McCain refuses to take the “no new taxes” pledge he has kept that pledge with his voting record, throughout his service in the Senate and the House. Yes, he did vote against Bush tax cuts – but did so because no cuts in spending accompanied the cuts in taxes. Unlike some of his colleagues, he insists that tax cuts and increased revenues won’t be enough to close the deficit – there must be spending cuts as well. It’s increasingly obvious that he’s right: tax cuts without spending cuts won’t shrink the national debt or trim the size of government. He currently supports making all the Bush tax cuts permanent before their schedule expiration in 2010 to allow individuals and businesses to plan their futures without uncertainty. He also backs an immediate cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% (second highest rate in the world) to 20% (one of the lowest in the world) as a means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. He also backs instituting new rules requiring a super majority – a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress-- rather than simple majorities, to approve any tax increases. This would make it vastly more difficult for future Congresses (even under Democratic control) to take more money from hard-working Americans.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #5: McCain is an advocate of “amnesty” and “open borders.”

TRUTH: As Senior Senator from Arizona, McCain has fought for years to tighten border security, stop illegal immigration, increase workplace enforcement and to resist “amnesty” for those who entered the country without authorization.

McCain’s rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, unequivocally and rightly acknowledged that his opponent’s position in no way amounts to “amnesty” or “open borders.” In the Fox News debate in South Carolina on January 10, Governor Romney declared: “All of us on this stage agree… that we secure the border, we have the fence, and we have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the border; and that we have an employment verification system of some kind….We all agree that anybody who’s committed a crime should be sent home.”

As Romney pointed then out: “The place of difference between us is what we do with the 12 million people who are here illegally.” Romney’s answer? “Those who are here illegally today would be looked at person by person, given a specific time period by which they arrange their affairs, they stay here during that time period. When that time period is over, they go home…”

Alone among Presidential candidates, McCain has shown the courage to stand up against such simplistic sloganeering. No President will ever succeed in driving out all 12 million illegals – the greatest forced migration in all human history. Illegals represent more than 5% of America’s work force and the cost of firing and, ultimately, deporting for forcing out every one of those people would cripple the economy far worse than any recession. The immigration bills McCain supported (along with President Bush and the Senate Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and John Kyl) never granted “amnesty” or automatic citizenship for undocumented aliens. Instead, McCain’s idea of immigration reform always emphasized “earned legalization” and assimilation– not automatic privileges – in an effort to separate the immigrants who wanted to begin playing by the rules and to enter the American mainstream, from those who continued to defy those rules and have no long-term stake in the country. It’s not amnesty to charge $6,000 in fines and payment of back taxes, to require background checks and mastery of English, and to demand registry with the government and acknowledgment of wrong-doing before an immigrant received legal status. Before an illegal could become a citizen, the process required at least nine years (and in most cases fourteen) of cooperation, commitment and patience. Moreover, two crucial elements of last year’s immigration bill received almost no attention: under the bill any immigrant who attempted to enter America illegally after the passage of immigration reform would be apprehended, identified, finger-printed and biometrically recorded, and forever banned from receiving legal status to work or live in the United States. Second, the unfinished (and ultimately unsuccessful) compromise bill included a “trigger provision”: no illegal immigrant would receive legal status until after Congress certified that the border had been effectively secured. McCain emphasizes this provision in his current proposals: insisting we secure the border first, before we make arrangements for future guest workers and give a chance to some (but by no means all) current illegal residents to earn legal status in the U.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #6: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform represents a devastating assault on free speech.

TRUTH: McCain-Feingold was a piece of useless, misguided legislation but it’s done no serious damage to the country, the constitution or the conservative pro-life cause. After nearly seven years on the books, robust and impassioned discussion of political issues and candidates is more vibrant and free-wheeling than ever. The pro-life movement (with McCain’s enthusiastic support) has made substantial progress in the last seven years, changing minds and hearts and driving abortion rates to their lowest point in 29 years—unimpeded by McCain-Feingold. More people are involved in donating to candidates and causes than before the legislation, and there’s been an increase in the broadcast of campaign ads and distribution of political materials, not a reduction. Does any American – particularly those in key primary states – honestly believe we now have a shortage of political ads on TV? Those who say that McCain-Feingold took away free speech make no more sense than leftists who claim that the Patriot Act destroyed civil liberties or crushed dissent: their arguments remain utterly disconnected from the real world experience of every American. Hard-hitting, free wheeling debate is alive and well in the land of the free. McCain favored counterweights to lobbyist influence and the corrupting impact of money in politics because he saw that commercial involvement as a powerful force toward corporate welfare and government expansion—betraying the small government ideals he has always embraced.

Of course, this discussion only begins to scratch the surface when it comes to the smears and distortions against Senator McCain from some of his long-standing foes in the Republican establishment. Fortunately, the Senator himself is getting more opportunity to speak directly to the American people, above the heads of the talk radio hosts who are leading the hysterical charge against him.

On the night of his primary victory in South Carolina, for instance, McCain gave a concise, eloquent summary of his conservative philosophy:

“I seek the nomination of our Party,” he said, “because I am as confident today as I was when I first entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution that the principles of the Republican Party – our confidence in the good sense and resourcefulness of free people – are always in America’s best interests. In war and peace, in good times and challenging ones, we have always known that the first responsibility of government is to keep this country safe from its enemies, and the American people free of a heavy-handed government that spends too much of their money, and tries to do for them what they are better able to do for themselves. We want government to do its job, not your job;; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes ot us and not make promises it will not keep. We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, and then get out of the way so that the most industrious, ingenious, and enterprising people in the world can do what they have always done: build an even greater country than the one they inherited.”

McCain’s critics have every right to prefer other candidates, or to reject his increasingly powerful bid to unite the party and defeat the Democrats in November.

They are wrong, however, to lie about his policies, his principals, his record and his character. Instead of the endless concentration on distorted reasons to dislike McCain, the complainers should concentrate on the basis for admiring the candidates they do support. The Republican Party would benefit from an open, honest debate about the virtues of the various candidates that make them worthy of support, rather than incessant and self-destructive focus on alleged vices of the front-running candidate that make him worthy of contempt.

Again and again in his 25 years in politics, John McCain has risked his career to provide straight talk to the American people. Those who claim to cherish the integrity of the conservative movement owe it to their party and their country to talk straight about all four of the excellent candidates remaining in this race.

Posted: 1/23/2008 5:52:48 PM EDT

[#35]

holy shit, you guys have posted a shitload of good info on mccain i haven't seen before!

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - John McCain

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - John McCain