Debate Slip Ups...Caught on Camera

Please see the McCain campaign's response to Joe Biden's debate performance last night.

"Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight's debate. Each time Senator Biden was on his heels, he looked directly into the camera and lied -- more than a dozen times by our count. He lied about John McCain's record, his own record, and Barack Obama's dangerous policies. Governor Palin showed the American people tonight why a McCain-Palin Administration will bring real reform, leadership, and straight talk to Washington." --Tucker Bounds, spokesmanMcCain-Palin 2008

JOE BIDEN'S 14 LIES TONIGHT

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted "the exact same way" as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOTVOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, "Drill we must." But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to"raping" the Outer Continental Shelf."

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it's passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he's always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coalplants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain's record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes onpeople's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offsetany tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack isfalse

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was "deadwrong on Iraq", because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn't see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn't meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of "a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20."

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama,Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Stay Classy, Liberals...Wait, is That an Oxy Moron?

So, in an attempt to be...er, funny? Some jackass made up a tshirt that says "[word i will NOT use] republican babies for Palin"
Google the last part of the phrase in quotes, if you must, to see what exactly i'm talking about. -Although if you know what I'm talking about, please don't. These A HOLES don't need anymore website hits.
Where is the media outrage over this? The only people talking about how disgusting this is are the conservative pundits. Shouldn't EVERY American be outraged by this? Are we taking steps backwards into years ago when it was socially acceptable to make fun of those who have handicaps?
I am in NO way a politically-correct, over-sensitive, tree-hugger. But, as a step mother of a child who is severely mentally handicapped, and, as a human being with a HEART, this enrages me to the point where I want to scream & throw things.
I was told recently that the Republican Party was all about "dirty, slanderous, baseless politics." And, that the Republican Party is also "shameful". Last time I checked, Conservatives aren't out touting our "all inclusive, hold hands & sing kumbaya" policies, but not including those who need a voice the most. The innocents who cannot speak for themselves.
I guess being "pro-choice" to a liberal only means that you have a choice if you choose to abort your child when the constraints of a handicap will not fit into your lifestyle.
Leave the poor child alone. Leave the family alone and stop picking on them for having a heart. If it was the "Obamassiah" & his loud-mouth wife who had made this decision, would people be running around calling their child that name??

Obama's Blueprint for America

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I am home sick. So, I decide I'm going to do some opposition research, like every good voting American should do.I know why I'm voting for John McCain, but do you? Or do you know why you're voting for Barack Obama? Don't give me this load of crap line about how you want "change" in America. What exactly does that mean? Tell me...Really. So, I encourage each of you to read this thing. Its LONG, and full of dribble about raising taxes (no, not just the top 5%, as he would like you to believe), and about how he was against the war in Iraq. Really? Cuz that means nothing as far as I am concerned since he wasn't in the Senate. (And remember folks, Constitutionally speaking, only CONGRESS has the power to declare war. The President may ask them to consider, but ultimately, it is their say).

So, here, in what I assume will be a very long post, I am going to dissect a few things for you, and tell you what the main-stream, drive-by, Barack Obama-loving Media will not.

On Page 5: "Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 Presidential candidate to have sponsored Russ Feingold's tough bill to reform the Presidential public financing system."What makes this so interesting is that, A) Its MCCAIN FEINGOLD Campaign Finance Reform. And B), Obama backed out of his promise to use public financing. Isn't he the one always saying politicians should keep their word? Then how about keeping this one? Or how about when he LIED on National Television to try to sway the American people. And you know what, he was in a church when he lied. That has to take a pair of brass balls.

Remember this from the Saddleback forum?:

Pastor Warren: Can you give me a good example where you went against party loyalty, and maybe even went against your own best interest for the good of America?

Obama: I'll give you an example that, in fact, I worked with John McCain on, and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn't probably in my interest or his.... But I think that we were able to get a bill passed that hasn't made Washington perfect, but at least has started moving things forward....

"But that one example of his great bi-partisan moment turns out to be as fleeting as it was disingenuous. In February of 2006, when Obama and McCain were serving in the Senate together, neither yet a presidential candidate, there was indeed a bipartisan effort to pass reform legislation. McCain initiated one of his "maverick" efforts to reach across the aisle in an attempt to reform lobbying. Obama pledged to McCain his willingness to rise above bipartisanship and work for the good of America — only to change his mind after one week and withdraw his cooperation. That "selfless-bipartisan" effort of Obama's ended in a scathing letter by McCain on February 6, 2006:

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your...decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussion. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again....

Sincerely, John McCain.

Obama's one example of bipartisan, self-sacrifice was a careless lie, told to the wrong audience about the wrong senator...one who was waiting in the wings and just might remember. It was another kind of audacity of hope — hoping that no one would notice." (excerpt taken from onenewsnow.com, article by Sandy Rios, Radio Personality out of Chicago)

Now onto the issue of Public Health care.In case Obama wasn't aware, we have free health clinics all over this country. Just here in Las Vegas there is another set to open by December of this year. Several well-to-do doctors are joining together to "give back" to the community. And they will receive donations to keep their doors open, government subsidies, and even tax breaks. This allows health care to stay open to a free market type approach. When you start screwing with the free-market society, you screw with the American public's wallet.Look at the cost of Lasik surgery over the last 10 years. When Lasik first became popular, people were spending thousands of dollars on ONE eye. But, the competition grew, because of the free-market, and so now the price is near $200 per eye. When government regulates what costs should be, there is no longer competition. Doctors can only charge what the government says they can charge, and with the bureaucracy of government-linked health insurance, you create a huge problem. People who have health insurance through places of employment will no longer have "excellent" health care, theirs will be mediocre in comparison. So, why should they work for it, when they can get a government subsidy? And so, we fall back to relying on the government and the taxes go up to pay for all of this. So much for your top 5%.

And of course, lets not forget the SCHIP Re authorization Act. Obama boasts that he voted for this so millions of American children can have health insurance. They had something similar when I was growing up, it was called "welfare".

But what Obama doesn't tell you in this little ditty about how awesome he is when it comes to taking care of the youth of America, is that he voted NO on authorizing SCHIP include unborn babies. So if you're pregnant & can't afford health care, SCHIP isn't going to look out for you. Do you know why? Because then Obama would have to admit that the "thing" in your stomach isn't tissue, or mass; its a real live human being. And then his pro-"choice" stance would be an oxy moron. Because how can you say a woman can abort her child, but also that you want to cover it with health insurance? Isn't that sending the message that its not a "zygote", a "fetus" or whatever other term you want to use, but a "baby"?

And how about that "Making Work Pay" tax credit? So, Obama says he plans to eliminate income tax for 10 million Americans. Want to know whats funny about that? Those are probably the 10 million Americans who live below the poverty line & receive their taxes back in a refund every year anyway (or they are exempt to begin with). And 10 million? In a country of over 350 million, is 10 million really a lot on a grand scale?

And now onto more "Free Government Money"...Obama wants to increase the FMLA time off, and "encourage" all 50 states to give more time off. So, he's proposing a $1.5 BILLION budget for this. Guess where that money is coming from...Yeah, its not just the "top 5%" - eventually, to pay for this, we all will have to pitch in.

I could go on & on & on. The fact of the matter is, there is another 20-something pages, and I just don't think anyone is going to read for that long.

But in reality, you should. You should know where your candidate stands on the issues. Why doesn't he want to privatize social security? (because he wants to tax us more to pay for other generations that have bankrupt it), Why doesn't he support voucher programs for schools, rather than throwing MORE money at an already broken system?(As a side note, America spends more money, per student, than any other 1st world country - and we have the lowest testing scores. Why is money always the answer to government bureaucrats?)

Go read the issues on BOTH candidates. Take the political test to see who you line up with.http://www.ontheissues.org/

A House Divided Will Not Stand

To the Esteemed Members of our Republican Party;

Over the last few years I have had the chance to observe our party from the inside, and I have come to the conclusion that most everyone involved is in this, not for the good of our party, and not to see Republicans elected, but for their own egos, circumstances and to see only candidates they themselves deem worthy.

In the most recent case, John McCain has all but become our official nominee. His momentum is building and he is gaining strength throughout every state. Republicans that we all look up to like Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Tony Snow, George Allen, Tom Coburn, Ed Gillespie, & even George HW Bush are standing behind McCain and his bid for the White House. The White House has told their staff to be supportive of the McCain campaign and to stand in line with him. The Republican National Committee is prepairing to help defeat the Democrat nominee, whomever they might be, and yet, as Republicans, you all cannot agree to stand behind the nominee we already have.

Everyone is remenicent of an earlier candidate, or other Presidents. I would like to remind everyone that the VOTERS have spoken. Across this great nation of ours, John McCain's momentum was building from the very beginning of this year's caucus and primary season. It was not Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, or Rudy Giuliani who continued to gain voters in every state; it was John McCain.

Mitt Romney even had the sense that Senator McCain's campaign is a force to be reckoned with and he stood down to allow his (McCain) Presidential Campaign to continue to build & strengthen. With the recent endorsement & urging to past supporters of Romney's to support McCain, as was done with Giuliani, I am wondering why I have to ask where you all stand? You see, I know where many of you stand. And, to be honest, that is quite disheartening.

As Republicans committed to defending the freedoms of our country, NO ONE should know your personal position on McCain's policies, other the fact that you believe McCain is the man for the job. Infighting, moaning about our nominee not being "a true conservative" does not build party morale, or strengthen relationships.I think it would be wise to remember that we do not win elections by simply telling people to go vote. There is leg work (and a lot of it) required. By the sweat of our brow we must work TOGETHER to see our nominee win the White House this November.

I am curious to know how standing down is helping our cause? When you tear down our candidate, you tear down not only our party & leadership, but you demoralize the VOTERS that made McCain our nominee. Are we truly FOR the PEOPLE? Or is this something that we say in public, but behind closed doors we feel that we are ENTITLED to something greater than what we have?

Who are we that we can speak for those that have done their civic duty & gone to their caucus locations & their polling places and cast their ballot for John McCain? I understand that many of you supported other candidates in the beginning of this election. But, this should not be done in public where volunteers and Republican FootSoldiers can be made aware. You see, we NEED them DESPERATELY this election cycle. We cannot afford to demoralize our candidate, because in the eyes of the volunteers, they need to know they are working for something they believe in; if their own party officials do not believe in the candidate, why should they work so hard & desperately for him, giving up their lives to do this awesome & mighty deed?

In my positions with the NRP & Right to Life, I depended heavily on my core volunteers. Had I ever said to a supporter that I didnt really care, I didnt support a candidate that I was working for, or anything along those lines, I would have surely lost 99% of those people to dispair & hopelessness. I would rather work with someone who is as passionate as I am, and sees the light at the end of the tunnel than a pessimist. I would rather work with someone who encourages me to stand behind our party & our ideals, even when differences arise, because we are the party of TRUE HOPE for our nation & our children.

I urge you not to fall into the trap of being apathetic. Stand up, be counted, make a difference, and for once, PLEASE, consider John McCain as our best option, the best man for the job & put your own thoughts and feelings aside.

"Wouldn't you rather have President McCain who you disagree with 20% of the time, rather than President Obama or President Clinton you disagree with 90% of the time?" ---Tony Snow Thank you for allowing me to air my grievances.

Division Instead of Unity

After James Dobson's blatant excuse for "morals", stating he will sit out the 2008 election if Rudy Giuliani becomes the official nominee, I want to say that I am not going to church again until faith based leaders stop using their position to tell me how to vote. I am a Christian. I am also an intelligent human being.

I can make a decision for myself. I don't like when Sean Penn or some other liberal yahoo tells me how to vote or what to think, why do Republicans allow our Pastors to do the same? Is there a difference? Dont argue that its because Pastors are urging us to vote our morals; its the same for Tim Robbins. He wants to buy the world a coke & live in harmony. He is just "urging" you to vote his morals, too.

If you can't make your own decision on who you will vote for and you need the news media, Hollywood, a commercial or a pastor to tell you how to use your vote; you shouldn't be voting!!!

While I am definitely, without a doubt, 100% voting for McCain, Giuliani is not a bad second choice. At this point, anyone is better than a democrat. Lets just nominate someone that can BEAT the fearsome threesome (Hil, JE & Obama). And that doesn't mean Huckabee or Tancredo.

Damaging Morale

I believe this goes especially for those senators & congressman running for President of the United States.

The Republican Debates in a Nutshell

• Giuliani hasnt gotten over the fact that he is NOT the mayor of NYC anymore.
• Huckabee thinks he's ironic and funny. This is actually quite annoying.
• Romney is pulling an Edwards and trying to win on looks and charm. Which TOTALLY makes him qualified for the White House...huh?
• Brownback. I love Jesus, but stop "thumping the Bible" -get the issues straight, and not just the social ones. No one wants a know nothing in the White House. Learn ALL the issues.
• Tancredo is a racist idiot. I have never met a Tancredo supporter that I liked. Mostly because I don't like people who lack common sense...
• Ron Paul hates freedom. (Chris Wallace made me so happy when he asked Ron Paul if he thought we should "take our marching orders from Al Queda?" LOVE IT!)
• Hunter...does anyone really know who you are? Does anyone really believe you will win? (although I did REALLY appreciate his statement on the successes in Iraq over the last year, and with the surge -thank you McCain- and his appreciation for our Troops)
• (Although he wasnt at the debates, I'm going to throw him in the mix): Fred Thompson is waiting to announce but I think he is alienating more would-be supporters than he is gaining them. National Polls are all over the place. Never believe the polls. Remember, just after the actual polls closed on Election Day, 2004 the national news media reported that John Kerry won; based on Exit Polling.

If you're American, you love freedom and you believe in less government and lower taxes, VOTE MCCAIN.

Undecided?: WHY JOHN MCCAIN

John McCain is an experienced conservative leader in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

"Common sense conservatives believe in a short list of self-evident truths: love of country; respect for our unique influence on history; a strong defense and strong alliances based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility; steadfast opposition to threats to our security and values that matches resources to ends wisely; and confident, reliable, consistent leadership to advance human rights, democracy, peace and security."
-Senator John McCain

He is a common sense conservative who believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values.

• 
  America's Strength At Home and Abroad
  The world is a dangerous place, and we need a leader who is ready to assume the job as Commander in Chief on day one of the Presidency. No candidate has the experience or is better prepared for this task than John McCain. America is engaged in a war against violent Islamist extremism. A totalitarian enemy declared war on America, attacked our nation on September 11, 2001, and is committed to the destruction of the values we hold dear.
• 
  John McCain understands the importance of America's values and the need to protect freedom against the forces of hatred and despotism. As a Naval aviator, prisoner of war and a legislator who is a trusted leader on national security issues, John McCain understands that the first duty of government is to protect the American people and our freedoms. He has been on the front lines in advocating for a comprehensive strategy in the long war against violent Islamist extremism using all the instruments of national power.
• 
  While some have argued for wholesale retreat in Iraq, John McCain realizes that failure in Iraq would be devastating to U.S. national security. He has long believed that security must be established first for there to be any chance of political progress and civil stability. That is why since 2003 he has advocated for more troops and a change in strategy to give our forces in Iraq the best chance to succeed. He understands that we must not leave Iraq and the region in disarray, or it will be a security problem for the United States for many generations to come.
• 
  John McCain knows that America is a force for good in the world, and for peace and freedom to prevail our defenses must be second to none. He has been a strong proponent of missile defense, a larger Army and Marine Corps, and a broad-based strategy to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. John McCain agrees with Ronald Reagan that "peace through strength" is the best policy for America.
• 
  McCain on Smaller Government and Economic Prosperity
  John McCain agrees with the Reagan philosophy that Americans are not taxed too little, but rather government spends too much. That is why John McCain has been a forceful advocate for smaller, more responsible government.
• 
  Unfortunately, even a Republican Congress lost its way on this important principle - spending too much and growing the size of government. John McCain stood his ground even when it was unpopular, leading a tough and often lonely fight in Congress against pork barrel and other profligate government spending.
• 
  Washington too often serves special interests and ignores the interests of the American taxpayer. John McCain can be trusted to reduce the size of government and enact reforms that will make it more responsive and accountable, so that taxpayers' hard earned dollars can be used to meet national priorities, not the spending schemes of politicians more interested in their incumbency.
• 
  As President, John McCain will make it a top priority to balance the budget and get federal spending under control so that our children aren't burdened with a mountain of debt that will rob them of their future.
  As President, John McCain will pursue pro-growth economic policies. He believes in simplifying the tax code, keeping marginal tax rates low, and pursuing free trade policies to increase American prosperity and competitiveness. John McCain also believes that tax cuts work best when tied to spending restraint. Higher taxes and runaway spending discourage entrepreneurship, foster wasteful tax-planning and slow long-term economic growth.
• 
  The Dignity of Life and Traditional Values
  As President, John McCain will promote a culture of life in word and in deed. The dignity of life and our traditional values are under assault in a culture that is growing coarser and more indifferent to the inherent value and dignity of all human life. Since John McCain entered the Congress, he has been strongly and consistently pro-life. He supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and believes that the abortion question should not be decided by judicial fiat.
• 
  John McCain believes that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. He believes that the courts should respect the right of the people to decide this question.
• 
  As president, John McCain will fight to ensure that the law is on the side of families against the corruption and exploitation of children in the media and on the Internet.
• 
  John McCain believes judges should interpret the law, not invent it. As president, he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

A Leader for America
Whether in the military or civilian service, John McCain has never ducked a fight for his country or his principles - even when unpopular. Because of his courage of convictions and his experience, John McCain is ready to lead our great nation with the patriotism, principles, and strength that America deserves, the first day he assumes office.

Address on Immigration

John McCain - Address on Immigration

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver remarks to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Below are Senator McCain's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

"Thank you for this opportunity to share with you a few thoughts about the issue that has occasioned much debate in our country: illegal immigration and the failure of the United States to secure our borders. It is a serious problem that poses many challenges, and how we address it will impact directly the destiny of the great nation we are blessed to call home. Those of us privileged to hold elective office have the responsibility to secure our borders and change the immigration policy that has allowed this intolerable situation to persist: a nation at war, confronting an enemy that means to do us great harm, has failed to control its borders, tolerated for years an immense wave of illegal immigration, and is presently unable to discern from the hundreds of thousands of people who cross our borders illegally each year, who came here to work; who came here for criminal purposes; and who came here to hurt us.
"This problem cannot be allowed to continue any longer. Finding an effective, just and practical solution is difficult, but it is our work to do, on our watch. The politics of Washington have encouraged us to leave solutions to the toughest problems for another unluckier generation of leaders. Problems are left unsolved year after year, because we fear the political consequences of seriously addressing them or value their utility as political attacks in our campaigns. Illegal immigration and our porous borders are problems that we have, to our shame, ignored for too long because it was too hard and politically risky to solve. But the problem has grown too acute and dangerous to ignore any longer. To do nothing now would be an unconscionable abrogation of our responsibilities to defend the security, prosperity and values of our country.

"A number of us, Republicans and Democrats, and the President, have tried to meet this responsibility. We have proposed a remedy that, while imperfect as all compromises are, is, nevertheless, a serious, comprehensive, and practical attempt to secure our borders, defend the rule of law, help our economy grow, and make it possible for the United States to know who has entered this country illegally, and who among them have done so for purposes more nefarious than making better lives for their families. As the legislation is debated in Congress, many changes will be proposed and some adopted. Many already have been. I welcome any attempt to meet our responsibility to fix our broken borders and immigration system. Our proposal has provoked criticism from some on both the left and right. Compromises usually do. People of good will, who take their responsibilities seriously, argue variously that our ideas are too tough or not tough enough. I do not question the sincerity of their convictions or their purpose in proposing other ways to address the problem. There is one premise most of us agree on: the status quo is unacceptable. Our borders are unsecured, our laws our being violated, and our current immigration laws do not meet the needs of a growing economy. And while we argue over the means to solve the problem, we should respect each other's intentions.

"Both proponents and opponents of the legislation agree on another point: the last attempt to address the problem, made over twenty years ago, was a failure. The immigration reform adopted in 1986 simply granted amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living in our country, and did virtually nothing to improve border security. It is important that we avoid repeating these mistakes. A country facing an enemy as malevolent as the enemy we face must have effective control of its borders. And we cannot prevent further waves of illegal immigration without drastically improving border security. Those improvements alone will not stop people from coming here illegally, but without them, we cannot stem the tide of illegal border crossings by those who are simply fleeing despair and injustice or those who mean us harm. So we began by authorizing tough and effective measures to secure our borders, which must be operational and visually certified before other provisions to reform our immigration laws take effect.

"We will increase the number of border patrol agents up to 20,000. We will complete 370 miles of border fencing, and 200 miles of vehicle barriers, which will not be, as some critics have suggested, all that will be constructed. We will continue until we have protected our border with fencing, vehicle barriers, ground sensors, unmanned aerial systems, cameras, advanced communications systems and the most up to date security technologies available to us. New detention facilities will be constructed to hold those who have crossed our border illegally. We will institute a tough new employment eligibility verification system, tamper proof biometric cards to prove to an employer that foreign workers are in this country legally, and impose substantial fines on employers who hire someone without proper status. We will not admit one temporary worker or grant one undocumented worker a visa until the Secretary of Homeland Security can certify that these tough, new measures are in place.

"As imperative as these measures are, they will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now. To address those problems, we must recognize that as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants, they will come here, legally or otherwise, for the same reasons immigrants have always come here: to escape poverty and injustice, and seize opportunities so abundant in our good and blessed country. Moreover, our economy needs them. Ask any orange grower, restaurant manager or hotel owner in Florida. We have proposed a temporary worker program that will discourage illegal immigration by allowing more workers a legal way to come here to fill jobs that are available to them and have not been taken by an American. It is genuinely temporary. It grants each worker a two year visa that can be renewed twice but only after th e worker has returned to his or her country for a year. They will be granted a visa only if they prove a job is waiting for them, and it didn't come at the expense of an American worker.

"The most difficult problem is what to do about the twelve million or more undocumented workers who live and work here now. No critic of our bill has offered a serious proposal to round up all these millions, many of whom have children born in this country, and ship them back to their countries of origin. There is simply no practical way to do that, and most Americans understand that. We have proposed a way to encourage them to come out from the underground economy, submit to a criminal background check, pay fines, back taxes and prove they are gainfully employed in exchange for a visa that would allow them to continue working here. Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it. DHS Secretary Chertoff, who helped negotiate this legislation, has warned that two million people in this country illegally have committed serious crimes. If some of them attempt to legalize their status, we will apprehend them. If they don't, we can concentrate our efforts on locating them and not rounding up lettuce pickers, hotel maids, and babysitters. Most importantly, we can devote all the resources necessary to finding terrorists who have broken our immigration laws, like three of the terrorists who intended to attack our soldiers at Ft. Dix.

"Those undocumented workers who declare themselves, pass criminal background checks, prove their employment, pay fines, taxes, learn English and study American civics may be offered eventually, and I stress eventually, a path to citizenship. Critics of the bill attack this as amnesty and a special path to citizenship that is denied to lawful immigrants. Both charges are false. Amnesty is what we gave in 1986, and it didn't work. It was unconditional forgiveness for breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants broke our laws and they should pay a penalty for doing so. We impose fines, fees and other requirements as punishment. And if the path to citizenship we offer them is 'special,' it is because it is harder, longer and more expensive than the path offered to those immigrants who come here legally. Those undocumented workers who attain legal status are not automatically provided a green card and citizenship. The process could take as long as thirteen years, and will cost them thousands of dollars, require them to learn English and understand our laws and culture, return to their country and get in the back of the line - not the front, not the middle, but the back of the line for a green card. That is a fair, practical and humane way of dealing with the problem of twelve million undocumented workers. And if someone objects to it, especially if they are a candidate for President, they should have the responsibility and courage to propose another way.

"The situation as it currently exists is de facto amnesty. These people are here in numbers too large, diffuse and concealed to round up and deport, which even critics concede is impractical. They will stay here. They will work. And we won't have any idea how many of them are simply here to earn a living and how many are here planning an attack. It is a hard problem, and I understand that. But the choice is between doing something, imperfect but effective and achievable, and doing nothing. I would hope that any candidate for President would not suggest doing nothing. And I would hope they wouldn't play politics for their own interests if the cost of their ambition was to make this problem even harder to solve. To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership. Americans are problem solvers, and they want their leaders to be problem solvers, and to show the same common sense, civic-mindedness, sense of justice and humanity that they do. We have a chance now to secure our borders and place effective controls on immigration that benefit all of us, and enhance our ability to apprehend terrorists before they strike us. It is a common sense, conservative approach to the problem. Is any office worth sacrificing the progress we can make now to solve this crisis? I want to be President to do the hard but necessary things: to protect our country and defeat its enemies; to solve our country's biggest problems on our watch and not leave them to a more responsible, braver, and wiser generation of leaders. I make one pledge to you that I will keep no matter what. I will never conduct my campaign in such a way that it makes our country's most difficult challenges harder to solve. I hope you will hold all candidates to that same standard. Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the pr oblem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty.

"I know that except for a very few people on the fringes of our society, we all value legal immigration. And though the waves of people who have come here over the centuries have posed some challenges to our society, immigration has always proved in the end to be a great and valued part of the American story. Irish, Italians, Poles, Cubans, Japanese, Mexicans and people from every country in every corner of the world have come here, assimilated, and given America renewed vigor and opportunities. Most arrived destitute, worked at any job that would put a little food on the table, and then they rose, or their children rose to succeed in every profession. And they made this country great. No other country in the world has so successfully absorbed immigrants and made them an asset and not a problem. Even in many developed democracies today, immigrants are left in a segregated, unassimilated underclass and pose serious and threatening challenges to the prosperity and stab ility of those countries. Here, people arrive from everywhere, and are given the opportunity to become citizens of the greatest nation on earth, a nation that is based not on tribal identity or ethnicity but on an idea, the boldest, bravest, truest political idea ever conceived by man: that all people are free, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. As long as you embrace and defend that ideal, you are an American.

"How proud that makes me of my country. How proud that must make you. Florida is a living testament to the benefits of immigration, a great and prosperous state built in large part by immigrants who came here to escape tyranny and despair, live the American Dream, contribute to our greatness and defend our ideals. I am honored today by the presence of Miami's police chief, John Timoney, who arrived in this country from Ireland at the age of thirteen, and whose contributions to our country have earned our respect and gratitude. Florida has been well led by its most recent governors, my friends, Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush, both of whom have fought for immigration reform that protects our security, laws, economy, and values. I want to particularly salute former Governor Bush, for the recent column he wrote with the former chairman of my party, Ken Melhman, which made an eloquent and persuasive case for our proposal.

"As a country deeply rooted in a tradition of religious faith, we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the trackless deserts of Arizona, people who broke our laws, not to harm us but to possess for themselves the ideals and opportunities cherished here, are dying, led into the wilderness by unscrupulous smugglers of human cargo, and left to perish in an agonizing death. Allow me to quote from a newspaper article that put faces on a few of these forgotten people who died in the desert of my state in one year.

"'Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She had thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.

"'Kelia Velazquez-Gonzales, 16, carried a Bible in her backpack. She was No. 109

"'John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his neck. His eyes were wide open.'

"We can't let immigrants break our laws with impunity. We can't leave our borders so undefended that people who come here to hurt us can enter it as easily as someone following a dream of living in a great country. But these people are also God's children, who wanted simply to be Americans, and we cannot forget the humanity God commands of us as we seek a remedy to this problem. Over 200 illegal immigrants died in Arizona last year. We have a chance this year to prevent such terrible tragedies from occurring in the numbers they have occurred in the past. Let's do it. For the sake of security, justice, prosperity and humanity, let us do it.

"The United States of America, the greatest experiment in human history - powerful, prosperous, industrious, inventive, striving, madly in love with liberty, hopeful, generous and good - has been the ideal of my life. I have always loved her, but it wasn't until I lost America for a time that I realized how much I love her.

"I loved what I missed most from my life at home: my family and friends; the sights and sounds of my country; sports; music, information; the endless variety of American life; our hustle and purposefulness: our fervid independence; our hopefulness; and our confidence that we could make of our industry and talents a better life than we had begun, a better country than we had inherited.

"I missed all of it, very much, but I still carried her ideals in the habits of my heart. And because they were all I possessed of my country, I cherished them all the more. I cherished the honor of being a citizen of a country that was the last, best hope of mankind, the great refuge of those who sought escape from despair and tyranny on crowded, miserable steamers into New York harbor, on small rafts across the Florida Straits, and on foot across the punishing deserts of the southwest. I know why people want to come here. I once thought I would rather die than be denied my country for one more day.

"I want us to seize this opportunity to secure our borders, and change our immigration laws to meet the demands of our security, economy and values. I don't want to use the issue to make it easier for me to be President. I'm not running to do the easy things. So, I defend with no reservation our proposal to offer the people who harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, care for our children and clean our homes a chance to be legal citizens of this country. They will have to earn it. They must come out from the shadows, pay their penalties, fees and taxes, stay employed, obey our laws, learn our language and history, and go to the back of the line and wait years for the privilege of being an American.

"Riayan Tejeda immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the United States Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights, New York by way of the Dominican Republic, the father of two young daughters, died in an ambush in Baghdad on April 11, 2003. He had never fulfilled his first dream to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved his country so much he gave his life to defend her. Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers who are not yet American citizens, or whose parents are not, but who have dreamed the dream, and have risked everything for it. They make me proud to share this country with them. They are my countrymen, and I am theirs.

"They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder of opportunity, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. We will be the better for it. Our America -blessed, bountiful, and beautiful - is the land of hope and opportunity, the land of the immigrant's dream. Long may she remain so."

Paid For By John McCain 2008

The Case for McCain

After speaking with conservatives, and following not only my heart, but my head, I know that McCain is the best man for the job in 08. I actually supported him in 2000, but once the primaries were over, I threw my support to President Bush.
(I obviously wasn't going to vote for Gore...ugh...)
I have been a long time fan of Senator McCain. I've also been quite outspoken about some of the things he's done/bills he's sponsored, but for the most part, I'm still a fan. He can't be all that bad, he's been in office since the 80's & he wins by such a large margin every election (in AZ) that I find it hard to believe that there are that many that disagree with me.
McCain is a Federalist. He believes in states rights, which limits federal governments role in the lives of american citizens. He's a nationalist. He loves America and gave up so much to become the man that he is today. There's something that he's not...and that's a coward. He spent years in a prison camp. He's spent years fighting in the trenches of the house & senate. He's got the experience. He's got the voting record.
Where do Giuliani and Romney stand on "conservative" issues? -Giuliani is far from being even moderate, especially when stating that abortions should be funded by tax payer dollars...HELL NO I WONT PAY FOR THAT! & Romney can't make up his mind...
I'm not saying McCain is perfect. I'm not saying he's got all the answers. I'm going to say exactly what I said about President Bush vs John Kerry, circa 04...
"At least we know where he stands. He'll tell you what he thinks, what he wants, what ought to be done, and then he'll do it. There's no turning back. No talking him out of it. He knows whats right and he acts on that."
That's what we need in America. To hell with opinion polls and surveys. Everyone in America is pissed off about something. Don't you see that we are as bad, or ever worse than that Democrats? When did Republicans decide it was okay to tear each other down, or to say that one issue is more important than the other? If we don't wake up, we are going to have a democrat controlled congress & white house.
Open up your eyes and realize that he's not pandering now. He's still a straight shooter. He's mended his ways (and this has been a long time coming, so everyone who wants to leave a nasty comment can save it) since the 2000 election. He's working hard to make sure our country stays free, strong, secure.
Do you think any democrat can or willdo that?

...Its not about right or left. Its about right & wrong. Who is right to lead our country?...

Slow Train Coming

Lexington
Slow train coming
Mar 8th 2007; From The Economist print edition

The last time he ran for president John McCain spent months rolling around New Hampshire in a bus, the Straight Talk Express. This time he has swapped the bus for a giant locomotive. He has hired high-price political consultants, some from the Bush entourage, tapped into a network of rich donors and established operations across the country. Yet the locomotive remains stubbornly stuck in the station.
Mr McCain is trailing Rudy Giuliani by as much as 25 points. His attempt to build bridges with the right has alienated his former friends in the centre without converting conservatives. And he seems to be dogged by bad luck—his recent announcement that he is going to run, for example, was marred by his faux pas about American lives being “wasted” in Iraq.
Why is the McCain express still immobile? The most important reason is the senator's outspoken support for George Bush's decision to send five more brigades to Iraq. This has not only put him on the wrong side of an unpopular war (two-thirds of the population oppose the “surge”); it has also strengthened the impression that he is speaking for the White House.
The other reason is his botched transformation from maverick to establishment figure. Mr McCain tried to turn himself into the inevitable Republican champion by mending fences with all the people he had upset in the past—from the Bush camp to the religious right to conservative activists. This made sense after his failure of 2000 (remember the old adage that Democrats like to fall in love while Republicans like to fall in line). But it is proving hard to pull off, with independents accusing him of pandering and conservatives still nursing their old wounds.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that Mr McCain will be static for ever. Mr Giuliani is a flawed front-runner. He has huge strengths as the architect of New York's turnaround and as the hero of September 11th 2001, to be sure. But he has equally huge weaknesses. His private life is tangled (his relationship with his son, Andrew, is so strained that he did not even turn up to his graduation). His business affairs are more tangled still. He has a foul temper and a mean streak as wide as the Hudson river. “Absolutely not,” was the response of Ed Koch, another former New York mayor and a political rival, to the suggestion that Mr Giuliani is a racist. “He's nasty to everybody.”
Mr Giuliani also seems unprepared for a national campaign. Last week George Will introduced him to the annual meeting of CPAC—a gathering of more than 6,000 red-meat activists—by saying that conservatism comes in many flavours, with Mr Giuliani the Thatcherite one. A nice point. But the former mayor then delivered a meandering speech that left the audience dispirited. His campaign may collapse as quickly as it inflated.
The Giuliani bubble is as much a proof of the weakness of the other anti-McCain candidates as it is a long-term threat to Mr McCain himself. The strongest competition to Mr McCain arguably came from Mitt Romney rather than Mr Giuliani (the rest of the candidates are midgets compared with the big three). Mr Romney has a long record of managerial competence—a huge selling point after George Bush's serial incompetences. He is also an efficient politician: his speech at CPAC was as smooth as Mr Giuliani's was ragged.
But the failure of the Romney campaign to catch fire is good news for Mr McCain. Mr Romney's Mormonism is proving more of a problem than many people expected: a quarter of Americans claim that they would not vote for a Mormon. But what is really damaging him is his opportunistic flip-flopping over abortion and gay marriage. If he is willing to pander on these issues as a candidate, might he not pander as president?
Conservative activists might warm to Mr McCain if they took another look at him. It is true that he has quarrelled with conservative pressure groups. But that is often because he sees them as obstacles to achieving conservative ends, such as a balanced budget or clean politics. It is true that Mr McCain refused to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. But he did so for the eminently conservative reason that these sorts of issues should be decided by the states rather than the federal government. It is true that Mr McCain has pushed for more federal funding for stem-cell research. But he has also been more consistently conservative on abortion than any of the other first-tier candidates.

Conservatism's best hope

Mr McCain has a rare ability to present conservative ideas in a language that moderates and independents can find appealing. He also has a rare ability to break with the conservative establishment on subjects where they are obviously batting on a losing wicket, such as global warming. This could make him the best candidate for reviving conservatism from its current dismal state—and also the best candidate for keeping conservatism alive in a Washington where the Democrats rule Capitol Hill.
Mr McCain has also often been right about the war. He was one of the first major politicians to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. He repeatedly criticised George Bush's tolerance of torture as a stain on America's good name. Even his support for Mr Bush's “surge” may not be as much of a liability as it appears. The bulk of Republican primary voters are in favour of giving the war one last chance; and Mr McCain's willingness to risk his political career over Iraq burnishes his tarnished reputation as a straight-talker.
His biggest weakness has to do with age rather than ideology. He will be 72 if he is elected to the White House, and his face is visibly scarred from bouts with skin cancer. But he has the energy and attitude of a much younger man, and seems to absorb energy from his audience. And he also boasts the most impressive biography in American politics. The McCain Express will not stay stuck in the station for ever.

The Coming McCain Moment

National Review: The Coming McCain Moment
Taking a second look
By Ramesh PonnuruNational Review

"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today," says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. "McCain firm on Iraq war," it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: "despite cost to candidacy." "I can't worry about it," he says. "With something like this, you just can't let it concern you. The issue is too important."
Actually, McCain's campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator's season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him - and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor's record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize - and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain's apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani's, are well known. The mayor's polls form a ceiling. McCain's could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look - as they should.
It has become common to complain about the weak Republican field. Actually, it is a strong field. The three leading contenders are smart, competent, serious, articulate, and accomplished. (So is Newt Gingrich, who ranks fourth.) In some of these respects they exceed the incumbent. It just isn't a very orthodox field.
Romney, at least in his 2007 version, is the most conventionally conservative. If elected, he could make a fine president. But he has a big disadvantage as a presidential candidate: He is a Mormon. In December, a FoxNews poll found that 32 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he were Mormon. Speculation about the effect of Romney's Mormonism on his chances has centered on evangelical Christians' theological differences with him. But evangelicals were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large. Democrats were much more hostile. So even if Romney's conservative social positions get him through the primaries, his religion is a liability in the general election. (It may be that many secular-minded voters consider Mormonism particularly alien and threatening.)
This is unfair to Romney, and to his coreligionists. But this country has elected a non-Protestant president precisely once in its history. If the Republicans were going into 2008 with a large margin of error, it might be worth finding out how voters would react to a Mormon candidate. But Republicans are not going into this election in a strong position. Nominating a Mormon is too risky.

RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain's conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
"I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record," says McCain, "because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading." Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator's reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign's attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain's standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America's most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the "maverick" Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain's un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I'll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That's not an issue that's going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn't become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn't the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain's bill, and the senator says he doesn't want any more legislation. "I think that we need to give this law a chance to work." He doesn't think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on "527 groups" that fund political ads.
McCain supported a "patient's bill of rights" that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani's past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain's participation in the "Gang of 14" against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it "would have been almost impossible" to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. "That's why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up." Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain's concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. "I don't often like to imitate the French," he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, "No. None. None." It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won't raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren't going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill's border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.

A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn't ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that's not true. The reason that social conservatives haven't achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren't trying to betray conservatives; they didn't know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don't just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He's right. Conservatives' reception of McCain shouldn't be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain's instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain's "base" - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain's zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn't switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain's politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain's merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: "Since Phil Gramm left, there's no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am." (McCain supported Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That's why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani's faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration's basic strategy - and that's the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn't just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
March 9, 2007

The Issue of Immigration

John McCain: On immigration, Washington is failing the American people
By SEN. JOHN MCCAIN Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2007

AMONG THE federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility. An estimated 12 million people live in the United States illegally -- a problem affecting every state in the union.
Coming from a border state, I have seen firsthand the effect that illegal immigration has on our communities and public services, the rampant exploitation of those who traffic in illegal aliens, and the tragic loss of life that so often attends this enduring problem. As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable. We know that most illegal aliens are drawn to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families. Many of our own ancestors came for the very same reason. But we also know that others come to do America harm and will exploit any weakness or loophole to achieve their malignant objectives.
The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally; Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law; Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law; Encourage immigrants to come out of the shadows so we know who is in this country and develop a sensible guest worker program that will serve the nation's best economic and security interests.
We must devote the resources necessary to do the job right, and our efforts must be sustained. Imagine what we could achieve if we spent less money on pork barrel schemes such as "bridges to nowhere" and more on enforcing our immigration laws and other homeland security imperatives.
The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect.
Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements.
Such a program is necessary if we are to protect our country from terrorism and crime by enabling the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement to focus their resources more effectively where they are most needed, and that is on those who choose to remain hidden because they mean to do us harm.
Above all we must be honest and realistic if we are to achieve both the economic and national security we desire. The straight talk of the matter is that as long as there are jobs in the United States that would otherwise go unfilled, illegal immigrants will come, and the economy will eagerly absorb them, no matter what the obstacles. We are willfully abetting a system that is broken and invites the violation of our immigration laws, the manipulation of vulnerable populations and a degradation of national security.
Rather than tolerating the continued chaos promised by business as usual, we need an orderly system that matches jobs that would otherwise go wanting with a well managed guest worker program that ensures we know exactly who our guests are, why they are here, and for how long. Border security and immigration reform must go hand- in -hand. History has shown us that one will simply never succeed without the other.
I truly believe that Americans want and demand that our leaders work together to solve pressing problems rather than persist in empty rhetoric and petty political gamesmanship. By staying true to our principles, exercising common sense and American resolve, we are up to the job of controlling our borders, keeping our economy on the rise, and making the nation safe in an exceedingly dangerous world.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Right on McCain: John McCain's Conservative Record is Excellent

By Senator Jon Kyl (from National Review Online)

I have had the distinct pleasure of serving with Senator John McCain for the last 12 years in the U.S. Senate. Yet just as important to me as our shared years of service is our common respect for the conservative principles that have guided us in representing our state. That is why the characterization of John McCain as something other than a common-sense conservative is disturbing to me. Senator McCain’s detractors overlook his actual voting record of supporting conservative values.
During my time in the Senate with John McCain, we have cast the same vote nearly nine times out of ten. Whether in our efforts against inefficiency and waste in the federal budget, confronting the threat we face from international terrorism, protecting the sanctity of human life, or some other issue, Senator McCain has been loyal to, and a leader for, conservative beliefs. Senator McCain is well known for his long history of protecting the interests of the American taxpayer. He is without question the best choice for voters opposed to wasteful Washington spending and bloated budgets. Last year, Senator McCain introduced the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, a bill focused on transparency and fiscal restraint. In 2005, Senator McCain and I were two of the four senators to vote against the pork-laden highway bill. During the 109th Congress, Citizens Against Government Waste gave McCain a 91 percent rating, and Pork Busters, a collaboration of fiscal-watchdog groups, labeled him as an “Anti-Pork Hero” in 2006. Conservatives should be outraged about the wasteful spending in Washington, and they should be exacting in their demand for a culture of fiscal restraint. John McCain meets this demand.On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly co-sponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. What do pro-abortion groups think of Senator McCain? NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have both given him zero percent, no-confidence ratings because he has stood up against them for decades. John McCain’s opposition to abortion has been consistent.
Senator McCain also strongly believes in the institution of marriage. He voted for and supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and same-sex partner benefits. Senator McCain endorsed and campaigned for an initiative to amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as between one man and woman. The defining issue for any candidate who seeks the presidency next year will be that person’s vision for conducting the war against terrorists and our mission in Iraq; there is no one stronger on this issue, or with more credibility, than John McCain.
His support for a safe and secure Middle East is well documented. And Senator McCain’s belief in the relationship between our eventual success in that region and our safety at home is one that I share.Most conservatives believe in aggressive pursuit of terrorists and jihadists. But John McCain has been willing to put his political career on the line for the sake of his belief that these terrorists must be defeated. As the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain has long been an outspoken critic of the management of the war, and there is plenty to criticize on that score. But Senator McCain has also been stronger than all others in his belief in the absolute importance of victory and in his own principled dedication to seeking peace and security over the political expediency of defeatism. Conservatives who believe deeply in the responsibility to defend our country know that no leadership trait is more vital to our next president. More than any other reason, this is why conservatives should support John McCain. In matters of national security, he instinctively understands threats to the United States, and he knows what needs to be done about them.
Even in the face of political adversity, he is unwavering in his commitment to America’s security.

— Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona.