Brzezinski falsely asserted that McCain "stood by" his views on immigration
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski said of Sen. John McCain, "[F]or the most part, he really does stick to his views even if they're unpopular," adding that McCain's "views on immigration were unpopular, and he stood by them even at the peril of his campaign." In fact, McCain once called for comprehensive reform that addressed the creation of a guest-worker program, a path to citizenship, and border security, but now says he supports addressing border security first.
On the February 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski said of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), "[F]or the most part, he really does stick to his views even if they're unpopular," adding that McCain's "views on immigration were unpopular, and he stood by them even at the peril of his campaign." In fact, McCain has reversed his position on a key element of the immigration debate: He once called for comprehensive reform that addressed the creation of a guest-worker program, a path to citizenship, and border security, arguing that border security would be ineffective "no matter how formidable the barriers" without the establishment of a "temporary worker program," but now says he supports addressing border security first. Further, he has recently made inconsistent statements on his support for his own immigration bill. During CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, despite having stated on the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that he would sign that very legislation into law if he were elected president.
In a January 27 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, McCain claimed that Americans "want the border secured first -- and I will do that," adding that "then, we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted":
RUSSERT: If the Senate passed your bill, S.1433, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, would you, as president, sign it?
McCAIN: Yeah, but we -- look, the lesson is, it isn't won. It isn't going to come. It isn't going to come. The lesson is they want the borders secured first. That's the lesson. I come from a border state. I know how to fix those borders with walls, with UAVs, with sensors, with cameras, with vehicle barriers. They want the borders secured first -- and I will do that. And, as president, I will have the border-state governors secure -- certify those borders are secured.
And then, we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted. That means a lot of people will leave just normally because they're not going to be able to get a job. Then, of course, we have to get rid of the two million people who have committed crimes here. We have to round them up and deport them.
By contrast, in a March 30, 2006, Senate floor statement, McCain said: "While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms." He added: "[A]s long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will risk their lives to cross our borders -- no matter how formidable the barriers -- and most will be successful." McCain further asserted that in order to "reflect that reality," "[w]e need to establish a temporary worker program." From McCain's statement:
While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms. We have seen time and again that as long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will risk their lives to cross our borders -- no matter how formidable the barriers -- and most will be successful.
Our reforms need to reflect that reality, and help us separate economic immigrants from security risks. We need to establish a temporary worker program that permits workers from other countries -- to the extent they are needed -- to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.
A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article about McCain's change in position on immigration quoted him telling reporters that "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift" and that "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
From the February 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: And he is a war hero who has some experience with this.
SCARBOROUGH: I guess.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I mean, he's a war hero.
BRZEZINSKI: Uh-huh.
SCARBOROUGH: There's no doubt about the fact John McCain is a war hero, but that in and of itself doesn't mean that he's ready to be president of the United States. There are a lot of war heroes out there that we wouldn't want to be commander in chief.
BRZEZINSKI: OK.
SCARBOROUGH: Would you agree with that?
BRZEZINSKI: I don't think John McCain is one of them. I think that he has some pretty good experience with this.
SCARBOROUGH: So you're going to vote for John McCain then?
BRZEZINSKI: I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, but I think that he's a potentially very good candidate.
SCARBOROUGH: It ain't going to be a Republican. You know what, Mika? This is --
BRZEZINSKI: What?
SCARBOROUGH: You're doing the old bait and switch.
BRZEZINSKI: Mm-hmm. No, no, no, no, no.
SCARBOROUGH: No, seriously, I love how Democrats all go, "Oh, I love McCain. I love McCain. Oh, John McCain's great. Oh, John McCain, he's really" --
BRZEZINSKI: No, I just think you have been --
SCARBOROUGH: The second McCain wins the nomination, you watch this, the second McCain wins the nomination, it's going to be, "Oh, he's a right-wing nut on abortion. He's a right-wing nut on guns. He's frightening."
BRZEZINSKI: Here's what I like about him --
SCARBOROUGH: "He wants to invade every country in the Middle East."
BRZEZINSKI: Excuse me --
SCARBOROUGH: Mika, you know that's going to happen. It's the bait and switch. "I love John McCain."
BRZEZINSKI: What I have always said about John McCain is that he sticks -- for the most part, he really does stick to his views even if they're unpopular.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.
BRZEZINSKI: And you know what?
SCARBOROUGH: And that inspires you today.
BRZEZINSKI: Like Ronald Reagan, who also had an amnesty bill of his own, McCain's views on immigration were unpopular, and he stood by them even at the peril of his campaign. So --
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you mark my word, I've been telling you that the media loves John McCain. You mark my word.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: We'll do sort of Huckaspeak: The second McCain wins the Republican nomination, they will descend on him like a wild pack of dogs eating raw meat.
And if Romney did the exact same thing they [media] would call him a flip-flopper. But when Horrible John does it he's a maverick.
Seriously the media must think we're a bunch of idiots.
So Gramps has seniority with the title. Any and everyone else who has a change of heart is a flip flopper.
Well King I just knew there had to be a good explanation ;-)
Maybe instead of Maverick we can get the media to start calling the guy Maniac instead? I mean if Hillary, Obama or Romney had said we'd have to stay in Iraq till we have a victory, even if it takes a 100 years, what would the media have called them?
Besides his asinine 'must have an unbreachable wall' rhetoric, the reality of *punishing* businesses for hiring non-documented-by-our-abitrary-laws peoplehas led to the exodus of 25,000 people in northeast Oklahoma. Needless to say, their economy is suffering and jobs are going unfulfilled.
Here in Wichita, Kansas, the *news* paper's editors actually suggested NOT passing laws that would target businesses that hire illegals because it would hurt the ECONOMY!! Lesson learned- laws are okay to target poor, hard-working, bi-lingual, families as long as the economy, upon which these people apparently support more than I previously thought, doesn't suffer ONE IOTA!
does that mean that the businesses didn't want to pay citizens enough to draw the quality employees?
Isn't that the usual excuse why they pay the CEOs exorbitant salaries? That you have to offer great salaries and benefits to draw in the quality CEOs? If so, they're getting hosed ...
I’ve gotta hand it to Scarborough – he knows his politics. He didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. Brzezinski, on the other hand, now there’s a different story.
Millionaire journalists... seems to be a potential problem there. Remember that famous speech Bush made at a fundraiser, when he addressed the "Haves and Have-mores"? I think he referred to them as "his base". Apparently the overpaid "journalists" who try to form opinion in this country are part of his "base." No wonder they give him a pass.
Nerzog, I readily admit that I'm entirely unsure about this, but I remember hearing after the 2004 elections that the wealthier counties in the U.S. went overwhelmingly for Kerry. I've heard something of the sort is detailed in bob shrum's new book. (I'm referring to your "base" comment. I remember the speech, but your comment called this to mind.) You know whether its true?
Greek,
I'd love to take credit for it but my favorite Conservative talk radio host, Howie Carr WRKO 680AM Boston, coined it. I love it!! Please use it as often as you can.. Howie won't mind ;-)
Thomp,
After our long discussion the other day, did you research the major 180s McCain has pulled with 1) The Religious Right, 2) Immigration (depending on the day), 3) Taxes?
Did you catch him lying on Fox News Sunday when he said that the didn't vote for the tax decrease because there was no accompanying spending cut? Wallace actually called him out on voicing the same displeasure Dems did and he lied again.
What are your thoughts on this? You were so concerned about your perception of Edwards without facts, what do you think of McCain with the accompanying facts that he has made major reversals in policy which seem to go totally unnoticed. Why is he trustworthy?
What are your thoughts on this? You were so concerned about your perception of Edwards without facts, what do you think of McCain with the accompanying facts that he has made major reversals in policy which seem to go totally unnoticed. Why is he trustworthy?
I'm glad the Maverick came to his senses in terms of immigration. I wish he'd stuck to his original position on the tax cuts, as I didn't and don't support them either. As for pandering to the religious right. Not ignoring and pandering often gets confused in the minds of liberals in this regard. I don't think he panders to them, and in fact, he's said that his campaign is not centered on "social" issues at all. Nonetheless, the religious right makes up a significant segment of the republican party, and he should hear them out.
So presenting the commencement speech at Liberty University is not pandering? Personally, I see that as pandering. That's just me though.
That doesn't bother me in the least. And I don't see it as pandering. I think evidence of his lack of pandering is that fact that so many on the far right despise the Mav.
What do you call his incomplete 180, Thomp? He called them agents of intolerance and then spoke to their graduates? How can anyone change so dramatically and how do you see the transformation?
Honestly, I have a hard time with this dramatic reversal "not bothering you in the least" when you questioned the credibility of others based on "feelings" and not hard evidence.
How would you term McCain's change of heart here?
I'm glad the Maverick came to his senses in terms of immigration. I wish he'd stuck to his original position on the tax cuts, as I didn't and don't support them either.
Thomp, that would be defined as flip-flopping by the media, at least it would be when anyone else but Horrible John does it.
Thomp, that would be defined as flip-flopping by the media, at least it would be when anyone else but Horrible John does it.
I hear ya. Out of curiosity, why do you prefer romney. Do you really think he's the more conservative candidate, or do find him the least bad choice, or both?
Not that it matters much, but I agree with you. That's pretty much the way I feel about Romney and McCain.
AA,
If I thought for one minute Romney could beat out McCain for the nomination I'd re-think voting for Hillary. But if it's McCain-Hillary in November I'll poke out my chad for her on the ballet ;-)
McCain was here in Romney's "home" state Massachusetts today & it appears the guy's only reason for the stop was to try & rub salt in Romney's wounds because he's ahead in most polls elsewhere.. Let's face it if Huckabee wasn't drawing votes from Romney, it would likely be a different story. Romney would have won both South Carolina & Florida!
Thomp,
What do you call the change in these two McCain statements/actions
1) In 2000, McCain called Falwell and Robertson and the like, "agents of intolerance." 2) Last year, or the commencement before Falwell passed away, McCain gave the commencement address at Liberty University (the school Falwell founded.
Is that pandering or outright hypocracy or is there another term for it?
1) In 2000, McCain called Falwell and Robertson and the like, "agents of intolerance." 2) Last year, or the commencement before Falwell passed away, McCain gave the commencement address at Liberty University (the school Falwell founded.
Is that pandering or outright hypocracy or is there another term for it?
He was invited to give a commencement speech to a couple thousand kids graduating college. The Mav gave the speech. Not a big deal. Falwell's a turd, great. That doesn't mean every baptist attending his school is. In any case, had the straight-talker wanted to pander, I'm sure he'd be more popular with the social conservatives in this campaign . . .
Thomp,
Sorry I did not see the response before I posted to a previous post, but I do have to say that your answer, if I gave it on Edwards, would have you screaming at me. By speaking at Falwell's institution, McCain sold out. He took a strong stand against Falwell in 2000 and then, by speaking at his school, endorsed his ideals or at the very least tried to get those who think like Falwell to vote for him. Would you ever speak at a school founded by John Edwards, for example?
Can't you just admit that McCain was sucking up to the Religious Right?
Can't you just admit that McCain was sucking up to the Religious Right?
That's ridiculous. Now the standard is that a public office-holder giving a speech at a private institution automatically adopts the views of the founder of that institution.? Is that what your getting at. And the Mav don't suck up to the religious right. In fact, he focuses on the votes of moderates at the expense of religious right voters.
Thomp,
I think if a candidate gives a speech to the followers of a certain individual, he is, at the very least, saying they are acceptable.
I think if a candidate gives a speech to the followers of a certain individual, he is, at the very least, saying they are acceptable.
Actually, you're right on that account. Maverick probably did see him as "acceptable." Nonetheless, it would've been wrong in my view to decline the invitation to give the commencement speech. I wasn't at all a personal fan of Falwell, but giving a commencement speech to a bunch of college kids is not pandering.
Thomp,
I think it would have spoken volumes for him to decline. I admired his stance in 2000 and wanted him to beat Bush in the primary. By the way, have you seen this link?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13
It gives you statements from the candidates and says which one fits your views the best. Its a lot of fun and quick
Fried,
Thanks. You're not gonna believe it but a dem was my first match in the survey.
Thomp,
Interesting, does that shape your thinking at all? Where did McCain place? Those are accurate policy statements for each candidate.
Hillary by one question, I looked at Obama's statement and it was very close. I think its interesting that you actually might be a Dem ;).
Doesn't mean anything, but just to let you know, I grew up in a large family split down the middle politically, and with many members actively involved in local politics, more so on the dem side too. Local politics is a different egg though, at least from my experience. It's more ruthless.
Fried,
Mine were McCain and Romney, with Ron Paul right behind, (big surprise, huh?)......in any event, this election, for me anyway, is less about issues than it is about character, unity, working in a far less partisan environment to get problems solved, and bringing out the best in people, not appealing to their divisiveness and polarizing hardline positions.
I voted for issues in 2000 when I voted for Bush, if you would have told me that we would have this huge government spending spree, "look the other way" immigration policy, and an unending war - I would have voted for somebody else.
Just have to LMAO at conservatives who finally learned how to pronounce the term and espouse bi-patisanship as a virtue now that Republicans and the like face massive electoral loses. Sorry, it just rings so hollow.
I refuse to say who came in first place for me. I'm gonna take the test over.
If it comes out the same way I'm going to seek out therapy :-/
Well I'm gonna call a therapist.
Huckabee was my #1 pick both times :-O Somebody kill me now! I would never vote for Gomer!
Then Obama, Hillary & Romney.
Does that even make sense??
McCain came in second to last. That's the only thing that rings true...or at least what I would have picked.
Always pegged you as a Huckabeeliever!
Bite your tongue Colonel Sanders. Now you're being just plain cruel. Here I am worried that I might be suffering from a mental illness & you're laughing at me :-/
Concidering that my second choice was Obama, & my third was Hillary, I think there is a better chance that the truth may be that Huckabee is a Liberal trying to pass himself off as a Conservative.
Which now only makes me feel even worse :-(
Could I be a Liberal? Gawd somebody shoot me & put me out of my misery!!!
Why is this rubish being continually recycled? Is it playing to the traditional republican voter? wouldn't think there's a large population of people concerned about imigration just waiting to discover John.
Not a large fan of pols so throw this one out if you'd prefer. The lastestWash Post/ABC News pol, Dems beat the GOP on this issue 40% to 37%,2% for both,12% neither,9% No opinion.
The immigration problem is very like the Iraq war problem, in that there just WILL NOT BE a solution that pleases everyone.
As Mika stated, the rightwing ICON Ronald Reagan did his own "amnesty" program years ago. Today's rightwinger would excoriate and condemn Reagan for that (among other non-conservative results), but the zero-tolerance stance the rightwing insists upon is unworkable.
Even cracking down on employers (this would be most cost-effective for the government, because one "prosecution" has the effect of depriving dozens or hundreds of illegals from coming here to seek jobs that will not exist) will be problematic, because this will result in millions of people HERE, unable to EARN money, and needing to feed themselves and their families. Sure, they would eventually go back home, but to put people in desperation is to invite mischief, lawbreaking, and potential violence.
McCain does not have any new ideas. He's been IN POWER since Reagan's time, and he has not been able to forge any coalitions or get anything meaningful done towards a comprehensive program. He's been ON THE JOB, as a legislator and compromiser, and has FAILED.
I bet it's almost as much fun as we Conservatives had watching & listening to the Clinton-Obama Wars for 3 weeks ;-)
Hey as long as we can all chuckle, no harm done. Well except that the issues are taking a backseat :-/
True to that. I mean, I had a good chuckle at Obama and Hillary going at each other pretty hard, and then sort of reconciling there last week at their last debate before tomorrow.
I have enjoyed watching the republican field try to out-Reagan one another.
You're right though, the issues have taken a back seat. It sounds like to me, on conservative talk radio, they're still running issues from around 2000 and 2004 campaigns, add in a dash of illegal immigration, and it's about the same, except they're slamming on their own guy instead of the democrats. You know, the whole tax cuts, men kissing and getting married, abortion, blah, blah, blah... I swear, you could have recorded one of those a-holes back in the late 90s and just put it on repeat, and it's the same show with a few different names tossed in there for good measure.
Mag,
Isn't it a riot [well maybe not] that the Republicans are searching for the next Reagan, while the Dems have anointed the next JFK?
I wonder what it says about the times that we are so eager, almost desperate, to recycle old mythical heroes?
Hi Jeter,
I have not been as astute in watching the debates as I should be. Have any of the Dem candidates claimed to be the next JFK like all of the Rep. candidates have claimed to be the next Reagan?
Hey Fried,
I was referring to Ted Kennedy & half the Kennedy brood declaring Obama to be the second coming of JFK. As far as I know Obama has never referred to himself that way, though he does seem quite content to allow others to make the comparison.
Hi Jeter,
I will grant you that he seems fine with the label. I find it humorous, as I see you do, that the remaining candidates are all trying to out-Reagan each other. I would love it if as a joke, McCain or Romney produced old films they were in and called themselves the "Gipper part II" or something.
I hope, that when I am gone, that my legend will eclipse my accomplishments as well ;).
It'll be interesting to see how McCain does in the Republican only primaries tomorrow.
My guess is the conservative Republicans will have herd the call and once again prove the pundits and polls are wrong. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney ends up winning tomorrow.
AA,
If they vote for Romney, does that mean they are taking their orders from the likes of Hannity, Rush, Ann Coulter, etc who said they wouldn't vote for McCain?
Who are you voting for and why, if I may ask.
It may be wishful thinking on my part. I don't vote tomorrow. I've liked Romney from the start. It may be because I met his father when I was a boy in Michigan. (Sort of like going sailing with the Kennedy's.)
I am impressed with his skill as a businessman. I like the fact he's a Washington outsider. Every Mormon I've ever known have all been exceptionally nice, generous, and looked to me to be hardworking and family centered.
McCain won't be my choice for nominee, but I'll support him if he wins. His views are much closer to mine than the two Democrats. (Even though I do like Obama.)
Every Mormon I've ever known have all been exceptionally nice, generous, and looked to me to be hardworking and family centered.
AA, same here. I used to work with a crew of Mormans, and to a person they were all nice and hardworking. Always happy too, and w/o alcohol so it was pretty impressive
That's all well and good, but our country is not a top down business. We are a bottom up democracy comprised of, at our finest, an informed and involved citzenry.
Give me a dedicated public servant over a profit driven CEO any day of the week.
Fried,
Which candidate do you like?
AA,
Unfortunately, my man Edwards is out. Since I can't vote for him, I am thinking Obama. I like Hillary for her longer years in public service, but I find Obama to be more electable. His inexperience scares me, but I think he and Hillary are very similar (judging by their voting records). I like that both of them say (we shall see if they do) they want to wind down in Iraq. I think health care in this country is a debacle and like their plans.
I could never vote for McCain or Romney. I used to really like McCain and wanted him to at least be an option in 2000, but since then, (especially very very recently) he has become less independent. I admire Romney's business savvy and I liked his policies as Governor of Mass (gay marriage, health care for all, stance on abortion, etc.), but am confused by his changes of heart. I also find very troubling his "we should double the size of Guantanamo" comment as well. I was strongly considering him until I heard all of his reversals come out.
By the way, anyone who hasn't should try this link about which candidate fits your views the best (from Minnesota Public Radio):
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13
Its very interesting and bases your choice on quotes from the remaining candidates. When I took it, I found I was in a dead heat for Obama and Hillary.
AA,
You may be right, but I think Romney is toast - in my opinion, he has no core principles, conservative or not, he will say anything to get elected. I am no McCain fan either. But I think the Republicans voting think that he has the best chance of beating either Clinton or Obama, so they will go with him.......also, I think many of them think this is a throwaway election, they are disillusioned so with Bush, their candidates suck, and they think it's a Democratic inevitability, so they will try and regroup for 2012 - my opinion.
Tommy,
It is just a feeling I have, (maybe its simply a wish,) that the polls and pundits will be wrong again.
In other words, it's the conservatism, not the consrevative, that's the problem.
Dazed,
Is that based on the change in positions from the time he was running for Senate against Kennedy and his tenure as Gov until now? If so, couldn't agree more.
HEY I LOVE HOW THE REPUBLICANS AND FOX NEWS HAVE PUT RUSH UNDER THE BUS TO WIN IN 08. JUST LIKE I HAVE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT REPUBLICANS THEY WOULD PUT THERE MOTHER UNDER A BUS TO WIN, AND MAN ARE THEY DOING IT TOO RUSH.
mika is an idiot... if she would shut her mouth for two seconds and take the time to actually form a coherent thought, she might be a good sidekick for joe. unfortunately, she just talks talks talks and doesnt actually say anything. the worst is when they actually have informed and intelligent guests on their panel, she interupts them constantly! she asks questions and then doesnt even let them answer. this mis-statement abt mccain doesnt suprise me... just another example of what a twit she really is... from the looks of things the last few days, it looks like joe is getting sick of her too. i'm starting to find regis and kelly more informed and appealing than these two, thanks to her non stop blabber!
Exactly Fried,
Hack radio Hannity and Limbaugh build him up as the canidate who best represents conservative principles. I agree since the main conservative principle seems to be sucking up to rich GOP donors and keeping the corporate gravy train rolling after Bush is out.