The McCain Campaign's Death Rattle [UPDATED]
Answers on Immigration Relegate McCain to the Second Tier
By Mark I Posted in 2008 — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sen. McCain's presidential campaign ended last night. I didn't see all of the GOP presidential candidates debate. In the parts I did see, however, I saw three things from Sen. McCain. I saw him talking down to the audience, the other candidates, and the nation on the issue of immigration. Second, I saw Sen. McCain being beaten up by everyone on stage over his position on immigration. Third, I saw and heard him in an insultingly thinly veiled fashion accuse every opponent of his position on immigration of being a racist.
If that’s not enough of an indictment of the state of his campaign, consider that after the debate, all of the CNN pundits analyzing the performances of the candidates thought McCain won.
Read on...
[Updated below the fold]
When I joined the debate, the candidates were discussing immigration. Gov. Romney and Mayor Giuliani were beating up Sen. McCain and the Senate immigration compromise. The attacks clearly rattled McCain. The Senator just stood there, staring down at his podium with an expression that looked for the entire world like he couldn’t believe that he had to defend himself from these guys. When it came time for him to respond to the charges, Sen. McCain didn’t even try.
His answer rambled on about how immigration is a national security issue and how we need to act now. There were no specifics, no discussion of provisions of the bill, just platitudes about the need to act on this issue now. Then, in a debate gaffe the likes of Pres. Ford’s denial that Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination and Vice-President Quayle’s reference to John F. Kennedy, McCain smugly challenged his rivals: “If anyone has any better ideas, I’d love to hear them.” Everyone on stage raised his hand begging for a chance to jump in and jump on the Senator with both feet. McCain had to be rescued by moderator Wolf Blitzer.
The next time I checked in on the debate, McCain was again defending his position on immigration. Only this time he was talking to the audience and using the phrase “my friends” a lot. This is a stock and trade phrase for the Senator and when he uses it, he usually does so in a warm and inclusive way. Last night, it was used differently. It was not inviting and inclusive, it was not warm, it was used coldly and in a lecturing kind of way. He was using it disdainfully; in the same way one might call a junior colleague “son.” “We have to act on this, my friends,” with the “my friends” trailing off at the end. Clearly McCain believes strongly in his position, and clearly he has no intention of changing his mind. That’s fine. But just as clearly the attacks on his position by the other candidates and the impact it has had on his poll numbers have made him angry. He no longer has the patience to explain his position on the issue as he does so well on the Iraq war, most of the time.
But even here, McCain, who has been as staunch a supporter of the mission in Iraq as there is, was not on his game. Early in the second portion of the debate, there was a question from the sister of a soldier who was killed in Iraq. I didn’t see his answer, but Sen. McCain scored points with the CNN talking heads by criticizing the conduct of the war and stating that mismanagement of the war has led to “unnecessary sacrifices.” This rhetorical formulation is no different than Sen. Barack Obama’s “wasted lives” comment. Whatever one thinks of the management of the war, it is too easy to simply say that the war has been mismanaged. What does the Senator believe should have been done differently? What does he believe could have been done that would have prevented the “unnecessary sacrifice” of one soldier? This is a lazy kind of answer that earns cheap points with liberal debate analysts because it appears enlightened and nuanced and takes a shot at the current president of the candidate’s party. But really, all it tells us is that Sen. McCain believes that the lives of some percentage of the brave troops who have been killed in Iraq were wasted. It doesn’t tell us a thing about what the candidate actually would do in a similar circumstance.
But the most outrageous answer of the night from McCain came in yet another defense of his position on immigration, this one his last. Paraphrasing, McCain said,
“We all know what we’re talking about here. People different from us, brown-skinned, with a different language and culture. They have greatly enriched my state and will enrich our national culture as well, just like every other immigrant culture that has come to our country.
That’s calling the opponents of his immigration compromise racist, plain and simple. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, what is ascribing racist motives to one’s political opponents? It’s the death rattle of a presidential campaign. I oppose the Senate immigration compromise and would do so if it was intended to legalize millions of white, French-speaking, Quebecers streaming across the northern border from Canada. My opposition, and I venture the opposition of most of the bill’s opponents, has nothing to do with the color of the illegal's skin, but the fact that he is illegal. I hesitate to say it because Sen. McCain in his life has displayed a physical courage of which few, certainly not me, are capable, but Sen. McCain’s attempts to defend his position last night were intellectually cowardly. There was no concession to respect the position of his bill's opponents. There were no attempts to discuss the merits of the bill. There was only condescension and name calling.
Senator McCain resorting to condescension and calling his opponents racist is evidence of the desperation in his campaign. He was sinking fast before this debate. With his performance last night, particularly on the immigration issue, he attached an anvil to his ankles. Sen. McCain is a genuine American hero. He is a public servant of great integrity. But his drive to seek the presidency changes him. It was evident in the 2000 campaign, when he lashed out at Christian conservatives because he could not win their support. It was evident again last night, when in much the same fashion, Sen. McCain sought to demonize those who disagree with him.
If Sen. McCain cannot take the arguments against his political positions seriously enough to consider them something more than motivated by ignorance or racism, then he should not be considered a serious presidential candidate. Therefore, Sen. McCain is no longer acceptable to me as a potential nominee of the Republican Party.
UPDATE: 6/6/07 10:36 I just watched the debate again and saw Sen. McCain's last answer on immigration. He did not say "brown-skinned" as I reported. I'm quite embarassed by this mistake and apologize to the Senator and his campaign for attributing this misquote to him. It's no defense, but this piece was written in the immediate aftermath of the debate, with no transcript yet available, and I did say that I was paraphrasing his remarks. Still, I was wrong, and I apologize.
From the transcript, here is what McCain said:
My friends, we know what we’re talking about is the latest wave of migrants into this country. We have to stop the illegal immigration, but we’ve had waves throughout our history. Hispanics is what we’re talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was.
So, I think in general the criticism still holds that McCain is not arguing in good faith against the opponents of his position on immigration. I still think this answer was a very thinly veiled reference to the motives of his opponents. Only it is now clear that he was calling them xenophobes, not racists.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Brownback Supports Senate Immigration Deal — Comments (9) »
The McCain Campaign's Death Rattle [UPDATED] 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't think you're comprehending the problem here.
I'm sorry but just about everyone on the news shows after the debate, including Pat Buchanan, said McCain was the winner and defended his immigration plan quite well.
Mark actually acknowledged this point, that all the pundits considered McCain the winner, and like the standard issue Conservative/Republican easily saw something else;
If that’s not enough of an indictment of the state of his campaign, consider that after the debate, all of the CNN pundits analyzing the performances of the candidates thought McCain won.
Note the parts in bold (my emphasis). Unless you haven't been watching CNN in the past few years, you'd know that you'd hardly find people (with the probable exception of Pat Buchanan) more alienated from the mainstream Republican's point of view than the usual CNN talking head.
In other words, this is still a Republican primary campaign. And quite frankly, if you earn plaudits from CNN's stable of liberal debate analysts, you probably just earned the ire of the average GOP primary voter - who really does care about the rule of law being undermined by rewarding the breaking of it.
If McCain had impressed the editorial board of National Review, that would be a different thing altogether. Instead he's trying to win the GOP nomination by impressing the editorial boards of New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, etc. He tried that in 2000 too.
It's not going to work this time either.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
and you illustrate my point quite well. Many of the CNN pundits, in my opinion, are declaring victors based upon style and substance and not upon if they like or dislike the candidate. Buchanan doesn't care for McCain but yet he said he "won." The primary voters, which do matter in that we agree, are going to declare McCain the loser b/c they don't like him or what he has to say, nevermind that in a debate that doesn't matter. In college I participated in a few debates and at times I argued points that I didn't believe in. The class voted who they thought won, not based upon whether they agreed with the info or the candidate, but whether in debating style did the debater explain theirself adequately and did they do a good job countering their opponent. But the author of the piece we are commenting on didn't do that, he struck at how he disagrees with McCain on immigration and therefore McCain lost. That is not the proper way to judge a debate.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
The class voted who they thought won, not based upon whether they agreed with the info or the candidate, but whether in debating style did the debater explain theirself adequately and did they do a good job countering their opponent. But the author of the piece we are commenting on didn't do that, he struck at how he disagrees with McCain on immigration and therefore McCain lost.
No he didn't. I checked with the author and he assured me that he did indeed evaluate the style and countering acumen of McCain as well as the position he advocated. In fact, the author based almost his entire critique on McCain's demeanor and made no arguments against the merits of McCain's position.
The author further assures me that he had a difficult time writing this piece about the Senator due to the great respect he (the author) has for McCain's life story. However, in the end, the author had to conclude that McCain's desire to be elected president trumps his ability to argue in a manner that is respectful to his opponents, and therefore he cannot accept him as a potential nominee.
BTW, I have a pretty good relationship with the author, so you can take my characterization of his thoughts almost as if it came directly from him.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
I am trying to find the part in this story where it says he just does not like McCain and that is a basis for the story. Did you come to that through some psychic channeling?
There are more than enough examples here to point out why McCain is on the 2000 primary road with this latest candidacy, starting with his comments (both articulated and implied) that folks opposed to this bill have some nefarious motive. Frankly, that is insulting to anyone that can read and draw logical conclusions based on the bill’s provisions.
McCain has painted himself into a corner with his rock throwing. As more daylight shines on this bill public outrage will grow to a crescendo and McCain’s popularity will drop like a rock.
I think Michael Graham said it best on NRO;
“John McCain has likely done permanent damage to his candidacy with his immigration policy — despite a relatively strong performance tonight.”
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
way he describes McCain where it becomes clear that the author doesn't really care for the man. I wish people would be more direct, but they aren't. They're like Brownback who dislikes pro-choicers but yet wouldn't say that he wouldn't support Giuliani specifically. I'm more direct. I wish others could be.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
Where he states McCain is a "genuine American hero" or "public servant of great integrity"?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
a POW and Senator for the last two decades? Until the Swift Boat attacks I had never seen someone question the war time service of even their opponents or those they personally dislike. Anyway, statements like the following were very telling:
"McCain smugly challenged..."
"McCain had to be rescued..."
"He was using it disdainfully..."
"...lazy kind of answer..."
"...intellectually cowardly..."
"There was only condescension and name calling..."
So, gathering from those remarks he felt that McCain was a smug, inept, disdainful, lazy, ad hominem hurling, coward. That isn't how I would describe someone I like, especially a hero and someone of great integrity. That is how I would describe someone I dislike. But, then again, I'm not that political so I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
did seal his fate. Most Republican primary voters probably will recall only that they disagreed with McCain and respond accordingly.
How many more predictions that McCain has lost, or is sunk, or no longer matters are going to be made between now and the primaries? It seems as if one is made every month, and yet McCain still remains viable in the polls, and near or at the top in the key early states.
his fate is far from sealed. The top four are bunched together and none has any reason to give up. As I said in an earlier post, we're in for six more months of shadow boxing. Shadow boxing does not produce knockouts. Perhaps at some point, the second tier candidates will withdraw. But why should even they quit until it's proven that they stand no chance? And until Iowa and New Hampshire, the land of denial will be very inviting.
In the meantime, McCain polls competitively in the early states. So while I would bet that someone other than McCain will win the nomination, that matter will be determined in 2008, not now.
The only polls that I see McCain doing poorly in are the national polls and in a process of isolated primary contests these type of polls are, practically, worthless.
In Iowa, polls consistently show him in either first or second place. If he finishes in either position it will give him momentum to move to New Hampshire where, again, he is either first or second, the latest ARG puts him 7 points ahead of his nearest rival. In South Carolina he is also placing either first or second with the ARG placing him 9 points over his nearest rival. Florida is the only important early state, that I've seen, where his polling isn't that great, putting him a distant second to Rudy, but with momentum gained from early states like Iowa and NH I can see that changing quick.
The same type of attitude exists with the Democratic side, where national polling shows Obama in a virtual tie for first place with Hillary, but in the those important early states like Iowa, NH, SC, and Florida he is way down, sometimes in a distant third place. The news likes to create interesting news and what better interesting news than that which strikes at the supposed inevitability of Hillary vs. McCain.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
The next fundraising report will tell a lot about McCain and his longevity. If he underperforms again in fundraising, he's toast.
I have never seen a straw man as tall as the one you just erected.
Your (straw man) paraphrase of McCain: "We all know what we’re talking about here. People different from us, brown-skinned, with a different language and culture."
Your analysis and outrage: "That’s calling the opponents of his immigration compromise racist, plain and simple."
Actual McCain quote: "Hispanics is what we’re talking about, a different culture, a different language"
So you invent a reference to skin color to express outrage at a reference to skin color. Nice job. Real fair. Maybe next time, before you accuse someone of accusing others of racism, you'll take the two minutes I just took to check the transcript. (or pay attention when watching a debate)
Oh, and you bolded your fabricated "brown-skinned" in your paraphrase. So lame.
You really need to take some lessons in civil debate.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
Definite double-standard. I have had much, much worse things said to me on many, many occasions in which I have been perfectly civil, and never heard anyone suggest to those with uncivil comments toward me that they be more civil. Perhaps you weren't there, and if so, it's not your double-standard, but hopefully you're as quick to react in all cases with a single standard.
.. the tone just struck me as bit harsh. However, I could have stated it better too.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
And look at the context of my comment. The post invented a reference to skin color (attributing it to a candidate), then goes on to express outrage at a reference to skin color. I think my comment is not out of line in that context.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
As has the analysis. This was an embarassing error on my part and I apologized for it to the Senator and his campaign in the body of the post.
It's no defense, but the piece was written in the immediate aftermath of the debate, with no transcript yet available, and I did say in the piece that I was paraphrasing his remarks.
That said, the updated quote from McCain doesn't exactly get him out of hot water with me. His reference to Hispanics still seems to me liky a thinly veiled accusation that his opponents objections to his position are not based on anything other than xenophobia.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Where in the debate was McCain condescending toward the other debaters? Where did he talk down the audience? I think that analysis is just plain wrong. McCain spoke with seriousness and emotion. He stood and talked to audience members directly, looking them in the eye and talking straight.
"I didn’t see his answer, but Sen. McCain scored points..."
You should have seen his answer. He was genuine and compassionate. At the very least you could watch the clip before commenting. You are criticizing him through CNN analysis! McCain's answer here told us a great deal about what kind of leader he would be. He wouldn't spin war mismanagement for years in order to placate growing discontent. I consider that VALUABLE information in deciding who our next president will be.
After Tancredo went on another rant, McCain stood and, without attacking Tancredo or discrediting him, spoke passionatley about what immigration means to America, what he believes and what he fights for.
To say he was disrespectful and implying others were racist confounds me. Where did this happen? I read the author's paraphrased quote, and it just doesn't strike me as an attempt to call out racists. I think it was a genuine attempt to reason with millions of Americans who are afraid of their culture being destroyed by another one. He's right, if you haven't noticed, Hispanics do enrich our culture, but there does exist an angry backlash against them, legal or illegal. This is what he is trying to counter. Perhaps no one should try to counter it for fear of being attacked? This post is actually a lot like stuff I read on liberal web-dumps.
Yes, I'm a McCain supporter, so I'm terribly biased, but I'm also a realist and I would have called a McCain failure in this debate if I saw one. I think he did quite well.
That said, I agree that McCain really doesn't have a chance anymore. Sadly, we could never get so lucky.
I am not a McCain supporter. In fact, I could be classified as an anyone-but-McCain voter for the primaries (I will support the nominee in the general, whomever it may be).
McCain did remarkably well last night. The way he handled the Tancredo and they way he handled the immigration issue generally was impressive. I am against the immigration bill, but I admit that he made the strongest possible arguments in favor.
Alll that said, Run Fred Run!
It shouldn't surprise me that the dominant issues of the day seems to be immigration, specifically illegal immigration. And if McCain is describing opponents of his bill as xenophobes, which I do not believe, there is an element of truth to that. Why, b/c this is a common refrain from Americans throughout their history.
Every few generations there arises a new spectre of immigrant, and, typically, there is a virulent opposition against these immigrants formed by a large section of the American population. At one time or another this virulent opposition was directed towards the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Asians, Jews, Italians, and now, Latinos. The most interesting aspect of this nativist streak is that the persecuted become the persecutors after a few generations of assimilation. One day, if history holds any indication future events, Latinos will persecute a new wave of immigrant and the entire process will begin anew.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
And if McCain is describing opponents of his bill as xenophobes, which I do not believe, there is an element of truth to that. Why, b/c this is a common refrain from Americans throughout their history.
Simple xenophobia doesn't explain this phenomenon entirely. People always fear "the other." The question is why. If they fear the other simply becuase they are the other, then they are likely racists and/or xenophobes. If they fear the other because of the impact the other may have on themselves, such as low-skill wage depression, then there is something else at work also.
Look, I'll admit that there is a small percentage of immigration compromise opponents that simply don't like Mexicans. But, I don't think it is the majority. Far from it. Furthermore, I think it is wrong for a politician, and lazy of a man of integrity like McCain, to simply label his political opponents as racist or xenophobic, or what have you.
McCain believes strongly in what he believes. Tell me why. Don't just lecture me and question my motives for opposing the policy.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
McCain should have to explain himself and I think he has done so, quite clearly, and he shouldn't, without cause, label anyone as xenophobic and racist just b/c they disagree with his immigration policy.
I will disagree however and state that a majority of Americans can be quite xenophobic, similar to the xenophobia of the Romans. It isn't just about fear of outsiders, but fear that the outsiders will somehow irrevocably alter what we term "American culture." That is the center of American nativism, a fear that new immigrants will forever alter what we consider American, whether the individual or society itself. We feel that our culture is superior to the rest of the world and, deep down, there are many who are afraid that this culture will be diluted, will be rendered inferior by influence from outside. We were once afraid of the changes the Irish would make, or Asians, or Italians. My wife told me an interesting story that at one time the word "thug" was descriptive of Italians and that it was commonly believed that traits considered particular to Italians were common criminal traits. Like what we deem American culture this also has changed over time.
Americans, at heart, are isolationist and are xenophobic and are believe that we are culturally superior to the rest of the world. Dinesh D'Souza's book, "What's so Great about America" I believe to be indicative of this, and, in my opinion, it is not without some merit. The Romans were constantly afraid that the "barbarians," whether Germanic or Eastern would dilute their superior Roman culture. They constantly found it necessary to look to the past, especially in times of trouble, in an effort to find the traditions that they had broken, to find how where they have wandered from what was perceived as traditional Roman culture. They believed themselves to be superior and that the Greeks were wordy airheads, the Egyptians and other Easterners were effeminate hedonists, and the Germanic tribes were dirty savages lacking any form of civilization. Certainly they were afraid that any influx of these peoples would dilute their own culture and render it inferior, much as we do today.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
Just wanted to tell you that I agree with much your observation. Except that my impression of traditional conservatives is not that they love and preserve their culture because they judge it superior. Rather just that it is theirs.
The notion that one's own culture is superior -- I confess that I harbor that feeling despite the challenge of cultural relativism -- leads to a confidence that one's own predominant culture will tend to triumph in a milieu of cultural interaction and assimilation. And of course that makes isolationism seem not quite so necessary.
John E.
In an effort at full disclosure: I am not a McCain supporter. He pretty much lost me in 2004 and last year's amnesty sealed the deal. This year's amnesty bill just moved me from mad to rabid, so I am now looking for my "Anybody but McCain" button and bumper sticker. That said...
Right or wrong, all of the top tier candidates are going to have an issue or two that is going to act as a millstone around their neck. For this reason, I believe it is premature to say it is over for McCain. The field to this point is just not that strong.
Being the only one on the stage in favor of his amnesty bill certainly differentiates him from the other candidates. Usually, this is something that candidates want to do but in this case I'm sure it is ill advised. What I heard last night was McCain trying to tell us we are wrong and he is right about his amnesty bill. He offered no specifics and never actually answered any of his opponent's attacks or questions. Frankly, I found some of his generalizations and assertions delusional. And yes, I did find his "my friends" and the general tone of his answers patronizing and insulting. But then, I also felt that the President's insistence that I am unAmerican insulting as well. I don't need a pedantic lecture from either of these men.
I've got to give McCain credit. He's willing to stick it out on an issue that he has to know is going to hurt him. I think he is too arrogant to know how bad it is going to hurt him, but that touches on one of the deeper reasons why I believe he should not be President. He hasn't run from the issue and I'd be shocked if he changes course and starts running from the issue now. He is very stubborn, and his mind is made up.
Mark, we won't hear the death rattle of McCain's or any other campaign on the debate stage, though we will get to see the (usually self inflicted) wounds. We'll hear the death rattle when they shake their piggy banks. I have to believe that the last two weeks have been hard on McCain's fund raising. When his (or any other candidate's) money dries up, he's done.
I've seen many term the bill an "amnesty bill," but I was wondering how it is amnesty when penalties are involved for illegally immigrating and the entire process can take b/w 8 to 13 years? If it was truly amnesty then everyone would immediately be declared full citizens without having to endure an process that could declare their application invalid.
Amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.
Pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.
How is it amnesty?
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism." --John C. Calhoun
The people receiving the Z visa entered the country illegally. When the bill is signed, they will receive a permanent Z visa allowing them to stay in the US with no time limit. They only have to pay fines and what not if they choose to try to become citizens, which is not required.
The crime of entering the country illegally will be excused without penalty. It follows that they have been pardoned for entering the country illegally. This bill is an amnesty.
I fail to see how it could be any simpler. I'll stop here because I feel an insult making its way to my fingertips...
McCain helped himself in my estimation last night.
Whenever he talks about American torture my head starts to pop and I want nothing to do with him. So I understand the reaction he causes in those so opposed to comprehensive immigration reform.
I admire the man for taking clear stands on what he believes, heedless to popularity. He demonstrates clear and decisive leadership. I was very pleased that all of our candidates presented this quality, but McCain the most so, but perhaps to a fault. At least that is what gives me doubts about this candidate who ought to be crowned as nominee due to his most extensive and patriotic life of service to our nation. I fear that he too completely dismisses the criticisms of those who disagree with his stance, invalidating what may be valid in their objections. So he fails to win us over, but rather leaves us feeling over powered.
John E.
especially considering that the loudest applause I heard from the crowd was for McCain not long after this comment of his. I think you just don't like McCain, plain and simple. Maybe I'm wrong but everyone seems to give victory or defeat to candidates based upon whether they like them or not, so if you like the candidate then they "win" and if you don't then they "lose." I'm sorry but just about everyone on the news shows after the debate, including Pat Buchanan, said McCain was the winner and defended his immigration plan quite well. Looks like you are the minority. McCain's immigration stance is going to play quite well in Iowa and NH.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun