≡ Menu

McCain Tricksy About Border Security: Blame the Governors

During the Republican debate in California this week, McCain was asked whether his 2006 immigration proposal could come to a vote in the Senate today. Slippery as a Clinton, he ignored the question and gave his most recent, memorized response. In part, he said:

I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured.

Read that again. And a third time. What does that mean?

I’ll tell you what it means. It means he won’t do a thing. He’s put the onus on the few border states to “certify” the borders. (And what does that entail?) And then, when nothing happens and people complain, he’ll point his arthritic finger at the governors.

Another deception from John McKennedy.

{ 31 comments… add one }
  • Ray January 31, 2008, 10:53 pm

    Yep; that’s a truly wimpy answer – from a man who is not a wimp. That’s sad.

  • east-of-eden February 1, 2008, 9:18 am

    Here’s the deal….

    I live in the lovely border paradise known as New Mexico, which should just be Mexico for whatever it’s worth. Our governor, the ever disgusting Bill Richardson, late of the presidential race, has said, it is not the job of the states to enforce the borders (which he is right on), so he won’t and that New Mexico welcomes all people. Translation, he wants more illegals here so he can give them nationalized/socalized heath care, schooling and welfare and use them for voter fraud, er I mean padding the voting rolls, er….CHEATING the system.

    John McCain now has Juan Hernandez on his staff, who worked for Vicente Fox, the last president of Mexico. Hernandez has stated on the record that it’s the job of the US to help Mexicans and that Mexicans in the US need to be Mexicans first, not Americans. This guy also is advocating strongly for a North American Union.

  • charity February 2, 2008, 12:06 pm

    As a former Arizonian, I would like to urge everyone to look more in depth at McCain’s record. I personally will not vote for him. He has proven himself to shifty, IMO to be of any good to the government. Did you know that he voted against a marriage ammendment to the constitution reasoning that it was a state issue and then Arizona became the first state to vote down said ammendment to their constitution, not that this is his fault, he can’t force them to vote one way, but it shows me, IMO that he is dangerous.

    I really think that if people really looked into him, they would not vote for him.

  • east-of-eden February 2, 2008, 3:28 pm

    Hey Charity, what part of Arizona are you from? I grew up in Mesa.

  • charity February 2, 2008, 4:16 pm

    We lived in Tempe about 1/2 a mile (if that much) from ASU on Hardy and 13th, which is Apache and Main as well 😉 for about 7 years. Then we moved up here to Montana.

  • east-of-eden February 3, 2008, 9:26 pm

    I know that area quite well. When I was a high school student, it was the “cool thing” to go hang out on Mill Ave, then when I acutally got into college we would always trip over to the ASU institute for dances.

  • facethemusic February 3, 2008, 9:43 pm

    This sort of goes into the other thread– but since it’s been brought up here too- I don’t know which thread to address it in!
    So I’m curious– about the notion of not voting for McCain if he gets the nomination, and voting for Barack or Hillary instead, or not voting at all.
    Could you, Alison, anyone explain how that would help?
    I don’t agree with McCains views either, but aren’t Baracks or Hillary’s even WORSE? (re: the war, healthcare, taxes, reversing Roe V. Wade, etc)
    So if you vote for THEM, just because you disagree with McCain, then you end up with a worse situation than if you’d just voted for McCain. If you don’t vote at ALL, because you can’t stomach putting your vote behind McCain, (which I DO understand) then we could STILL end up with Hillary or Barack. NOT voting for McCain has the same impact as a VOTE for Hillary or Barack.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 3, 2008, 10:53 pm

    I’ll explain more later on my thoughts. Got too much to do. But here’s a bit.

    I don’t believe ANY of the candidates will pull out the troops. Why? Because I don’t think any of them want the legacy of having “lost” the war. The dems want BUSH to “lose” the war, desperately, but I don’t think either of them will do it with their name on it.

    So I don’t see them as being markedly different in that area. For that matter, I’m not sure that McCain is more conservative in most areas. He lies about his position, sure, but that’s for votes. He said that Justice Alito is too conservative for him. Now he’s disgusting phone calls (he thinks I still live in Florida) tell me he’d support justices JUST LIKE THEM. Liar.

    I don’t see Obama, Clinton, and McCain being very far apart and when their policies mess up the country, I’d much rather have a dem being the one doing it than a republican.

  • agardner February 4, 2008, 11:27 am

    I can’t speak for Alison, but since I also feel that I may vote for Obama rather than McCain (assuming he’s the nominee), I’ll explain my position. For me, it’s about personal integrity, and I think that Obama has more than either Clinton or McCain. Policy-wise, I think they’d all be about the same, honestly. So for me it comes down to who lives his/her life with the most integrity and honesty, and of those three I think it’s Obama.

    If it’s between McCain/Clinton, I think I’ll write in. I know that’s basically a vote for the favorite anyway, but since I see them as basically the same at least I can feel good about my personal choice.

    Having said all that, a lot can change between now and November. Maybe one or the other will impress me or disgust me enough to change my mind. But for now, I’d say if Romney can’t get the nomination my next favorite would be Obama. Between McCain and Clinton I really can’t see myself voting for either one.

  • charity February 4, 2008, 2:19 pm

    I think it’s a bad idea to vote for anyone just cause you don’t like someone else’s views. I say we get everyone to write in Romney’s name 😉 I really don’t know who I’m voting for and since I can’t vote in the Caucus here on tuesday (but my husband can cause he’s a precinct rep. hehehe) it really isn’t relevant for me to fuss over it until the elections. But if it’s between Hillary and McCain I think I’ll move to Canada 😎

  • kiar February 4, 2008, 3:07 pm

    we welcome you with open arms. And people wonder why I don’t become a citizen! It’s called “Keeping My Options Open!”:devil:

  • Alison Moore Smith February 4, 2008, 3:12 pm

    Posted By: charityI think it’s a bad idea to vote for anyone just cause you don’t like someone else’s views.

    Why?

  • Ray February 4, 2008, 3:39 pm

    I have no problem voting against someone. If it is McCain v. Clinton, I would have a hard time figuring out against whom I should cast my vote.

  • charity February 4, 2008, 3:56 pm

    If I say, I don’t like Huckabee cause he’s an anti so I’ll vote for anyone but him. I’ve completely lost track of the reason’s why we vote. We vote so we can have a say in how our country is run. We should vote on policies not on personal prejudices.

    My sister in law said to me once, “Anyone’s better than Bush, so I voted Kerry.” That’s dumb, IMO. I vote on people because of where they stand not because I don’t like a the other candidate, that’s how you get bad presidents. Again, IMHO.

  • Ray February 4, 2008, 4:13 pm

    charity, I agree with that, but if you truly believe you only have two bad candidates you are left with three options:

    1) Vote for the lesser of the two evils;
    2) Vote for someone else as a write-in candidate, knowing it’s a “wasted” and purely symbolic vote;
    3) Don’t vote.

    I’d rather vote for the lesser of two evils than not vote at all or cast only a symbolic vote.

    Also, I would NEVER vote against Huckabee simply because he’s an anti-Mormon Southern Baptist – and he definitely is. I would vote against him because I can’t stand his politics AND because he lets his religious convictions influence his politics in ways that are inappropriate. The reasoning he gave for influencing the early release of a serial rapist was that he believed the rapist’s claim to have repented. That should NEVER be the basis for a government executive doing such a thing, especially when nearly ALL convicts would claim to have repented if it would help them get out early. The fact that this particular rapist then went out and raped and murdered someone actually is a different issue for me; the fundamental flaw was that a governor chose to accept one criminal’s claim over others.

    His anti-Mormon bigotry is merely one more nail in his coffin, as far as I am concerned.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 4, 2008, 6:27 pm

    Posted By: charityIf I say, I don’t like Huckabee cause he’s an anti so I’ll vote for anyone but him. I’ve completely lost track of the reason’s why we vote. We vote so we can have a say in how our country is run. We should vote on policies not on personal prejudices.

    Wait, the question wasn’t about voting against someone who’s anti-Mormon. It was about your comment that said, “I think it’s a bad idea to vote for anyone just cause you don’t like someone else’s views.”

    If we vote for someone because we so NOT like the other candidates views, how is that any less having a “say in how our country is run” of “voting on personal prejudices” than if we vote for someone because we DO like their views?

    My sister in law said to me once, “Anyone’s better than Bush, so I voted Kerry.” That’s dumb, IMO.

    But WHY is it dumb? Sincerely, I don’t understand. Even if you find both candidates disgusting, isn’t it better to vote for the LEAST disgusting one–if that can be identified–than the MORE disgusting one? If your sister found Bush to be pond scum and Kerry merely mosquitoes, who not vote for the latter?

    I vote on people because of where they stand not because I don’t like a the other candidate, that’s how you get bad presidents.

    Well, sure, but if the alternate to “bad presidents” is “worse presidents”–I’ll take bad.

    Posted By: RayAlso, I would NEVER vote against Huckabee simply because he’s an anti-Mormon Southern Baptist – and he definitely is.

    I would. Well, not necessarily Huckabee specifically, but I can certainly think of about a billion bigoted people that I’d vote against JUST because they were bigots.

    Frankly, I’d vote for almost anyone over an adulterer, too. If their spouse can’t trust them, I never will.

  • Ray February 4, 2008, 6:52 pm

    “Frankly, I’d vote for almost anyone over an adulterer, too. If their spouse can’t trust them, I never will.”

    Really narrows the field nicely, doesn’t it? Romney v. Obama it is. 🙂

  • Ray February 4, 2008, 6:54 pm

    Actually, Hillary might not be an adulterer, but she certainly is an opportunistic adulterer-enabler. Her “stand by your man” rant during Bill’s campaign is one of the most ironic rants in history.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 4, 2008, 7:02 pm

    You already said if for me, Ray.

    Hillary’s stand is what we might call “enable adultery if there’s money and power in it for me.”

  • spande2 February 4, 2008, 7:57 pm

    I think Charity was saying that we should vote based on positive reasoning rather than negative reasoning. Ideally, I think she’s right. Sometimes we’re not lucky enough to have a positive choice. And I agree with charity that voting for Kerry was stupid no matter what the reasons were. 🙂

  • Alison Moore Smith February 5, 2008, 12:28 am

    Posted By: spande2I think Charity was saying that we should vote based on positive reasoning rather than negative reasoning. Ideally, I think she’s right.

    I don’t, because in an election, the positive reasoning is ALWAYS based on a COMPARISON. So, when we vote FOR someone, we are just as much voting AGAINST the other person’s stand as anything.

  • charity February 5, 2008, 9:17 am

    I’d rather vote for the lesser of two evils than not vote at all or cast only a symbolic vote.

    Also, I would NEVER vote against Huckabee simply because he’s an anti-Mormon Southern Baptist – and he definitely is. I would vote against him because I can’t stand his politics AND because he lets his religious convictions influence his politics in ways that are inappropriate.

    agreed.

    I think Charity was saying that we should vote based on positive reasoning rather than negative reasoning. Ideally, I think she’s right. Sometimes we’re not lucky enough to have a positive choice. And I agree with charity that voting for Kerry was stupid no matter what the reasons were. 🙂

    Precisely… and saying ‘anyone’s better than so and so.’ is tantamount to saying ‘I’d vote for hitler before i’d vote for that person.’ IMO. and that’s why it’s dumb, it’s to much of a generalization.

  • charity February 5, 2008, 9:21 am

    I don’t, because in an election, the positive reasoning is ALWAYS based on a COMPARISON. So, when we vote FOR someone, we are just as much voting AGAINST the other person’s stand as anything.

    Yes, but that should be based on how well they can run the country. It goes in the same category for me as ‘I’m going to vote for Hillary because it’s about time we saw a woman in the white house.’ that is NOT a reason to vote for someone. it’s based on personal opinion’s rather than searching out the facts and learning if a person can really do the job.

    I hope I’m making sense, I’m trying to.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 5, 2008, 5:11 pm

    Posted By: charityPrecisely… and saying ‘anyone’s better than so and so.’ is tantamount to saying ‘I’d vote for hitler before i’d vote for that person.’ IMO. and that’s why it’s dumb, it’s to much of a generalization.

    Only if Hitler is running for president. Last I checked he wasn’t. When someone says “anyone’s better than ________” in the context of an election, they are obviously referring to “any other candidate,” not anyone in the universe, dead or alive. Sorry, but some people really did have valid reasons for voting for Kerry over Bush (even though I did not do the same) and it’s not the same as throwing a vote to Hitler or Bono or my toddler.

    Posted By: charityYes, but that should be based on how well they can run the country. It goes in the same category for me as ‘I’m going to vote for Hillary because it’s about time we saw a woman in the white house.’ that is NOT a reason to vote for someone. it’s based on personal opinion’s rather than searching out the facts and learning if a person can really do the job.

    Fact is :wink:, it’s all based on personal opinion. We simply don’t know who “can really do the job” without first determining what WE think “the job” is. And that’s personal opinion. And then we have to project into the future. And that’s also personal opinion.

    But that wasn’t the context of the question. You said:

    I think it’s a bad idea to vote for anyone just cause you don’t like someone else’s views.

    This isn’t about voting for a woman BECAUSE she wears a bra or not voting for Huckabee BECAUSE he hasn’t been through the temple. It’s about voting for the person whose “views” and vision is MOST closely aligned with your own as possible. And that ALWAYS involves voting for someone and voting against all the others. If you vote FOR Mitt Romney, then you are, in fact, voting AGAINST all the other candidates views.

    FWIW, I don’t think it’s entirely without merit to vote for a woman (or a black or whatever) BECAUSE (or at least in part because) they are what they are. I do think that sometimes it IS “time” to get a perspective that is from a different world view and background and I think there are times when that IS meaningful.

    Hillary Clinton, however, is not remotely on my list of “women whose viewpoints will make America great.”

  • Lewis_Family February 5, 2008, 7:05 pm

    I agree with Ray, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils as opposed to not voting, or else you don’t earn the right to complain later on.

    My two cents for what they are worth.

  • charity February 5, 2008, 10:10 pm

    I guess maybe my first response is being read wrong…maybe. I mean personal views as in personal prejudices, bias’s as opposed to political viewpoints. I think it’s stupid to vote on personal prejudices.

  • Ray February 5, 2008, 10:15 pm

    I agree with that completely.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 5, 2008, 10:33 pm

    I agree it’s not wise to vote based on prejudice. Was someone suggesting we should? (I admit to skimming some threads in a feeble attempt to “keep up.”)

  • spande2 February 5, 2008, 10:38 pm

    But we all agree that we do need to have personal views, as in judging righteously? As opposed to being blank slates that know nothing and judge nothing?

  • charity February 6, 2008, 12:19 pm

    Yeah, I don’t know where it came from… I looked around and can’t find anything, maybe something like this triggered it:

    So if you vote for THEM, just because you disagree with McCain, then you end up with a worse situation than if you’d just voted for McCain.

    Not that I’m disagreeing or agreeing with it, I just think it might have triggered what I said…. who knows, I’m a pandora’s box of opinions sometimes 😉

    But after yesterday I might have a problem standing up to my own words. I didn’t like McCain before on political grounds, but yesterday cemented it. He is not my friend on a personal level now. :angry:

  • Alison Moore Smith February 6, 2008, 12:26 pm

    Yes, I agree Kristen. I’m going with the definition of prejudice that says, “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.” If you’re voting on unreasonable bias, it’s pretty stupid.

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge