With Rudy now officially out of the race, there is one key lesson to take from his candidacy - besides the obvious: running for President is a brutally time-consuming and intense undertaking. To win it, you have to want it. Passionately.
It seemed clear the last few months that Rudy, similar to Fred Thompson, had great potential as a candidate but failed miserably to live up to that potential on the campaign trail. For those interested in digging into the specifics of why, coverage by Jonathan Martin and Philip Klein offer insightful summaries on what went wrong.
In the long-term, future candidates should have two immediate takeaways:
First, burning desire for the job matters. John McCain and Mitt Romney both have it. It's no surprise then that the combination of their qualified resumes, political skill, and that drive made them the last two serious candidates left standing in a crowded field.
Second, retail politics matters. Whatever changes are made to the Presidential nominating system after this election cycle, there will inevitably be an opportunity for early attention to a small state (or states) where retail politics will be key. Every candidate that has won a seriously contested primary in 2008, in either party, engaged in that sort of heavy, on the ground campaigning in at least Iowa or New Hampshire, if not both.
Candidates in 2012 and beyond better come prepared to do likewise. Thompson failed at that famously, as did Giuliani (see Martin's article). For all their potential strengths and virtues, the inability of both men to gain adequate traction in an early state contest was one of the unifying flaws in each of their campaigns. Their lack of willingness to engage in true, sustained, retail politics was one of the key reasons for their ultimate lack of success.
In more immediate terms, Team McCain is not off to the best of starts making nice with the conservative base. McCain himself came out of the gate this morning chiding those concerned about potential future work on immigration for "foolishness." He needs to tone that down.
Equally troubling, McCain surrogates continue the game of denigrating Mitt Romney personally. The back and forth between those candidates has been filled with serious differences on some key issues. The discourse has been a bit rough, but tolerable in the context of a heated primary. But continued personal insults only end up rubbing raw the wounds that eventually need to heal.
Case in point, long-timer McCain adviser John Weaver just recently said, ""But if Romney wasn't born on third base, if he had to campaign and fundraise like everyone else, I'm sure he wouldn't be here anymore."
There's no need or cause for statements like that. Romney sycophant Hugh Hewitt fairly points out:
George Romney never graduated from college, rose through the ranks of the auto industry, and while he lived a comfortable upper-middle class life as head of American Motors before becoming governor of Michigan and Secretary of HUD. He was not a wealthy industrialist who began with a vast inheritance or a trust baby, and neither is Romney.Mitt Romney earned his money, and if that constitutes being born on third base, lots of Americans who hit triples are going to be surprised to learn that Team McCain has contempt for their efforts.
Furthermore, let's be clear about what Romney campaign has done as a candidate. He, and McCain for that matter, have both been tireless campaigners for the last year, with a heavy emphasis on retail politics, town hall-style events, and rigorous campaign schedules. Moreover, as of the end of the 3rd quarter of 2007, Romney had raised more in individual contributions for the primary than any other GOP candidate - even before one considers his own personal contributions (source here).
Contrary to Weaver's insult, Romney has fundraised and campaigned as hard - if not harder - than any of his competitors. Thus Weaver's line smacks of the same "I led not for profit, but for patriotism" line McCain has used (including at tonight's debate), which reeks of similar disdain for those Americans who have the audacity to earn an honest and good living in the private sector.
Rubbing salt in the wounds of a potentially defeated foe, while expressing disdain for a class of Americans valued by the economic conservatives with whom McCain has particular problems, does not seem like a sound strategy for party unity. One would think that would be a priority for a campaign that has pulled of the neat trick of becoming the Republican front-runner without actually winning among self-identified Republicans.
In the meantime, some final thoughts on McCain's potential in a general election. NRO's symposium on the matter aptly summarizes the conservative angst coupled with the need for McCain to offer tangible actions to calm such worries. A short list of VP possibilities and a sprinkling of possible Cabinet selections would be an excellent start. That and a more serious, sustained attempt at gracious rhetoric from McCain himself as well as his campaign. McCain seems to have missed the memo if tonight's condescending, acidic debate performance was any indicator.
For now, McCain supporters boast of his electability, particularly with the independents and even moderate Democrats he may woo. That can't be ignored, though such an advantage would be muted against Barack Obama. Moreover, one cannot discount the importance of an unenergized base in a competitive election.
But here's where I really worry: this election increasingly looks like it will have a domestic issue focus. How many independents are actually going to stick with McCain as their minds turn to those topics while he keeps his rhetorical focus on Iraq? Important as that issue is for the next President, running on it may not prove the wisest course for a Presidential candidate from either party.
Moreover, McCain by his own admission is not strong on either the economy or healthcare, which may well be the top two domestic issues of the campaign. His lack of enthusiasm and developed policy thinking on such topics is self-evident. Consider that with the fact that the swing voters in Presidential elections are not the socially liberal, fiscally conservative, financially comfortable folks we're used to in the Seattle area. In key Midwestern and Southwestern states they're socially conservative and fall either into middle class or lower-middle class income brackets. They're sympathetic to Democratic populism on trade, taxes, and other economic issues. It is more than possible that Clinton, and especially Obama, could crush McCain on those issues and decide the election right there.
In sum, McCain is the nearly the presumptive nominee. The delegate math is on the wall. Admirable man with a compelling personal story though he is, I as a conservative don't feel good about it. And as an interested GOP observer I don't think McCain stands as good a chance as his supporters think.
I hope I'm wrong.
Debate footnote: Romney's performance tonight, where he went out of his way to be polite to McCain even while disagreeing strongly with him, and the fact Romney has not yet bought TV time for Tsunami Tuesday, indicates he - prudently - is looking for a gracious exit. It may take a while, along the way-to-which he'll keep drawing polite but firm contrasts with McCain. But it's clear he needs to close out his run with a dignified, realistic finish, much like Giuliani and Thompson were able to do. He'll want to exit, as much as possible, as the last conservative alternative to McCain left standing - excluding Mike Huckabee's elongated audition for VP. It will be interesting to see what's next for him.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 30, 2008 09:26 PM | Email ThisI'm left feeling less impressed with McCain than I was before, and that's saying something. I think he's a smarmy schmuck. Based entirely on his public behavior and his voting record, I see him as a career politician with near zero integrity.
I don't want to see Democrats win, but I do want to see McCain lose.
PS-Frankly the Republicans should all refuse to debate on national television with likes of Anderson Cooper asking questions. The questions are all made for Dem consumption and to add material for Dem attacks in the general.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 30, 2008 09:48 PMI disagree on Romney's chances. The way the delegates are allocated in CA, CT, NJ, & NY mean that McCain is virtually guaranteed a huge base of delegates after a win in Florida. Couple those with the delegates he'll win in other 2/5 states based on proportional allocation and by himself he looks very solid. Add to that fact that Huckabee will suck up a fair number of delegates in the South (which an anti-McCain candidate needs to triumph in a close delegate race) and the writing is on the wall. Close as things look at first glance, on second look McCain has a huge prospective delegate advantage...short of McCain absolutely blowing his lid in public before Tuesday.
That said I agree with another of your basic points, Romney was too polite. That is one of his biggest flaws as a Presidential candidate. He's very effective in debates in many respects, but doesn't quite have the instinct to drop the periodic, devastating, well-delivered line that is needed against opponents like McCain.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 30, 2008 10:04 PMPerhaps a McCain-Romney ticket will occur. McCain - if nominated needs a conservative as a VP to motivate the Repub. base, but there are others more conservative than Romney, who seems to be knowledgeable about the economy. If you pay attention to the mainstream views (not the media) - the Republican Party has gone too far to the right to comfort most people - they have shown to be too much of the moral authority, which is a turn off to many in this day and age. Conservatives have a problem in articulating their message or rebuttal. The perception is what is playing in McCain's favor to everyone except the arch-conservatives.
Posted by: KS on January 30, 2008 10:16 PMYeah, as the economy becomes more important, Romney looks better.
And yes, McCain looks to be very solid after Tuesday. But it's not Tuesday yet.
Also, even though he could have a huge advantage after Tuesday, he would still be a long way from getting 50 percent of delegates, and Romney might stand as much of a chance of winning at convention as McCain, even with significantly less delegates, just because McCain is so hated.
There's a big difference between being the presumptive nominee, and being the presumptive delegate leader. He is the very close to being the latter, but has a long way to go to be the former.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 10:18 PMThat's not a bad starting point, but it isn't the whole enchilada either. McCain may well become more conservative once he is elected, all his democratic buddies on the hill are going to be a lot tougher to deal when he is a Republican President than when he was a maverick senator that could be depended on to stick an occaissonal finger in the eye of the current president. Another plus is McCain as President is tanamount to picking up another seat in the senate (Joe Lieberman).
Ok, that is as positive a spin as I can put on John McCain, and I'm straining. If he is elected conservatives have to be prepared to raise a ruckus and hold his feet to the fire they way we did with the Harriet Miers nomination, and should have done with pork and medicare prescriptions.
While I'm not happy with McCain I think his is a better bet than Romney. Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusets was about as conservative as Christine Gregiore's record here in Washington, if even that. It may well be that is as conservative as a governor can be in Mass., but what if Romney decides he needs to move left if he gets elected. I want a consistant record from a politician, Romney hasn't provided that.
Posted by: Kazinski on January 30, 2008 11:07 PMNO! NO! NO! NO! a thousand times NO!
As much I like Rudy, NO!
A solid conservative with some governance rather than legislative history.
Michael Steele
Sarah Palin
Kenneth Blackwell
Your post was once again full of negatives about those candidates that aren't your own. When you did your first post on this race way back when I mentioned that this website was going to turn into a Romney for President site. Although it was clear of your postings you still did a good job of fostering debate, though I will admit it is a debate that is pointed towards demonizing those not with a 100% conservative rating.
Huckabee was again the winner of the debate, he will end up with the second most delegates.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 01:24 AMThe wife, who is extremely apolitical, brought up that she saw the difference between McCain and Romney (from the little she saw) was that Romney was passionate and really believes he can help the country, while McCain is doing it for the ego and power.
I believe she had heard the McCain quote about he has a lot of ego but not enough to think about his VP running mate yet.
You know, I don't think I can get behind someone who calls me 'foolish' and a racist because I disagree with him. Clinton and Obama have been more polite to me than McCain.
I'll wait and see.
However, he alone of all candidates for a long, long time knew the private sector. The McCain smear of Romney being a manager or CEO as compared to a leader, come on. What's the difference?
I really, really liked his private sector experience. In absentia, I'll look closer at Vloomberg if he decides to run. Vut, unless something happens between here and there, I am scheduled to vote for the guy who calls me foolish and a racist. Perhaps I am foolish to consider voting for him.
Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2008 08:37 AMCheck the source again. I said money from individual contributors for the primary. You have to subtract Giuliani's general election cash from the total raised from individual contributors to get the conclusion I was referring to. And yes, obviously money isn't everything, but Weaver's quote implied Romney hasn't had to fundraise when in fact he's done quite a lot of it.
As to your other point, all I can say is that I find it incredibly funny to be accused by some people of being the resident moderate or liberal at this site while you accuse me of denigrating those that don't have "100% conservative rating." I think a better characterization would be that I say what I think and we happen to respectfully disagree about a fair number of issues.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 31, 2008 08:49 AMAs for my comment on finances, I clearly pointed out that Rudy raised more if you count the General, the reason I clearly pointed that out was that you clearly in your post tried to prop up your candidate by saying Romney raised more money from individuals for the primary (again leaving out the General).
The amazing thing about the Romney money is the amazing percentage of those contributions he received because of his religion. Eventually there will be research done on this as it's quite interesting where his large donors are from and with the great way that the LDS has kept their genealogy up-to-date, it will be fascinating to read.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 10:08 AMI don't know what you think being in the tank is for, but in reality at this point in time there is still only one way my vote at the caucus will go to McCain - that is if it is needed for him in order to keep Ron Paul from winning the precinct.
The most important thing is to beat the Democrat, I really believe Romney was our worst hope at that. Since Rudy is out, I think McCain is our best shot against Hillary, but I truly believe that Huckabee would do the best against Obama, not that McCain wouldn't do bad. But, again, as long as there is a better option than McCain in the caucus or primary, I will go that way (assuming I believe the other candidate has a reasonable chance to win in November).
As far as immigration, I believe in a super strong border security - a physical wall isn't necessarily necessary and rather, well German, but heck put 50,000 guardsmen down there if that works. I also believe there isn't enough cheap labor available in this country to supply the demands and since we won't see any regulation relief anytime soon for businesses and farmers, our supply will need to come from cheap immigrant labor, or we can just move our businesses south of the border.
And it doesn't matter which of the Republicans you put in, the end result would be they will deal with the problem the same exact way, so all this bickering about who is better on immigration really is a waste of time and very destructive. Romney, even Thompson may sound good, but the end solution will be the same with McCain or Huckabee.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 10:18 AMI kind of heard of the Utah donations, but to counter that those donations were religion based, he did bail out a failing Olympics by his leadership (ahem, note I didn't say management) and possibly those early donations were a way to say thank you.
Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2008 10:18 AMThat's why the research would be nice - and yes, when I looked at those few pages I tried to google some of the donors and many were Mormons, some I couldn't tell and most didn't show up googling. But it would be interesting - after all Huckabee sure hasn't gotten that much money from anyone let alone the huge baptist population (relative to the Mormon population) in this country.
For my money, this would be more interesting than the exit polling data from the Democrats that are beginning to show voting based on race or voting based on sex, just because it's something we haven't looked at. And it's not just because he's Romney - if it was Orin Hatch (whom I really like) instead that had this financing situation I think it would be interesting to have the research on.
I thought that he had pretty much tapped out Mormon contributors, there were lots of the $2300 donations, so I can't wait for a couple more days and see if it's evened out some.
McCain raised almost $10 million, Giuliani over $14 million - for Oct. thru Dec.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 10:54 AMSi Se Puede!!
Isn't this the truth. If he had, he would have understood the the tit-for-tat argument he is having with McCain over the timetables. It doesn't matter what he was trying to state, which I do believe him when he states what he intended by the statements he made in April. What really matters, is that Romney was clueless on the politics going on and should have realized that "timetables" term, no matter how it was used, given the current political atmosphere in April, was a wrong term to use. It was a code word the Democrats brought to the table and Romney's naive use of the word, even though he didn't intend it, supported the timetable argument. You see what Romney should have stated is not that he isn't for Timetables, what he should have stated last night was given the context McCain is talking about that timetables was a poor word to use (at that given time given the current political environment). By continuing to fight McCain on this issue, it keeps Iraq and national security in the forefront, which are Romney's weaknesses. He is me-too on Iraq and is not experienced when it comes to being commander-in-chief. Romney needs to shift the argument back to his strengths if he wants to make a dent in McCains momentum. Romney's strengths are managerial (being governor and managing all the various agencies) and economics.
Posted by: tc on January 31, 2008 12:50 PMAnd that was one of the milder lines in his piece!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 31, 2008 01:33 PMAnd, I would use the word, leader, and not manager. G.Gordon, who supports McCain, uses manager in a bad light in the presidential context when he describes Romney.
Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2008 01:44 PMhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
How about all the conservatives rally around the true RINO who just happens to be trying to speak our language now that it's primary season. Oh yeah, if it wasn't for that silly immigration issue then McCain would be our man.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 02:42 PMI've been wondering from the Florida primary how much of an impact economics really has on Romney. In Florida McCain started attacking Romney on his economic record as governor - I think he was saying something like while Romney was governor Massachusetts had the third worse job growth record of any state. He was hitting that hard and the exit polls showed McCain actually won that battle. He was losing the economy battle in other states up to that point.
He brought that out at the CA debate again, is that one little line the great equalizer on the issue of the economy? "If Romney is supposed to be the candidate for the economy, then why was his job's growth record so miserable while Governor." It might be the equalizing campaign blurb that ended Romney in Florida.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 04:21 PMAs far as Arnie... who could possibly be shocked?Two peas in a pod and it simply falls into the "Duh!" category.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 31, 2008 06:11 PMMitt has sunk more than $35 million and that is before the start of 2008. He spent over $45 million more than McCain before January 1, and hence before the Iowa Caucus. Can you just imagine how much more he has had to put into his campaign since January 1 through Florida? I thought maybe he would reach $40 million by the end of the month and wait until February 1 before adv. in Super Tuesday so that those figures wouldn't show up until March - Yikes, maybe he's already up to $50 million.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 07:50 PMFrom the FEC filings, approxiamate dollars spent through December per delegate won so far:
Huckabee $178,000
Giuliani $17,300,000
Paul $5,095,000
McCain $421,000
Romney $1,485,000
I truly believe that if Huckabee had $10 million or so earlier he would be the nominee.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 09:46 PMIf you do actually truly believe Huckabee would be the nominee simply if he had another $10 million or so to spend at an opportune time then I suspect we will find even less to agree about when discussing Republican politics than I previously thought. That's simply not a serious statement given the complete rejection of Huckabee's candidacy outside of his Evangelical base.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 31, 2008 10:22 PMIf McCain does real well on Tuesday, Romney won't spend any more and if Huckabee stays in, he'll end up with more delegates than Romney.
Romney is in a catch-22, he has to prop up Huckabee in the southern states on super tuesday just to keep McCain from getting those delegates, and if he does that he has to be willing to spend money past tuesday. If he gives up those states to McCain (Romney can't win those) then Romney loses for sure in the long run.
Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2008 11:24 PMAll of you "electability" voters who want to vote for McCain because he is the "most electable"--what are you going to say when he loses with Dole type numbers? McCain is a terrible candidate that does not excite the base. He will not pick up nearly enough independents to make up for base supporters that will not vote for him.
Hopefully the Super Tuesday state voters will wake up, and vote for Romney rather than McCain!
Posted by: Bill H on February 1, 2008 06:35 AMSupport Amnesty or rewards for illegal aliens:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Oppose Oil Exploration in the US:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Tax gas 50 cents a gallon more for global warming:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Restrict freedom of speech during elections:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Oppose Bush tax cuts:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Close Gitmo, prosecute POWs in U.S. courts:
--Clinton, Obama and McCain---YES
--Romney---NO
Surrender Iraq to Iran:
--Clinton and Obama---YES
--McCain and Romney---NO
That probably explains how he can call the pharmaceutical industry evil.
That probably explains the latest McCain-Lieberman on carbon and global warming.
It will devastate our economy, which is what Clinton said yesterday when referring to global warming. B.Clinton said the economy needs to slow to offset carbon emissions. In code, that means layoffs, depression and who knows what else since no one has really analyzed all the ramifications.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 06:51 AMHuckabee had gobs of generally positive earned media, even with the beating he late-in-the-game started to take from conservative pundits. Only McCain has rivaled him in garnering that sort of beneficial attention from the 4th Estate. The negative press you're talking about only came toward the end of the Iowa campaign when, quite frankly, the Huckabee itself misplayed its hand by running as the Christian candidate rather than as someone with broader appeal.
The fact Huckabee couldn't convert such generally favorable attention into support (or fundraising) reveals just how narrow his appeal is. For obvious reasons socially conservative Evangelicals identify with him and welcome the chance to vote for a candidate with whom they feel truly comfortable. But Huckabee's continued inability to win support outside of an Evangelical base, let alone the fact Romney and even McCain have eaten into it heavily in key states reveals much.
Thanks to the swift boomlet of his candidacy he had a great chance to get his message out, even without a lot of money...in a way like McCain did, coming back from the dead in New Hampshire. It didn't work, in part because Huckabee's appeal to members of the Republican coalition outside of social conservatives isn't exceptionally solid.
You think what you like about why Romney has earned the support he has received (and obviously in the absence of McCain or Huckabee-like free press he had to advertise, though probably not that heavily, to introduce himself to many voters). But I'm simply not going to agree that Huckabee was ever a strong, serious candidate for the nomination. In that I believe I have a lot of company among election observers.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 1, 2008 07:49 AMI said in my post that Huckabee had to pigeon hole himself because of lack of money. However, he did raise money very well after winning Iowa, $2.4 million less than Romney, but still 5 times what he raised prior to that point.
Bill H, I can tear you apart on your list but won't bother, just remember that in the 2003 debate on tax cuts Romney told his congressmen in his state that he would not publicly support the Bush tax cuts. He is a two-faced liar all across the board and honestly whatever he says now is what he thinks he has to say to get elected.....You have to go by his record just like you have to go by McCain's record - he's no conservative.
Posted by: Doug on February 1, 2008 08:37 AMMy bad, we don't have numbers for what he raised after Iowa, those were numbers from before Iowa - he raised $2.4 million less than Romney in the 4th quarter, Romney raised $4.3 million less than Rudy.
Posted by: Doug on February 1, 2008 08:49 AMLike I was saying, if Huckabee had money he would have wiped the board clean. That is what my comment was about. You may not agree with that, but look at it this way, if Huckabee was Huckabee and had Romney's money, and Romney still was Romney but had Huckabee's money - which candidate would win the nomination? I believe that candidate would not be McCain, nor Romney, but in fact would be Huckabee.
Yeah, McCain is stubborn and intemperate, and evidently that is why he is the worst candidate? Can we think of the last two Presidents, would anyone mistake Bush as not being Stubborn? Would anyone mistake Clinton as not being Intemperate?
We have to come up with a name for this McCain hatred that seems to be mostly based on his immigration stance - not withstanding the fact that he was one of few who thought it important to do something about illegal immigration.
Certainly immigration is one of the reasons for not supporting McCain--if you want to keep employing your illegal aliens, then you vote for him, I won't. And to make the statement, as you have done repeatedly, that ALL the candidates will take the same approach to the immigration situation is just ridiculous. McCain FAVORS amnesty. He has said so and his actions show that he MEANS it. He even said on Meet the Press that he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill if it arrived on his desk as president. He is not to be trusted on immigration.
However, it is disingenuous to imply that immigration is the ONLY reason to be against McCain. How about that he has not acted like a Republican, let alone a Conservative for about 10 years?
Here are two articles that discuss McCain:
This article from The Hill discusses McCain's discussions with Tom Daschle about switching his party to Independent in 2001 (before Jim Jeffords switched his affiliation) to throw control of the Senate to the Democrats. He was also considering joining Kerry's ticket as his VP. This is a Conservative Republican? Give me a break!
Then there is this article by Thomas Sowell
GOPUSA Article
that makes the case that McCain is NOT a straight shooter--and the MSM gives him a pass on it.
McCain is not to be trusted. Let him run for president as a Democrat or even as an "independent"--not as a Conservative Republican. He may not be the "Manchurian" candidate, but he certainly looks to be the "Democratian" candidate...
Posted by: Bill H on February 1, 2008 12:54 PMObama ACU rating 8.0
Hillary ACU rating 9.0
McCain ACU rating 83.0
The world is coming to an end if we elect McCain, he is no better than Hillary or Obama - let's keep saying that stuff, I never get tired of hearing it.
Immigration, that's the only issue that is keeping McCain from not being labeled as such. The other issues don't impart the hatred we've seen from the Malkin types.
There is Moveon.org on the left and on the right there is a whole mess of people that can't look past the immigration issue, they each are nuts.
The immigration issue is not a replubican v. democrat issue and the solution will be comprehensive no matter who is president. Your lies on amnesty are getting pretty tiring, paying a fine for a crime of a misdemeanor and actually turning yourself in to do so, is not anywhere near the definition of amnesty.
I've read blogs here before about some people upset with the Dems in this state for going after nickle and dime internet poker playing. That crime is a greater crime, more severely punished, than crossing the border illegaly. Are you or any other anti-immigrant folks on here worse criminals?
Posted by: Doug on February 1, 2008 03:24 PMYou are the one who is nuts if you support McCain and claim to be a Conservative. Methinks it is YOU that are only hung up on immigration since that is all you ever talk about. You want amnesty and see McCain as the best way to get it. You aren't convincing anyone.
You also consistently mischaracterize people that don't agree with you as "wanting to deport illegals" and "anti-immigrant"--as you did again in your latest post. First of all, I am fully in favor of LEGAL immigration and I am fully against ILLEGAL immigration. I have responded consistently (and you NEVER get it) that I and most others are in favor of handling the illegals already here by attrition---after the border has been secured. The SAVE Act would deal with current illegals appropriately and is supported by the NFIB (the National Federation of Independent Businesses) as well as the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). Imagine a bill that brings business and labor on the same side...
There are LOTS of reasons not to like McCain--I haven't liked him since McCain-Feingold. His latest "issue" is his ridiculous stance on the global warming scam. Economic Conservatives and those valuing liberty should run, not walk, away from him.
You are a one-trick pony, Doug--only interested in amnesty for illegal aliens. Why not just vote for the Democrat--they'll give it to you.
Posted by: Bill H on February 1, 2008 03:50 PM