What's going on with this crazy GOP nomination race?
"Crazy" isn't a bad choice. The fluidity of the contest and the events of last couple weeks leave us at a rather bizarre point. Take a minute to read this post by Rich Lowry, which sums up many of my own related thoughts, in addition to some others. It's the most important analysis of the race I've seen lately.
Wait a minute, Lowry is saying we're seriously looking at a Huckabee v. Romney or McCain contest. Is that true?
I agree with Lowry; it looks to be the case. Huckabee has a staunch core of voter support among Evangelicals that isn't likely to dissipate at this point (see our past discussion on why, here), though that core in and of itself may not be enough to win him the nomination if he can't expand it.
Hold on. That means McCain still has a shot at this thing?
(Gulp)
Yes, though it's still not highly probable that he'll be the nominee. He has to win in New Hampshire, where he hopes to sling shot past Romney if Mitt loses badly in Iowa. If that were to happen, a win for McCain in Michigan isn't out of the question and then as Lowry says, the macro-dynamic will probably be mainstream conservatives rallying behind someone to defeat Huckabee, assuming he wins Iowa.
Why would they want to do that?
Huckabee, for all his charm as a candidate in the crowded field, increasingly looks like a disaster as a potential nominee. Lowry's own news-making column titled "Huckacide" summarizes the concerns well. Plus, Huckabee just threw a can of gasoline on that fire over the weekend with his recent article in Foreign Affairs bashing President Bush and generally giving every one of his opponents an opening given the article's profound flaws.
Will all that hurt Huckabee in Iowa?
A bit, but not as badly as some would think. Remember, a robust number of Huckabee's backers are religious and/or social conservatives first, Republicans second - Jim Geraghty recently spoke to this effect of this point succinctly and well. Thus, the Club for Growth's current ads attacking Huckabee on taxes aren't very effective for that very reason, plus the fact the ad itself isn't particularly well done. Continued shots at Huckabee on immigration and foreign policy from the other Republican candidates, plus media coverage of topics like his Arkansas ethics problems and Wayne Dumond, will make it tougher for Huckabee to expand his base, but at minimum the core remains for a win or a strong second in Iowa.
Time out. You haven't said word one about Rudy Giuliani. You said recently he was in trouble. What happened to him?
That's complicated. Though when you drill down to it there are four problems, besides the social issues with which he deviates from many in the Republican base. 1) His press has been consistently bad lately, with rounds of stories about ethical issues dating back to his mayorship rather than favorable coverage of him on the trail. That adds up. 2) His campaign just hasn't transitioned well into the intensity of the fall campaign, in part because he hasn't communicated a real vision for his potential Presidency. 3) He's relying on a national security emphasis even as voters, including Republicans, are increasingly focusing on domestic issues. 4) The "we don't need to do really well until Florida" strategic choice made by his campaign is turning out to be the blunder many political experts predicted. Even now, before the actual nominating contests have begun, Giuliani is steadily disappearing from the campaign narrative, which is heavily focused on covering the candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Didn't Rudy just give a big speech in Florida to right the ship?
Yes, he did. It might be too late, however. Richelieu over at the Weekly Standard thinks so. Giuliani backer Patrick Ruffini comes close to reaching the same conclusion. The national front-runner is in serious trouble.
And Richelieu says McCain has hope. That's amazing.
It is and it isn't. McCain will not soon be accused of lacking courage and determination when things aren't going his way. Giuliani's failure to capitalize in New Hampshire is not only killing his own candidacy, it has been a huge gift to McCain. The Arizonan has finally overtaken Giuliani to move into second in the Granite State, and he's likely to receive ample favorable coverage from Joe Lieberman endorsing him there tomorrow.
So, if I add all that up, including Lowry's points, it's likely to be Romney or McCain winning New Hampshire, probably winning Michigan after that, and then moving on to a huge showdown in South Carolina against Huckabee?
Correct, that seems likely, barring a massive Huckabee misstep. Thus, we'll have the irony of a candidate backed the conservative establishment going toe-to-toe with a media-darling who threatens to tear the conservative coalition asunder. It looks like 2000 all over again. Expect a knife fight.
What if Huckabee is the GOP nominee?
Can you say President Obama?
Really?
Maybe, though this long year of Presidential campaigning is prime evidence of how things can change quickly in politics. That being said, Lowry's "Huckacide" column presents a compelling case and Obama increasingly looks like the Democratic nominee.
Are you serious? What happened to the Hillary juggernaut?
It's amazing, really. Her campaign organization was highly competent and almost mistake free. They had run a great campaign until her driver's licenses for illegal immigrants stumble, which along with a series of other campaign twists and turns gave Obama an opening. He's matured and grown more effective on the campaign trail over the course of the year and is increasingly scoring points. Team Clinton has tried to respond but has been ham-handed in doing so.
Obama had taken a huge risk running against politics as normal - meaning he couldn't go negative very easily. He had to wait for the almost mistake free Clinton machine to screw up. They did. Now Clinton's campaign is flailing about trying to figure out how to bring Obama back down to earth without playing to the very stereotype Obama is running against. Through a mixture of error and happenstance Team Clinton has painted themselves into a corner using the very brush Obama handed them at the start of the campaign.
So, will Obama win the nomination?
It's sure not definite. Iowa and New Hampshire are still highly competitive (and both sides have ample resources), but he has virtually all the momentum on his side. If his campaign organization can do the tough work of translating that enthusiasm into votes, especially in Iowa, the Clinton campaign could head into a tailspin quite quickly.
What's the secret to Obama's recent rise and Hillary's concurrent slippage to this point?
Jonah Goldberg had an exceptionally smart take on this in a recent column. His argument is that the Democratic base has become increasingly upset as their hopes for the new Democratic Congress have instead been dashed by miserable failure. Hillary looked pretty good when the issue was about taking back Washington, DC from Republicans. Now that the issue has become changing Washington, DC, including the mess the Democratic majority is making, Obama suddenly has much more appeal.
I assume you're telling me all this could still get turned on its head?
You never know and of course, I could be wrong. But those are the fundamentals as they currently stand and we're running out of time. That said, so much is new about this race - the compacted calendar (including Iowans caucusing right after the holiday season), the large number of competitive candidates, and the intense 24/7 media coverage - that we just don't know what to expect next.
Are you still a Romney guy?
Yep. Though my preferences after that have changed. Here they are:
1) Mitt Romney
2) ---
3) Fred Thompson
4) Rudy Giuliani
5) None of the above
I thought you didn't think much of Thompson?
For all my deep skepticism about Fred Thompson the candidate, I still like Fred Thompson the thinker. Plus, Giuliani's disappointing primary campaign gives me little hope he would hold up at all in the general, so I don't even have a second choice at this point. After that, I have profound issues with McCain and Huckabee and think they would - for different reasons - be disasters as general election candidates.
You wouldn't vote for Ron Paul?
I'm more likely to cast a vote for Obama.
UPDATE: The aforementioned Patrick Ruffini expands on his "Rudy is in trouble" thoughts and calls the nomination Mitt Romney's race to lose. I don't quite agree with the final conclusion but I think much of what Ruffini says in the post is on the money, even if he underestimates McCain a bit at this point.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 16, 2007 05:19 PM | Email ThisLike i said, obesity may be a sign of worse things. I was slammed for saying this weeks ago but when someone is obese there are many times underlying problems of depression and other things. Huckabee's son hung a stray dog at boy scout camp in 1997, and as governor Huckabee tried to keep it hush hush.
Posted by: Andre on December 16, 2007 06:13 PMAmazing.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 16, 2007 07:17 PMDo you see a Dem v GOP matchup that shows an opening for Bloomberg? Do you expect Paul to run as a capitol L Libertarian? Basically, is there a potential third party candidacy that could determine the winner?
Posted by: bedir than average on December 16, 2007 08:10 PMI have been listening to the Upper Class media today and for weeks talking about another gentleman from Hope. Most of the commentators agree the "bunker mentality" is a general election discussion Huckabee is moving toward. In truth Bush must be listening of late for he is beginning to move toward such a policy of talking to world leaders even our enemies the Foreign policy position Huckabee advocates in the article. Huckabee is a rare Republican that thinks using both sides of his brain and sees "green" cares about broken humanity and is endorsed by the NEA. He is a Republican cut of a different clothe that social conservatives, moderates and actually even some liberals can and will support! The elite and establishment Republicans despise Huckabee?s broken humanity policy and are praying the great fish (not a trout) of the bible will swallow him in the Republican primary sea! They mostly care about their money or selfishly the borders within their own habitation! The more they pray their Pharisaical prayers and preach their negative messages and God knows they are coming out of the woodwork the higher Mike goes in the Polls. I must say I am amused! There are even some right wing Arkansas Legislative Republicans that supported a policy which would allow migrant children to suffer or even possible die rather than provide for them medicine. They add to their position of closing the border (which Huckabee supports) an additional policy of not providing medication, or feeding the poor. They preach this policy as if it is from Jesus?s teachings. I am not sure what bible they have been reading. I have not found that policy in mine. The one I own and the one Mother Teresa read states ?suffer the little children to come unto me?. I guess the Pharisaical Republicans have added to their bible we must ask what country the children come from and we must look at the color of their skin and if they are not ?white American? they are illegal or different and we must not help them. You are right Governor Mike we are a better Country than that. Even Michael Moore is more right on this position than the right wing Pharisaical Republican Legislators fighting Mike Huckabee?s broken humanity policy that gives a human touch to Government.
I recall in a debate some years back when a Democrat said to a Republican candidate called Dan something to the effect ?you are no John F. Kennedy?. Hmm, I think the press is finally getting it that Mike Huckabee is no Pat Robinson. Elect ability? Huckabee beat the Clinton machine in Arkansas four times so I?ll let you answer that. Ed Rollins Reagan?s Architect and now Mike?s still likes donuts and booze and may be getting older and balder but his memory is still good and I think he?s got one more winning campaign in him. Ed remembered Democrats prayed for the Republican nomination of B rated movie star and eventual Governor Ronnie Reagan in 1980 and their prayers were answered. I guess they forgot to pray about the general election for Reagan won with a landslide. I read a few days ago a headline on Drudge and elsewhere the Democrats were again in a ?silent? prayer mode for another ?B rated star? guy in this case the ?Mike? guy called Huckabee who they want to be the Republican nominee. They better be careful what they pray for because he is clothed in the same clothe as Reagan a ?Great Communicator and Chief?! I wonder if their prayers will be answered again. Yes we agree with Mike ?Jesus is to smart to run for office? and let us add to take sides but I do look forward to watching those old rerun movies with a B star actor replaced by a ?Mike? guy.
Jerry King
With that said, Obama will be tougher for the Republican candidate to defeat than will Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: KS on December 16, 2007 08:48 PMIt is interesting to see people say they would rather vote for Obama than Paul. I am curious what issues Obama holds that Paul does not that conservatives find attractive.
Posted by: Travis on December 16, 2007 08:50 PM"Yeah, the guy who just raised 6 million today probably won't come close to winning any of those early states."
You said it.
In the end, I don't think I'll actually end up having an Obama v. Paul decision on my hands when I'm holding my ballot.
bedir than average -
I could see a Huckabee candidacy resulting in a Bloomberg run, if he's actually serious about it. I'm not sure how that would play out given that Bloomberg's natural draw should in theory be more from Democrats than Republicans given his litany of policy positions. But if Huckabee is the nominee there are large chunks of the Republican coalition that could drift away from him. It's just a question of where they might land.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 16, 2007 09:15 PMIt's exciting to hear who is allying with who.
That's because Republicans are more alive and tied into today's popular interests.
Listen to H. Clinton, J. Edwards, even Obama (outside of his core supporters). They all sound like a 5th grade teacher at 9 am on a rainy day. Snore!
Posted by: John Bailo on December 16, 2007 09:20 PMIt is really cold in Iowa right in early Jan. On the third there is a big bowl game. Who do you think will be the most motivated voters to leave their warm home after a hard days work to go debate politics for 2-3 hours.
Romney supporters? Huckabee supporters? Or maybe them crazy Ron Paul supporters?
You are probably right... Paul will be lucky to get 1-2% i bet! :)
Posted by: Travis on December 16, 2007 09:24 PMhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=hO4_5XOSzKk
Here you will find the Huckster speaking at an NEA convention grandly bragging how he increased teacher's pay to the highest in the nation and other horrors. Huck is a George Bush, big government, big spending "conservative".
I originally was seduced by Huckabee's talk. He does talk a good game. But when it gets down to what Republicans really stand for (smaller, more responsive government, fiscal responsibility, less government meddling in private lives, free markets/trade, etc.), the Huckster isn't even close. At one point I've heard him advocate regulating what people eat because there is an obesity epidemic and if he can lose weight than anybody can. Great.
That cooled me right off. I consider the guy a liberal.
So I guess here's the call out: If you support Huckabee I dare you to look behind the headlines and find the real Huckster. He's there, you just have to look. And don't rely on the MSM to help you. They WANT him to run because he's easily beatable.
Another good analysis. I'd add that with Hillary, there's a bit of a realization amongst Dems that she is radioactive. There's enough Hillary baggage to fill several freight cars. And she violates the age old Senators-Don't-Get-Elected-President rule. Dems love Hillary. They know she'd be the best hope for Socialism in the US, and rampant Progressivism. But, they love power even more than Hillary, and they will drop her quick, if there's is the slightest sense of weakness.
As soon as Goldy starts beating the Obama drum, we will know the talking points have been distributed.
I'm looking forward to where we can all finally say that the McCain horse is really dead. These from the grave revivals are getting old. His campaign should be taken off life support and allowed to die with dignity.
I like the Dean Barnett style Q&A. Works well for your writing style, please do it more.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 16, 2007 10:45 PMIf Huckabee takes Iowa and Mitt just barely slips by in NH or even loses, then Mitt is done. If McCain loses both, he is done. If Fred takes third or worse in both, then he is done. If Huck falls to Mitt in both Iowa and NH, then he is done. If Huck wins both, then the nomination is wrapped up. If Mitt wins both then it's just him and Rudy left.
One other thing, if there is a major terrorist attack in the world that is covered by the MSM for a few days by Super Tuesday, then Rudy wins.
Posted by: Doug on December 17, 2007 01:09 AMHuck had his Dean Scream moment already- regarding his comment to a writer regarding what he really thought about Mormonism. And the audacity to say that a journalist would know more than a poor, old country preacher with a degree in theology.
I always say ABC, except Paul, but I have another I would never, ever vote for.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 07:21 AMThe "establishment" doesn't like Huck because he doesn't want to continue this us versus them power struggle that is killing both parties. Huck felt he was elected by the people to work for the people and actually do his job as Governor, instead of reward his friends like the former Governor of Arkansas.
The "financial" types don't like him because he actually draws attention (like serious economist have been doing) to the increasing wage gap between working class and the financial hedge fund managers (this is the number one reason Mitt doesn't like him, given he is one of those who has made millions off of other via the hedge funds he manages).
No, people just like to belittle the guy and up to no he has been the punching bag. My guess though, the best decision he has made lately is bringing Rollins on-board. Watch for the grand master to start punching back, while leaving Huck to continue to spin is down-home, folksy charm on people. Huck needed a nasty guy/bad cop to go with his good guy/cop persona.
In the end, I hope it does help McCain. I never understood why Republicans got down on him so much. He should be the candidate. He is the only hope for a Republican win. No one else stands a chance. They all have too much baggage or not enough broad appeal beyond their base to win a general election.
Does this mean I have made a decision on the Republican side? I guess yes. After being on the fence between Huck and McCain for the past several weeks. I am deciding on McCain. While I still like Huck, and think he might make a good VP for the ticket, I don't think he will have enough draw of traditional Republicans to win the general election. He could draw in the Social Conservatives and independents, but lose the financial types of the party. The net effect would be about 40% of the General Election. McCain could hold together the coalition of disparate groups and give whoever the Democratic candidate a run for their money.
So, that is the Republican side. The Democratic side is too early to call. The Clinton machine is hitting back hard, but as they concentrate on Obama, they have left Edwards to stick around. With Obama's money and nationwide organization, and with Edwards still in the race, a three-way race doesn't bode well for the Clinton machine. They could lose the first three, especially with a third place finish in Iowa, which would lead them into Super Tuesday, where yes they may get California, but lose many of the southern states, plus other midwestern states. I am sure they have figured out how to get the establishment super-delegates to go for them, but this may not be enough for a majority. The key will be to see who will make it to Super Tuesday on the Democratic side.
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 08:14 AMtc, I am not surprised that the left likes McCain considering their slate of candidates. McCain is head-and-shoulder above them.
But, for me, there is Keating Five, McCain-Feingold and the latest immigration nonsense that he was point on, to consider.
It is still Romney and Giuliani.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 08:29 AMThe GOP needs to pull its head out of its rear and become the anti-statist party we need it to be. I won't support or vote for Huckabee or McCain. Has the GOP learned anything from the last 14 years? This is getting frustrating!
Hey Chris Vance:
When will the GOP ever become the anti-statist party willing to stand up against crony, big govt., statist/union Democrats instead of a bunch of bible thumping statists which they are now? Will we ever see change? Or will it take a single leader to fix our broken, worthless, pathetic, political party?
Posted by: AP on December 17, 2007 08:36 AMYour electoral math is way off. Think supreme court. Unless the social cons are complete fools, they vote GOP or risk filling the courts with people totally against their views. To grow the GOP, we need to provide a policy (not moral, fairy tale, mythological) difference. The GOP needs to become the anti-crony, anti-statist, pro-freedom party. Once we become that, we become tha majority party again.
Huckabee is a bible thumping statist. I can't vote for a fool. McCain is a statist, big govt., loose cannon. Both would be Democrats in a perfect world.
Posted by: AP on December 17, 2007 08:44 AMHold the presses. The Steve King Rep. Steve King endorsement of Fred could be pretty significant. A lot of people don't like Giuliani, Romney, etc. for one reason or another. Fred has issues too, but they are more about his apathetic approach and less about glaring inconsistencies, etc. If Fred uses this moment to come out swinging and surges then the political strategy will have been genius. What the GOP really needs is a principled and forthright leader. Everyone else has seemed a bit timid. It's put up or shut up time for Fred.
If not, it's probably Romney's race to lose.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 17, 2007 09:34 AMEnough already with the weak-knees. To defeat Progressivism, we've gotta shine the light on why it is a horrible ideology, and do so confidently.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 17, 2007 09:42 AMI would guess though, that if Huckabee does win the nomination, that you will see Bloomberg enter the race. This would depend on the Democratic ticket. If Bloomberg enters, then there goes the wall street types (Romney backers) from the Republican ranks, since they don't give a "wit" about social issues, only padding their pockets.
Let's face it, the only one that can hold the coalition together on the Republican side is McCain. If Republicans can't wake up and recognize this, then I guess they don't care about the general election. They have to remember that a general election landside will effect house and senate races and also state races.
As an independent, I don't really mind, as long as I have decent candidates to choose from. For me, character counts and therefore Guiliani is out (infidelity issue). The rest of the Republicans, outside of McCain, will have bases that won't vote for them, unless forced to (i.e., Hillary candidate on other side).
Swatter,
Keating was years ago and McCain has apoligized for getting wrapped up in it. My guess it is more the campaign finance and immigration issues, and Keating is a red-herring. What exactly do you not like about the campaign finance law? What exactly do you not like about McCain's/Bush's immigration plan (the plan was Bush's that McCain supported)? How can you still like Bush and not McCain if their immigration plan was the same? It must be the campaign finance issue as the overriding issue. The laws haven't stopped candidates from raising enormous amounts of money. It hasn't stopped outside groups from slandering candidates. All it has stopped is candidates from directly slamming opponents through third parties. To me, there needs to be more campaign finance reform, not less. I am tired of these third party groups (issue oriented advertising, push polling, etc.). Let the candidates themselves get their hands dirty if they want to put down their opponent. At least this would be above board and the public would see the two-faced nature of the candidate. One would have seen Bush's organization driving the SC dirty works against McCain. As we seen now with Hillary's latest attacks on Obama, since she can't hide behind third parties, they slander her more than her opponent. It wasn't coincidence that her NH campaign director brought up the drug issue. It isn't coincidence that county campaign coordinators continue to send out false rumors on a mancharian muslim candidate, nor that Bob Kerry is brought in to bring up the same line. Meanwhile, Hillary and Bill think they can just sour along, forgetting about all their dirty Arkansas deals. You think Keating was bad, do you not forget all the Rose Law firm shenanigans? For her and Bill to claim she is the most experience candidate is a joke. What they are experienced in is the same campaign and political dirty tricks that Rove (who learned from the master, Lee Atwater) has been involved in for the last 20 years.
So, tc, the liberal litmus test, is it? If you don't like one aspect of a fellow's 8 year presidency, you have to dislike them? Cute. I don't operate that way.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 10:52 AMSecond, your question doesn't make sense. Maybe you can reword it. You stated you didn't like McCain's immigration plan. I stated it was the same as Bush's and ask what it was you didn't like about McCain's immigration plan. If this is truly the deciding factor, then I don't see how you can continue to support Bush. McCain worked really hard for Bush to get his immigration plan through Congress.
I personally think McCain was foolish to work with Bush on anything after what he did in SC in 2000. I didn't like GW from the start. I liked his father, but GW was a spoiled rich kid, who didn't even know how to run a baseball team and used his daddy's connections to get in the oil business. What drew the line for me however on GW, was his utter slander of McCain in SC with his campaign sending out via third party operatives statements that McCain borne an illigitimate black child. Total slander and falsehood and typical Rove modus operandi. GW lost any support I may have considered giving him then and further ingrained it by his foolishiness of listening to Rumsfield and the other Neocons on the supposed WMD's. GW had a grudge against Sadaam for threatening his daddy and was looking for an excuse to go after him. It is no different than the reason he ran for governor to get back at Ann Richards for insulting his daddy at the 1988 Democratic Convention (silver spoon in his mouth comment). GW will go done as one of the worst presidents in history, just like he was one of the poorest baseball owners. He didn't do anything for the Rangers other than get his photo-ops. He was a buffoon then and clueness now.
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 11:07 AM1. What is "wrong" with the campaign finance efforts of McCain that the Republican's can't support him as a candidate? No, cliche's like it is unconstitutional, which is a cop-out. Explain why you think it is bad and harms politics more than it helps.
2. What is "wrong" with McCain's/Bush's immigration plan and why is this wrong/won't work? Again, no cop-outs.
I am tired of people repeating talking points without really knowing what they are talking about (i.e., thinking it through themselves). I am looking for the "why" you think it is wrong, not someone elses talking points.
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 11:19 AMIt is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech that I cannot support, especially in a Republican candidate.
tc says "What is "wrong" with McCain's/Bush's immigration plan and why is this wrong/won't work? Again, no cop-outs."
He has supported what is essentially an amnesty position--as you noted basically the same as president Bush. We need to get control of our borders and not reward those that have come here illegally. McCain is wrong on this issue, as is Bush. The last congress voted to build a fence at the border and basically NOTHING has been done. We are being overrun by illegal aliens and people are sick of nothing being done, or to add insult to injury actually REWARDING those who are here illegally.
I don't DO talking points. I can in NO WAY support McCain and I will do anything possible to see that he does not get elected president.
Posted by: Bill H on December 17, 2007 11:52 AMAnd the comment that "GW had a grudge against Sadaam for threatening his daddy" is pretty lame as well as an understatement. In fact, Sadaam put a hit out on a former president of the U.S. That should have been reason enough for Clinton to have taken Sadaam out when he was in office...
Posted by: Bill H on December 17, 2007 12:15 PM2. On immigration, I do take a compassionate view, just as my faith instructs me. I believe in "Love your neighbor, as yourself." Some good Christian viewpoints on the immigration stance can be found at the following links:
a. Statement from Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (http://www.sojo.net/action/alerts/CCIR_T_giving_Report.pdf)
b. Jim Wallis' blog entry prior to Thanksgiving calling for a change on how we talk about immigration (http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/11/changing-how-we-talk-about-imm.html)
John McCain does stand for reforming immigration, including securing the border. He also speaks of compassion, for we are a country of immigrants. I know that my forefather (on Dad's side) came to Simsbury, CT in the 1620's. He would be considered, along with the Pilgrims and many in New England, as illegal by today's standards. The French that settled the Fox Valley and Wisconsin River/Mississippi valleys to trade furs, would also be considered illegal immigrants. I know on my mom's side that they came from Switzerland and Germany in the late 1800's to have a better life. How do you fault people for wanting to come to this country? We need comprehensive reform. Which candidate would best achieve this? My answer is McCain, who like Bush came from a border state and knows the real impact and challenges that effect immigration policy. Do you really think some governor from Massachusetts who has flip-flopped on the issue and lied about stating that he personnally consulted his landscaping firm regarding its abiding by the law will get anything done?
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 12:26 PMI would vote McCain in the general but not because I like his and Bush' amnesty plan and phony registration gimmicks.
tc, we are very different. I never voted for Bush I but did both times for II. History has borne out that Bush II was a better president.
Am I wrong, but I thought McCain-Feingold resulted in the move on crowd?
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 12:40 PMFor me it was between Huckabee and McCain, I decided on McCain because he has broader appeal, and his experience. To me, I can't go with many of RP's position. Even though I don't like McCain's Iraq position, in one sense, he is the best person to get us out honorably, given the mess that GW and Rumsfield has gotten us in. At least McCain stated from the start that we needed more troops to do the job right, which someone who read Colin Powell's book could have stated from the start (i.e., don't go into a battle without the resources to win).
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 12:55 PMI believe the Secret Service can protect the former President from all threats perceived or real.
Given the fact the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles and destroyed Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters I would say that was sufficient enough response (ok, maybe adding in a palace or two would have been nice). Especially considering the plot was foiled before it was actually executed.
Now let's say Dubya had foiled 9/11, How many people would be in favor of eliminating the Taliban?
Do you know the history of the first amendment freedom of speech protections? It SPECIFICALLY was meant to protect POLITICAL speech. The limits on money in political campaigns are ridiculous. It is now that someone who is a billionaire can run for president, but someone who might be politically supported by a billionaire might not.
You say "We should have transparency and openness." I agree with that. There should be no limits on contributions to political campaigns, but they should be disclosed completely and relatively immediately.
Limits on talking about candidates by name within certain timeframe before an election is ridiculous since that is when people SHOULD be talking about candidates. We need to eliminate not just McCain-Feingold but ALL limits on campaign contributions--let people support their favorite candidate to whatever limits they think is appropriate--AND DISCLOSE IT. Otherwise you get outside groups doing it. I would rather someone like Soros to have to contribute directly to the candidates he supports rather than acting behind the scenes by backing groups like Moveon.org, Media Matters and his other attack groups.
You say "The McCain-Feingold bill was a first step, but more efforts need to be done." I'm sorry, but this is just totally gutting the first amendment--as I said the first amendment was to protect POLITICAL speech. You want to outlaw political speech.
On immigration you say "John McCain does stand for reforming immigration, including securing the border. He also speaks of compassion, for we are a country of immigrants."
I am really tired of people trying to conflate LEGAL immigration with ILLEGAL immigration. There is nothing compassionate with turning a blind eye to millions of people sneaking into our country. And when they arrogantly march with their mexican flags or fly them above the American flag, that is not going to make me feel any more "compassionate" for them.
We cannot have open borders such that anyone in the world who wants to come here gets right in. And if we don't have open borders with the world, why should we have an open border with Mexico. We are enabling Mexico's disfunctional system by acting as a relief valve for them. They need to fix their economy and their political system so that they don't need to send their citizens here.
I'm all for legal immigration. I think we need to allow more immigrants who are of high intellect. In my former job, we used to run into the problem of not being able to hire people for high intellectual positions because they did not have the visas to work here.
You say " We need comprehensive reform." This is code speak for amnesty. No, we do NOT need comprehensive reform. We need to FIRST secure the border to stop the further entry of illegal aliens. We need to pass the SAVE act to get tough on employers who hire illegal aliens. We should not give ANY type of reward to those who are here illegally.
It is a truism that you get more of what you reward and you get less of what you penalize. We need to penalize illegality and reward legality. Increase the legal immigration for high level people who will ADD something to our country. Let the farmers make the case for "guest workers", but I give them very little credibility when they whine that "Americans won't do these jobs". Well, in the past Americans (and often high school kids) DID do these jobs, or we invented machinery such as the cotton gin to do some of these jobs. They have become addicted to cheap illegal labor and it needs to stop.
We are not the caretaker of the world's citizens. When we open our borders and allow anyone to enter illegally we are overwhelmed with the result--the lack of assimilation, the impact on the American culture, the impact on our Health Care costs (as well as our health, since those entering are not screened for diseases), the impact on our education costs, the impact on our welfare costs, etc.
You say " How do you fault people for wanting to come to this country?". I don't, I fault politicians for letting them. I fault McCain, I fault Bush and I fault the liberals in a lot of the big cities who establish "sanctuary cities" and do not allow their own police to cooperate with ICE. We should cut off all federal aid to cities or states that take that stance.
Well, this entry has gone on too long, but this is an issue that I am passionate about. We are losing our American culture and a lot of people are tired of it. Immigration is one reason, the ACLU is another reason. I'm tired of it and I don't believe McCain's belated recognition that he was on the wrong side of the immigration debate.
Posted by: Bill H on December 17, 2007 01:18 PMOne issue you raise is campaign funding. We both agree on openness. Where we disagree is on limits and who can do what with what funds. I still don't see how McCain-Feingold has limited free speech. Just because Soros can't give his big $ directly to say the Clintons, doesn't mean he has been limited to speak his mind. The big money donors will always find a way to "speak" their mind. The only thing that will change this is more openness in the process.
You state you don't want to see a limit. I respectfully disagree. Why should unions or PAC's be able to drive politics as opposed to individuals? Limits allows everyone to participate, not just Mitt Romney's weathly hedge-fund co-horts. Limits allows a Barack Obama to fund his campaign with hundreds of thousands of small donors against the Clinton machine. In this state, do you want the unions, or building industry to direct the campaign, or is it worth it for the candidates to have to solicit contributions from the common citizen. Money talks. Money buys influence. The only way to limit this is by limiting contibutions so a candidate has to have a broad base and by openness of where the political dollars are going, not just to the candidates, but also to the PACS, unions, etc. A union member should know how many of their dollars are going to politic candidates instead of supporting them.
On immigration, McCain has called for securing the border. His reason for supporting a "guest" worker program, which many have dislabeled as amnesty, is to address what to do with those who are here. I think it is naive to think we can tomorrow boot everyone out of the country that is here illegally. McCain/Bush has called for holding employers accountable. The only difference, as I see it, is since they came from border states, they know the pragmatic logistics it would require to get the job done. It's the Mitt Romney's of the world who are actually clueless on how to actually handle the issue of the illegals already here. There is no pragmatic way that you could "kick" everyone out tomorrow. There has to be a documentation process. There needs to be a look at families (i.e., separation of parents from children). There needs to be a lowering of rhetoric instead of calling for murder of people crossing the border, as one Arizona talk show host has called for.
So, I guess the question for the "guest" worker opponents, is what alternatives do you proposed to deal with those who are already here illegally, especially those with parts of families that are American citizens (i.e., children born in America). Would you call for separating parents from children? Would you call for kicking out legitimate American children because their parents are here illegally?
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 01:40 PMAlso, Huckabee didn't "bash" Bush, he criticized a policy of the Bush administration. Quit the spin, Eric.
Posted by: Cydney on December 17, 2007 02:04 PMIf Huckabee saying, “The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad" does not qualify as 'bashing', then I don't know what does.
On another note, I wonder if Bloomberg is quietly waiting to see who the nominees will be for each party. My thinking was that if the candidates are Hillary vs Rudy, then that would be about as polarizing a ticket as we could get, and would be a great opportunity for an independent third party. If it were Obama versus McCain, maybe he will sit it out or lend support to one candidate or the other.
The best gift the Democratic party could give the Republicans is Hillary. The best gift the Republicans could give to the Democratic party is Huckabee.
My two cents :)
Posted by: Splinter on December 17, 2007 02:24 PMCows and locking the barn door, and all of that.
Posted by: brent on December 17, 2007 03:08 PMIt is another canard that is getting old to say "how can we possibly deport 12 million people". The answer is that you don't have to. You can certainly deport those that law inforcement (including ICE) comes in contact with, but if you get tough on employers who hire illegal aliens so that they cannot work, their reason for being here goes away--unless you do something stupid like giving illegals social services. Many of them will self-deport.
However, the FIRST responsibility is to close the border to illegal entry so that 12 million doesn't become 20 million or 50 million. And also so we don't make it so easy for terrorists to enter our country by crossing our border illegally.
tc asks what we do with those already here "especially those with parts of families that are American citizens (i.e., children born in America)." Congress and the courts need to make clear that the 14th amendment has been misapplied for years and that children of illegal aliens are NOT, in fact, U.S. citizens under that amendment. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF (my emphasis), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This amendment was meant to apply to the children of former slaves and NOT to the children of illegal aliens.
Posted by: Bill H on December 17, 2007 03:32 PMI would agree that enforcing work laws is important, but I think it is naive to think employers will suddenly have a change of heart. It won't come until customers demand it. For example, the News Tribune had a lengthy article, plus a couple of side articles, on the Mexican family restruants throughout the area that provide funds back to their home cities in Mexico. In reading the article, it outlines how their are no youth in town. They all have come north to work in the restraunts. A lot of people enjoy these restraunts. The family workers are hard workers and often alot more service oriented than American teenagers, these days. Do you shut these restraunts down? Do you boycott them? What about all the produce you buy at the grocery store benefitting from the labor it took to harvest it?
There has always been immigrant labor brought in throughout our history, whether it was to build the railroads, or work in the mines. The businesses will just take any financial penatly (fines) and pass it on as part of doing business. Businesses are affected until it hits them in their pocket books. Publicity and boycotts have been the most effective campaigns to force businesses to change, not passing more laws or even trying to fine business exceedingly.
If one shores up the border, documents the workers who are here, makes sure new workers coming in have proper authorization, then over the long term the issue will work itself out. There is no way to shut the barn door after the cattle escape. The best, pragmatic approach is to move forward with what one needs to do in the future. Yes, that may mean "amnesty" as some have called it for families, but that is a more compassionate approach than blaiming them for the fact that our government has let this issue become such a huge problem.
One additional point: I disagree with your 14th Admendment interpretation and I believe most in the US would also disagree. We are a better country than that. One could use your argument to also state that the slaves and their descendants should be exported. It is a racist statement (this time against Hispanic families, who American families could learn from on how to focus on family above individuals).
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 03:52 PMJust curious, but how is that supposed to be done in the real world? Is an employer supposed to demand proof of citizenship from the company he is hiring? What about the employees of the subcontractor I've hired... am I responsible for making sure those workers are legal as well? Am I 'required' to report workers that cannot provide proof of citizenship?
Posted by: Splinter on December 17, 2007 04:04 PMYeah I can, that was 40+ years ago. Times have changed (A LOT). Has there been a successful assassination attempt since Reagan? No.
I think 18+ years of successful Presidential protection speaks for itself. You have any doubts, try posting a threat to the President (ex or current) up here and see what happens.
The magazine has not yet published an article by Fred Thompson. The Thompson campaign has issued seven "white papers," and below I have provided the links to the two which pertain to foreign policy.
Also, at the bottom of this post I have provided the links to the comment by the Romney campaign on Huckabee's article, and the Huckabee campaign's reply to the Romney campaign's criticisms. Judge for yourself the merits of each article, and judge for yourself which candidate has the best victory strategy in winning the war against Islamic fascism.
Foreign Affairs has also published position papers by Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, but for the purposes of this post I am not concerned with candidates who don't offer a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
Mitt Romney: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
Rudy Giuliani: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
John McCain: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
Mike Huckabee: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080101faessay87112/michael-d-huckabee/america-s-priorities-in-the-war-on-terror.html
Fred Thompson: http://www.fred08.com/virtual/defenseplan.aspx and http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Israel.aspx
Romney campaign's criticism of Huckabee: http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/ICYMI_12.15
Huckabee campaign's response to Romney's criticism: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=439
and Splinter says "Re: Forcing employers to hire only legal workers - Just curious, but how is that supposed to be done in the real world?"
Take a look at the SAVE Act. This has been introduced by my own DEMOCRATIC congressman, Heath Shuler and has 129 bipartisan co-sponsors. It has also now been introduced in the Senate by Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and David Vitter (R-LA). Here is a link to the summary SAVE ACT Summary
This is a workable BIPARTISAN bill that Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow to come to the floor... It answers your questions as to what an employer will be required to do.
Posted by: Bill H on December 17, 2007 04:28 PMCan you say President Obama?"
I agree with you there. I think Huck is a great guy and and he would be great as President, but he just can't win the general election sadly.
Posted by: Andrew S. on December 17, 2007 05:56 PMBill H,
I would agree with the SAVE Act proposals. They sound fair. I like the enforcement mechanism be via the IRS (e.g., not able to deduct wages for non-verfied employees). The problem, however, is it still won't meet 100% verification. There is a lot of work now that goes under the table. This won't stop this work.
The other implementation issue the act will have is the E-verification. Bruce Schnier has written about a similar topic, i.e., national ID card, and demonstrates how the issue is having a national database can be an issue. The "IT" issue has to deal with the size and scope of the database. The overall size is massive. Centralization of information makes it more of a target from the security standpoint. At least in this case, however, it isn't necessarily tied to citizen movement (i.e., requirement to board airplanes, etc.). So, there should be less incentive to "hack" the database, nor for insiders to corrupt the database. With National ID, the issue had to deal with its high value in usage. Remember, the 9/11 terrorist were able to corrupt a Virginia DMV agent to issue them valid drivers licenses. Having a bill is nice, but my guess given my federal government experience, the database design and security design is at least a five year IT project (1-2 years for contract definition, issuance, and award, 2-3 years design effort, plus an additional 2-3 years rollout across the state). It may sound simple to the average user, but the reality is in the details.
Posted by: tc on December 17, 2007 06:17 PMThe GOP could take a big step in the direction you seek (standing up to statists) when the stop refering to constitutionalist like Dr Paul as a nutjob.
Uh. Yeah. Even now in fact, you'd better be making sure your employees are legal or you are BREAKING the LAW! That the law is not being enforced is the larger issue.
p.s. What is your company's name? I've got my phone ready.
Posted by: Interested on December 17, 2007 11:15 PMAh, the "racist" card--the last refuge of a lost argument. If you can't argue on the merits call your opponent a racist. But you even do it by first wrongly applying the interpretation to the decendents of slaves and then saying it is racist.
In my initial argument on the 14th amendment, I noted "This amendment was meant to apply to the children of former slaves and NOT to the children of illegal aliens." That kind of defeats your charge of saying "One could use your argument to also state that the slaves and their descendants should be exported."
Look at the history of the 14th amendment. It was proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868. As I said, IT WAS INTENDED TO SECURE CITIZEN RIGHTS FOR FORMER SLAVES. It was also intended to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866 law passed by Congress to secure those rights--they wanted to prepare for the possibility of the law being ruled unconstitutional.
SCOTUS has not ruled on the applicability of the 14th amendment to illegal aliens. As I noted initially, "Congress and the courts need to make clear that the 14th amendment has been misapplied for years and that children of illegal aliens are NOT, in fact, U.S. citizens under that amendment."
Posted by: Bill H on December 18, 2007 06:47 AMIt is not the responsibility of employers to make sure their workers are legal, they may in some cases be required to make sure they have documentation purporting them to be legal. They may even be required to report social securtity numbers they are given and the like. But the responsibility to ensure that those documents are valid, is not the employers responsibility.
Same thing in this state with deadbeat dads. It is not the responsibility of the employer to make sure their employee is or isn't a deadbeat dad. The employee has now been given another regulation requiring them to report the worker's information to the state so that the state can determine if they are. Of course the state added another pile of paperwork on the employer if the worker is determined to be a deadbeat dad - the point being unless the Feds want to deputize me and give me policing powers it really is their job to ensure my employees are legal. My responsibility goes as far as to report documentation.
Posted by: Doug on December 18, 2007 09:19 AMAdditionally, if a prospective employee was not able to provide me with proof of citizenship, there is no reason on God's green earth that I would be required to report that person. Even assuming that prospective employee would not even provide me with proof of legal worker status, let alone proof of citizenship, I would not be required to report that person.
I may not be able to hire that person, or pay that person, but just because they may not have the documentation on hand, doesn't give me the responsibility to call the Feds and have them haul them away.
Heck it would be less of a stretch to require you to report someone you saw smoking in a non-smoking hotel room in this state. Yep, you would actually be violating a law by witnessing and not reporting a crime in that case, whereas the employer does not know if the prospective employee is legal or not, they only know that they don't have proper documentation at that time to be hired.
Posted by: Doug on December 18, 2007 09:26 AMA message to those who do not support Ron Paul: Do not be disrespectful toward Mr. Paul even if you don't agree with a number of his ideas and don't get him pi**ed off and give him the incentive to run as a third party candidate - cause if he does, it will be Pres. Obama or Clinton.
Posted by: KS on December 18, 2007 09:53 PMI doubt Paul will run because you piss him or his supporters off. I doubt he will run as a third party for any reason. He tried and found it unfortunately to be a waste of time with the current bias in laws.
I do full heartly agree with your advice to be respect of him and his supporters. I am excited to see all the new faces and excitement in a republican campaign. It has certainly re-engergized me and my support for republicans. From most republicans 'on the street' they seem to already be taking your advice and being respectful. Some in the media and definitly many with power in the state GOP are doing all they can to dissuade anyone they have an inkling might be a Ron Paul supporter and pushing them away from the party. Why they would not embrace them is beyond me.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 18, 2007 10:33 PM