Cafferty said McCain "has been at odds with his own party for years" on immigration without noting his reversal on the issue
SUMMARY: CNN's Jack Cafferty asserted that Sen. John McCain "has been at odds with his own party for years on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming," without noting that McCain said on January 30 that he would no longer support his own comprehensive immigration reform bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first."
On the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, commentator Jack Cafferty asserted that Sen. John McCain "has been at odds with his own party for years on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming," without noting that McCain said on January 30 that he would no longer support his own comprehensive immigration reform bill if it came up for a vote in the Senate. Additionally, McCain has reversed himself on the issue of border security; he now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
Cafferty also said that "a lot of Republicans are hoping that the maverick appeal of McCain will help other Republicans on the ballot." Media Matters for America has extensively documented the broadcast and print media's repeated habit of using the label "maverick" when discussing McCain.
From the May 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
CAFFERTY: John McCain took a look into the future this morning, delivering a speech that looked ahead to what the U.S. and the world would be like in four years, after the first term of a McCain presidency. You may recognize some things in here as stuff you've heard before.
Some of the highlights: He thinks the Iraq war will be won; Iraq will be a functioning democracy; violence there will be, quote, "spasmodic and much reduced," unquote. McCain thinks the U.S. will have welcomed home most of its troops. He thinks the threat from Al Qaeda and the Taliban won't yet be eliminated, even though [Osama] bin Laden will be captured or killed.
Recognize -- does this stuff sound familiar to you yet?
It's pretty bold to lay out these objectives like this. It gives the critics a lot to measure you against if, for example, these things don't turn out to actually be the case in four years, assuming you win the White House - which is a bit of a leap of faith at this point anyway.
In any case, John McCain seems to be one of the few things Republicans have going for them this fall. After a string of GOP defeats in special elections, a lot of Republicans are hoping that the maverick appeal of McCain will help other Republicans on the ballot.
It's all kind of ironic when you consider the Arizona senator has been at odds with his own party for years on issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming.
This is getting a little silly. McCain is still at odds with many in his party over illegal immigration. His flip-flopping seems to coincide with who he speaks too, when, and how deep he is in the election. McCain doesn't really care about border enforcement first, he still talks of comprehensive reform and a guest worker program. His base, and those of us who care about sovereign borders, want the borders secured first, before a breath is taken on guest workers or any other comprehensive reform. But McCain feels as Bush does, that he needs the Hispanic vote, so he too will pander to them, and the rest of us, on this issue for votes. It's the 1980's and empty promises all over again.
Nothing has changed except some snippets of McCain's rhetoric.
So those who want to do something about the forces of supply and demand in addition to enforcing the border are the people who do not care about sovereign borders?
Since 1989, spending on border enforcement has gone from a $500 million endeavor to a multi-billion dollar industry, while workplace enforcement has become practically nonexistent.
During the same period, the U.S. population of unauthorized immigrants has more than doubled.
This is the legacy of devoting resources and attention to border enforcement and ignoring the forces of supply and demand.
Yet you insist the solution is to throw more money at the border?
Pete, You know I am a strong advocate of workplace enforcement and punishing employers who hire illegals to the fullest extent of the law, absolutely we need to deal with the carrot and the stick.
But we are still severly understaffed at securing our borders, and that, along with employer punishment is where the emphasis should be - not guest worker programs, or pathways to citizenship, or bringing them out of the shadows, or all the politically correct garbage that Bush and Co, and most Democrats, have been spouting for years. Nothing is getting done because it's a political hot potato, and we don't have politicians who dare go near the flames. Wimps.
That is why I am adamant on not allowing them the wiggle room that we did back in the 1980's, it has led to the mess we are in now.
-- Yet you insist the solution is to throw more money at the border -- pete
I can't disagree with your post. But to me the issue is not about the money...it's about the accountability of our congress. They have authorized and pissed away tons of money over the years by enacting legislation and then taking no responsibility for seeing that the legislation was acted on.
I call all of my congressmen...and without exception...none of them know the current status of the southern fence and it's rate of completion. You get the same lame tripe from them that "we authorized the money,,,it's someone else's job to see that it gets done".
That's the real problem with these thieving bastards...and we let them get away with it.
But to me the issue is not about the money
Really? Not about the money? Then you should have no problem ending the tax cuts for the richest 1%.
I'm not for ending any tax cuts...we should enact even more.
But I'll tell you something for nothing...the rich pay most of the taxes in the country right now and it makes absolutely no difference in my life what they pay.
Why? Because I don't find fault with people being successful...unlike those who are small minded and want something for nothing and are jealous and maybe a tad lazy.
Those crying about tax cuts for the rich would do themselves some good to re-direct that emotion into making something of their own lives. There is plenty of opportunity in this great country...so don't even start with the whine about fairness.
I'm not for ending any tax cuts...we should enact even more.
That's right - if we use your logic, let's lower taxes to zero - then we will have unprecedented prosperity! Why can't you understand that these tax cuts helped put us in out current economic situation - higher education, health care, gasoline, and food costs are de facto TAXES which affects lower income earners unproportionately.
But I'll tell you something for nothing...the rich pay most of the taxes in the country right now and it makes absolutely no difference in my life what they pay.
Maybe you should look up Warren Buffet. He's kind of successful. He says he's be quite willing and should be paying higher taxes. Then again, maybe you long for the good old robber baron, Tammany Hall days.
Why? Because I don't find fault with people being successful...unlike those who are small minded and want something for nothing and are jealous and maybe a tad lazy.
Typical wingnut straw-man argument. I have nothing against success. I've been at both ends of the income spectrum. I don't think the uber-rich will have any problem filling up their SUV's or flying off in their private jets because their taxes are "too high."
Those crying about tax cuts for the rich would do themselves some good to re-direct that emotion into making something of their own lives.
You obviously do not have any compassion for the lesser among us, which makes you un-christian, un-patriotic, and in-human.
There is plenty of opportunity in this great country...so don't even start with the whine about fairness.
Which brings me back to Buffet. He said that the rich should pay more in taxes and give more to charity because it is this great country and the hard working men and women in it that enabled them to accrue great wealth. You probably made your fortune the old fashioned (republican)way - you inherited it.
Oh the old Buffet dodge...the democrats hero...who doesn't put his money where his mouth is when it comes to paying taxes. He's free to send the government all the money he wants to...but he doesn't.
Why don't you just call your buddy and tell him that you've have a little misfortune and he should send you some of his money...after all he won't miss it...he's rich and you're not.
Ain't fairness wonderful.
Once a hater, always a hater - must suck to be you.
I guess that means that Warren and I won't be on your Christmas card list.
But don't worry...I'll send you a card...and I'll even put a little money in it.
Back from the internets by popular demand: Wesley and the self made man:
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare
his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because
some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality
standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes
his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because
some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and
that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's
medical plan because some liberal union workers fought
their employers for paid medical insurance; now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal
fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total
contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to
know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The
air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist
wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from
polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his
government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him
considerable money in parking and transportation fees
because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be
a contributor.
Joe begins his work day .He has a good job with excellent pay,
medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because
some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these
working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards
because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees
to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed,
he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because
some sissy socialist liberal didn't think he should lose his home
because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless
liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who
ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his
below-market federal student loan because some elitist
liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if
he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening
at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive.
His car is among the safest in the world because some
America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
He takes the fast interstate freeway which caused he and his
father's homes property values to skyrocket, their towns to
prosper, as well to help lower the price of transported goods.
Their home's growing equity is the most valuable thing they have,
and it gives them immense freedom and security.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation
to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration
because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house
didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck
his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal, lacking in family values, made sure he could take
care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe hops back on the freeway for the ride home, and turns on a radio
talk show.
The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are
good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought
against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
...Every single one.
Joe agrees:
"We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives!
After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should
take care of themselves, just like I have."
Wow Mary, thanks - no exaggerations there by any means. Let me see if can get this straight; Republicans and conservatives hate the following;
Clean air and water (we love pollution). Forests and trees. Safe pills and medication. Quality health care. Safe bacon and eggs. Good shampoo. Public transportation. They want people to die so nobody can have medical benefits, retirement, holidays and paid vacations. Safe workplaces, cons want people to get injured on the job. Cons want people to lose their homes. Safe cars, we want more vehicle accidents. Electricity. Good roads and interstates. Old people. Sick people.
What did I leave out?
Mary,
Be sure to check out a follow up, Joe Conservative that appeared on Craig's List a while back:
Here's the first paragraph, linked to the full version:
Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water...
Mary, REAL eyeopener! thanks!
A Hater? How do you feel about the richest 1% of Americans? You want government thugs to sieze their property for the unholy crime of being rich. In your twisted mind this represents "justice".
Hate? You ought to know.
Your fear and insecurities are showing.
No, completely and flatly ignorant.
"Why? Because I don't find fault with people being successful...unlike those who are small minded and want something for nothing and are jealous and maybe a tad lazy."
People who have worked their tails off to build empires out of nothing in America have been able to do so by taking advantage of publicly-funded infrastructure, a publicly-funded and educated workforce, and a stable, secure capitalist system paid for and defended with the blood of publicly-funded members of our national defense.
And asking the rich to pay for their share of the commons that they used to make their wealth possible is penalizing them???
They should reap all these public benefits and get something for nothing???
C'mon Pete...the rich pay most of the taxes already...what do you really want?
Rightly so, they take the greatest advantage of the commons, as I mentioned.
What I want is for dip***t right-wingers like Bush to stop rolling back taxes on them while maxing out our nation's credit card at the same time.
If we truly are defending our nation and our way of life in Bush's Middle East bloodbath, then it's the rich who have the most at stake and the most to lose. They should pay the most if it's the less fortunate among us who have to go overseas and die securing the oil that makes our economic engine run and their fortunes a reality.
-- stop rolling back taxes on them while maxing out our nation's credit card at the same time. -- pete
Enacting tax cuts has very little to do with maxing out the credit card. It's spending that is maxing out the credit card...a budget that is at 3 trillion dollars...and going up rapidly...is the problem.
No thanks, wes.
The you're on your own approach to government has failed us, miserably. As will be shown over the next few years, the majority of Americans disagree wtih the uncaring conservative model of government.
I don't find fault with people being successful...unlike those who are small minded and want something for nothing and are jealous and maybe a tad lazy.- wesley
Wesley said "somethign for nothing". But it's OK, he was saying it about poor people, not rich ones, so it can't be a strawman. Carry on, Tommy.
What a great time for the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism: "A rich person is still rich after taxes." If raising taxes on the top 1% is punishing achievement, how come those achievers did very well for themselves in the 90s?
The budget must be balanced somehow. It can't be by spending cuts, as even Tommy's lunatic ideas of abolishing Education and IRS (which will never pass) only come to $70 billion, not nearly enough, so it must be by raising taxes.
The only question is: whose taxes should we raise?
You must get an email whenever anyone mentions raising taxes, your personal favorite, or those darn spending cuts, which you keep foisting upon us on how they will never work. We know you value government spending your money with reckless abandon and zippo accountability, and you are free to trust them to spend your money and tell them to forget about cutting or restraint, can't do it, won't work, don't bother, keep spending.
Sorry, can't get on board with such socialistic silliness. But feel free to write an extra check to the government whenever it feels good, put your money where your mouth is.
Did I assert any of the things you said I did? No, I asserted the things that you are completely unable to address or challenge.
That's not a bad idea. Maybe employers would pass the savings onto employees by taking that tax cut money and investing it in living wages and healthcare for workers. You know, it's the kind of care that enables hard workers to enjoy the kind of prosperous wellbeing that makes this country great.
Wes, You gotta the liberals main argument for raising taxes on the rich, it's always "well, they will never miss it". I guess that's how we determine tax laws in this country now. Ok fine. I have about twelve pairs, give or take a few, of shoes - but I won't miss three or four of them, so I should be forced to either sell them and give the money to the IRS, or just give them up altogether.
Fog, what do you have that you won't miss? Now, don't be un-christian, or un-patriotic, or inhuman, come clean, be honest.
You can cut any tax you want if the budget's still balanced.
Note: budget must be balanced in real life, not a theoretical fantasy.
OK Tommy - when I start making $$$MILLIONS I'm sure I won't miss a couple extra hundred thousand. In fact, I'll do what you're good buddy Wesley suggested - I'll send a few thousand to both of you and feel good about it.
And yes, your vile hatred of other people is in-human.
Look at the 1980's when the same rhetoric was thrown out, and look where we are now.
Tommy, the simple reason that so many illegal immigrants come to this country for is jobs. Jobs that may pay little by our standards but quite a lot by theirs.
Immigration reform needs a heck of lot more than simply "securing the borders". We need to have serious discussions with Mexico. Bush had a cosy relationship with Fox yet NOTHING was done. Bush was in a perfect position to have serious talks with Fox about illegal immigration but he choose to show the world his Spanish. Meanwhile Fox is saying: "They are being hired by somebody." and "I believe that migration brings great benefits to the United States," Mr. Fox said in the interview. "I trust that American businessmen understand the productivity and quality of Mexican labor. And I trust that American governors recognize the enormous contributions that immigrants make to their states."
The first serious talks on illegal immigration should be with Mexico's government. The second should be the jailing of those who who hire cheap labor. Serious discussions of the problem is needed not cheap political soundbites.
Pearl,
I'm asking with no motive...just curiosity. What would you say to the Mexican government?
We don't need to be rewarding anymore those that have come here illegally
Yeah, they're really being rewarded. Low-paying jobs, brutal living conditions, all in the hope of sending a few bucks to their families back home.
And when they're caught, they're routinely denied medical care while in custody. Some reward. Why do you hate people so much?
OK - I'll bite - why are you here? Like I said before, you should create the sovereign nation of Tommyland. Taxes only go toward a border police force and big imposing walls to keep out all the undesirables. Then it is every man/woman for him/herself.
Please go there, because that's no place for normal people.
Pearl, Are you saying because I am for border enforcement first that all that is is a cheap political soundbite?
We are not responsible, nor are we able, to fix the Mexican economy and the corruption that exists there. They are. We need to protect our citizens, the poorest citizens among us, whose jobs are being taken away and whose salaries are being undercut by cheap labor. We need to crackdown on employers and stop looking the other way. We need tens of thousands of more border agents securing our borders. We need to build the border fence that we were funded and promised. We need to hold our politicians feet to the fire. We need to stop caving into political groups who brand anyone wanting tougher border enforcement as xenophobes and racists.
We need to start there, there is plenty to do.
Sorry Tommy, I meant political soundbites.
When the Mexican government advocates sending illegal immigrants across the boarder, gives them instruction on safely crossing the border we have a big problem.
Because they want their poverty exported and many of them who get through and work here end up sending much of their money back to Mexico......even many of our big banks facillitate it, it's egregious.
That is why I definitely say that employer crackdown on strict enforcement is as much as key as border enforcement, if they were amped up like they should be, like we deserve, much of the tide would be stemmed. Forget it, McCain won't, Obama and Clinton won't, none of them will.....unless the people stand up and demand it somehow. It's sad.
It's sad
Sure its sad that people strive for a better life for their families. You just can't put yourself in their shoes, can you?
Maybe those poor Mexican folks should just rob banks in Mexico...after all they just want a better life for themselves.
Or is it just ok when they break American laws?
I can't believe it is so simple...what are we waiting for.
Those poor illegal aliens need an American paid stipend when they are caught here illegally...gosh I'll sleep a lot better at night knowing I've done my duty for mankind's less fortunate.
We import the world's poverty
Maybe you should visit Ellis Island. I love how you high-five each other for your hatred of people.
Sarcasm alone can't make your hatred of people disappear. Hopefully someday you'll have an epiphany and bring the love of your fellow man into your life.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Oh Fog, stop with the silliness. Embracing liberal political philosophies does not make one anymore caring or concerned about their fellow man than somehow who believes in limited government, low taxes and personal responsibility. For you to tie ones empathy so close to politics is ridiculous.
Sorry, you can believe what you want.
You're being kind to call it silliness...but other than that...you're 100% correct.
Somehow, the liberal do-gooders always get down to someone else taking taking care of the unfortunate...but not necessarily themselves...but it's in the playbook...always...always...cry hatred.
"the liberal do-gooders always get down to someone else taking taking care of the unfortunate...but not necessarily themselves..."(Wesley)
Since you have no way of knowing where these anonymous-posting do-gooders are economically, this point would have to be supported by some liberals whining and crying about paying their taxes.Sorry, Wes, it's the conservatives who want somebody else to do it.
And the "why doesn't Warren Buffet send all of his money to the IRS" chant doesn't even fool sEan Hannity anymore.
Tommy and Wesley can talk all they want about caring for others. But when it comes down to parting with a few bucks to actually feed, house and clothe the less fortunate, well, they're MIA.
Thank God I'm liberal.
Tommy and Wesley can talk all they want about caring for others. But when it comes down to parting with a few bucks to actually feed, house and clothe the less fortunate, well, they're MIA.
Tommy, banks make home loans to illegal immigrants. Why? MONEY!
Tommy, some folks are making money from illegal immigration. Those that are making money, American corporations and small business, don't want the gravy train to end. Until those folks change their minds, all the yelling and screaming isn't going to change a thing.
Example: American banks decided to make banking available for those without a Social Security numbers with the help of the government.
ITINs are a nine-digit tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to individuals who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who don't have, and aren't eligible to obtain, a social security number. Since the IRS doesn't require legal residency to obtain an ITIN, many illegal immigrants use this form of identification to pay U.S. taxes and buy homes.
The IRS for its part says that ITINs aren't valid for identification purposes outside of the tax system. But there are no explicit rules banning the use of ITINs in obtaining mortgages.
Illegal immigrants are contributing money to the country's economy and the government, corporations and small business are loving it.
You want to stop illegal immigration, you might want to work on the laws first.
The current use of the term "comprehensive immigration reform" is just code for amnesty.
You're all over the solution and what you've described is "real" comprehensive reform. I'll just add my two cents to finish off the equation...arrest and deport or jail illegal aliens...Sheriff Joe has offered to procure more land and tents to handle the crowd.
The millions of illegal aliens didn't get here overnight and we can't deport them all overnight...but we can sure as hell get started.
Of course it's amnesty Wes, absolutely. And for the life of me I can't figure out the Democratic party on this........oh, we know why the Republicans don't give a damn, it's good for big business and cheap labor costs. But the Dems, they are supposed to concerned with poverty and advocates for the working poor and those at the bottom of the economic scale. Open, lax borders where cheap labor floods our markets hurts those very people the Democrats claim to care so much about. Not to mention what it does to union workers. It makes no sense, it is a direct slap in the face of much of their "base". Go figure.
I guess pandering to political special interest groups is more important, for both parties.
When you boil the argument of immigration reform down to its bones...there is no logical reason to defend our current and past practices.
Anyone with a rational thought could not possibly support open borders and lax enforcement...thumbing our noses at labor laws...and allowing illegal aliens to freely roam our country.
I guess that leaves most of our elected officials.
-- this so called fence is just another costly sham that doesn't really work -- snoopy
You may very well be right...and I'll support your effort to add border patrol agents...hell, I'll support darn near anything that secures our borders...north, south, east, and west.
Curtailing immingration is done by investing in the well being of those economic refugees who flee their home to make a better life in this coountry.
-- Curtailing immingration is done by investing in the well being of those economic refugees -- roundhouse
I have to tell you roundy...that's pure genius...I'm going to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.
And thanks for that substantive refutation of my Progressive values. You really displayed a strong rationale for thinking your way!
I think I'll go join the minutemen now, so convincing was your argument.
It really will help all peoples involved in these dire econmic straits to build walls, stymie the creative solution process and preach fear of the other! I can't believe how folks just won't understand that profit over people trade agreements actually bring prosperity to the masses? We should just let those who draw huge profits from these trade deals, which devalue labor and human dignity, continue reaping the kind of living they deny their employees.
Thanks again for the Nobel nod!
hell, I'll support darn near anything that secures our borders...north, south, east, and west.- wesley
I'm on the western border (the Pacific) Wesley, and in very conservative Orange County, and I feel your fears.Those dolphins are supposed to have near-human intelligence, and could be competing with Republicans for jobs before we know it.
1. Immigration is not what this election is about, so of course that's what CNN and all the other hack cable outlets keep harping on: Immigration.
2. Now that “a bare majority of this court” Justice Baxter wrote in his Dissent, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves” in a matter where he says his Court "should have deferred to the Legislature"... now that that has happened, guess what else this election is not about, but will get harped on endlessly by the hacks?
3. The Maverick. We have "mavericks" coming out of the woodwork presently... in just the few brief moments I dialed up CNN, on the night of the West Virginia Primary, a commercial came on (for a company I can't remember, but had a three latter acronym for a name I believe), and the guy in the commercial says "my friends tell me I'm a maverick, but..." and then something about how righteous and independent-minded he is: he's a "maverick" he's telling you, and telling you just what a "maverick" is in case you didn't already know... and watching something on the cable channel AMC ("Die Hard" probably), I saw a promo where they refer to the "maverick film-maker Steven Spieiberg", so he's a "maverick" too...
But it's not about that either, is what I'm saying.
Immigration, Ellen DeGeneres, and "mavericks"... the only one of these three things that is even remotely connected to the National Policy of our Federal Government (for which Senators Clinton and Obama and McCain are Petitioning us as Prime Minister, or Policy maker, or truly President of the United States)...
The only one of these three that is National Policy, is Immigration.
And it's not about that, so of course that's what CNN is fixated on... for now at least, until Larry King can get Ellen DeGeneres on his show, at the next available opportunity, if not sooner.
When you've been around as long as McCain you're bound to change positions on issues. I think he was initially against annexing Texas before he supported it. ;>)
Snoop, thanks for the link. I heard something about this earlier but hadn't gotten the full story.
One more reason McCain ought to be put out to pasture. The guy has had soooooo many different opinions he can't even remember what they are...
"has been at odds with his own party for years" on immigration without noting his reversal on the issue
Since when is a candidate being for something before he is against it a bad thing for a democrat?
Since when is it a good thing for a Republican presidential candidate?
Can you name a SINGLE position that McCain HASN'T flipped on? Remember when you cons assailed the Democratic party for nominating a flip-flopping "war hero" who funded his political career by marrying into an inheritance?
So... who's being disingenuous here - is flip-flopping good or bad???
As an independent, I'll maintain that it is a bad thing. Candidates should know their own positions on the issues. And I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004.
Can you name a SINGLE position that McCain HASN'T flipped on?
Uhhh...he still thinks Cindy wears too much makeup and looks like a trollop?
I guess I should have noted that I was being totally sarcastic here. My point was that McCain must appeal to Democrats if he has any hope of winning the election and flip flopping is nothing new to the voters of John Kerry
I dispise flip floppers myself because most of the time it shows a lack of core beliefs. However in some cases - like his immigration bill - perhaps he finally decided to listen to the majority of voters instead of his ego. Of course I have doubts about his sincerity.
Of course I have doubts about his sincerity.
Why would you doubt his sincerity??? Has he been insincere in the past? Not straight-talkin' John Sidney, no way Jose!!!
Oh - and I should probably point out that I am being sarcastic. Otherwise, you'll think I'm being serious...
-- In any case, John McCain seems to be one of the few things Republicans have going for them this fall -- cafferty
Thank god for small favors...lmao...McCain as the savior of the republican party? That's efen rich.
The only other thing needed for his tombstone other than R.I. P. would be.."John, we hardly knew ye".
In English: flip, flop! In french, bascule électronique.
It really is quite obvious, don't you know?
I repeat: flip, flop! In french, bascule électronique.
In spanish, a batimiento who is really old...