20 Responses to “Palin Works For McCain”

1. angela, on October 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm Said:

   I am not a true Palinite, but I did know who she was before McCain tapped her. I actually wrote her a note about 2 months before he chose her, urging her to walk away and wait for a better time.

   Needless to say, she didn’t listen. :)

   I thought she had great potential. I also thought she was brought up through the ranks too fast though, and I was right. It’s just sad that McCain got his ugly claws in her before she had a chance to find her own way to the top.

   BUt I’d still vote for her before any of the other 3.

2. kranza, on October 22nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm Said:

   This is great. I’m really looking forward to how the I’m-voting-for-Palin-not-McCain crowd react. Finally all those pro-American parts of the country have a clear position on which to actually evaluate the pro-Americanism of their heroine. The elites don’t understand or fight for them but our Sarah does! I’m sure the right wing radio revolt begins tomorrow morning.

3. Grumpy Old Man, on October 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm Said:

   It’s hard to fault her for following McCain’s lead. Loyalty to the President or would-be President is Rule No. 1 for VPs.

   In this case, the incoherence is in the policy, not in the messenger.

   My own view is that we can’t talk about any accommodation to the illegals already here until and unless we can control the borders (and the visa-overstayers). Otherwise we just prime the pump for more border-crossers.

   Deporting 3,000 people a day means 60 busloads or so, assuming 50 seats per bus. If we count 6 major border towns, that’s 10 buses a day in each, which is really quite doable. That would make a million people in a year. Figure an equal number would leave voluntarily rather than face deportation, and it might be possible to resolve the issue in 6 years. My rough numbers don’t address the apprehension issue, of course, but that’s also not impossible if one uses the resources and is prepared to ignore the inevitable howls of indignaiton.. But it is not impossible, and could be accomplished decently. It’s a matter of will, really.

4. dysturbed, on October 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am Said:

   Back here in old eurpoe we’d call the McCain-Palin ticket plainly populism. This interview clearly shows the difficulties of that. You are actually smart or common sense enough to understand that the problems are more complex than those messages that you send out.
   But you don’t trust a large part of the electorate to enter a serious discussion about the issues.
   Essentially it shows incredible disrespect and arrogance towards the electorate.

5. Derek Copold, on October 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 am Said:

   It’s hard to fault her for following McCain’s lead. Loyalty to the President or would-be President is Rule No. 1 for VPs.

   In this case, the incoherence is in the policy, not in the messenger.

   McCain’s policy is “coherent” here. He says pretty much the same thing you do: secure the borders first, and then discuss “regularization”, (i.e., amnesty). I don’t see why Palin couldn’t have repeated that.

   To be sure, you and I both know he’s lying about the whole “secure the borders” thing. He’ll wait maybe all of two hours before declaring the situation fixed and starts handing out green cards like candy on Halloween.

6. Grumpy Old Man, on October 23rd, 2008 at 6:30 am Said:

   McCain has been inconsistent on this issue. It’s only after the popular outcry that he discovered we have to secure the borders first.

   It’s not rocket science. We tried amnesty with a mere not to enforcement. Try it again, shame on us.

   “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”

7. Derek Copold, on October 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 am Said:

   I agree that there is inconsistency in his record. But his current position is coherent, and–if he meant it–it would be the best take. Even with strong enforcement, we’re going to have a number of illegal aliens in left in the country, along with the usual hard cases. So, first we stop the inflow with internal and external enforcement measures, and then we look at amnestying the remnant.

   Of course, McCain has no intention of truly securing the borders and setting up internal enforcement mechanisms, but that goes to his honesty, not his position’s coherence.

   My point is, I don’t see why Palin couldn’t have given a straightforward, sensible answer to Ramos.

8. rawshark, on October 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 am Said:

   ‘Deporting 3,000 people a day means 60 busloads or so, assuming 50 seats per bus. If we count 6 major border towns, that’s 10 buses a day in each, which is really quite doable. That would make a million people in a year. Figure an equal number would leave voluntarily rather than face deportation, and it might be possible to resolve the issue in 6 years. My rough numbers don’t address the apprehension issue, of course, but that’s also not impossible if one uses the resources and is prepared to ignore the inevitable howls of indignaiton.. But it is not impossible, and could be accomplished decently. It’s a matter of will, really. ‘

   Ever heard the term false positive? I know lots of natural born citizens with the same name as tons of illegals. Can you imagine the fun they’ll have trying to prove that they’re US citizens and should be allowed back?

   How in the hell is a republican ever going to get elected without the hispanic vote and trust me you’ll lose it permanaently if you haven’t already.

   We will never secure our borders and we will never round up and deport the illegals. It’s a wedge issue, nothing more.

9. Adam01, on October 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am Said:

   “Ever heard the term false positive?”

   You could apply that same criteria to any type of enforcement action; it shouldn’t be an excuse to do nothing.

   “How in the hell is a republican ever going to get elected without the hispanic vote and trust me you’ll lose it permanaently if you haven’t already.”

   Did I miss the part where the GOP was winning the Hispanic vote? Bush lost it in 2000 & 2004, & McCain is on track to lose it by an even larger margin this time.

10. Derek Copold, on October 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am Said:

    Ever heard the term false positive? I know lots of natural born citizens with the same name as tons of illegals.

    They’re usually the prime victims of identity theft, too. They also suffer from most of the social costs of illegal immigration, like overcrowded neighborhoods and higher crime. A lot of Hispanics take a hawkish line on this issue.

    Still, the idea of some sort of mass deportation is not workable, I agree, but you can apply steady pressure through internal verification and reduce the number over a period of time. That, in combination with a serious border, would allow the country to look at offering some sort of legalization.

11. libarbarian, on October 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm Said:

    Sorry man,

    When you see the sign in the elevator telling you not to smoke and promising a fine if you do, no one considers it amnesty.

    When you get a parking ticket, which involves no punishment other than a cash payment, no one considers it “amnesty”.

    In fact, the only time people use the word “amnesty” to cover most popular legal punishment - the fine - is when the subject is immigration. Then, suddenly, asking a guy to pay a few thousand dollars in penalty becomes “amnesty”.

    I’ll admit, it’s a clever way of saying “I will accept nothing less than deportation” without sounding so heartless. You’re not fooling anyone though.

    The only ones being dishonest are the people who characterize paying a fine as “amnesty”.

12. Patrick, on October 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm Said:

    What kind of “conservatives” sit around and talk about “illegal immigrants”, “amnesty”, etc., without ONCE mentioning that the idea of “citizenship” is alien to conservative thought?

    We are subjects of our states, not citizens.

    American Conservatives are Liberals. The comments here are proof positive.

13. Daniel Larison, on October 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm Said:

    “We are subjects of our states, not citizens.”

    Not in a republican system. That would be the system that we (theoretically) still have.

    “the idea of “citizenship” is alien to conservative thought”

    No, it isn’t. It is not as if the designation of citoyen, civis or politis was something invented by revolutionaries. It may have been adopted or co-opted by them, but the “idea of citizenship” predates the modern era. For that matter, it predates the middle ages. There is nothing necessarily un-conservative about it, and many of the early modern classicizing aristocrats were interested in precisely the kind of civic republicanism practiced by the ancients. It is typically not something that exists in monarchies, and I can understand why monarchists might have a problem with the idea, but there is no requirement that conservatives be monarchists.

14. Patrick, on October 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm Said:

    Aha, so:

    We shall use the term “citizenship” as the Greeks and Romans? Is that intention? If so, then let us be “citizens” of our, ahem, “cities”. Would anyone from a city on the Aegean have recognized the American, modern, liberal, usage of the term “citizen”? Would a “burgher” of city in 15th century “Germany” recognize the modern use of “citizen”? Would even Thomas Jefferson understand “citizenship” in America today?

    If Mexicans are not to be “citizens” (I am not arguing that they should be), then why should Blacks be accepted (I am not arguing that they should NOT be)? The idea of citizenship can be strict (”conservative”), and include only White men that have plead loyalty to the American Republic, as was the original intention, or it can be “liberal”, and include any number of groups of people, including women, Blacks, Mexicans, etc., whether they plead loyalty or not.

    My point: the use of “citizenship”, and everything contained therein, leads us down a “slippery slope” of Liberalism; yes: the Roman Republic was a Liberal institution, as were the Greek city-states. They may not have started as such, but the essence of Liberalism infected those polities in due time. That is the result of accepting “citizenship” over “subjecthood”. The Roman Imperial Republic went on to be ruled over by German citizens of Rome, who never would have been considered “subjects” of the Old Kingdom of Rome.

    One way to “head off” such things as amnesty is to understand that we are not “citizens” of the United States, but subjects of our states (e.g., because you’re a good Texan doesn’t make you a good Tennessean; or: I am a subject of the peasantry, Mr Larison is a subject of the noblesse, etc.). It is entirely too easy for one to be a “citizen” of the United States, and for one’s loyalty to rest elsewhere. One can be a “dual citizen”, but can there be such a thing as a “dual subject”?

15. Derek Copold, on October 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm Said:

    The only ones being dishonest are the people who characterize paying a fine as “amnesty”.

    Well, that’s certainly rich.

    You want to know what a real illegal immigration amnesty looks like? Malaysia did it once. They told all their illegals that they had a month to report for deportation, and if they complied they wouldn’t be caned. THAT’S an amnesty. They got to leave the country without punishment, but they still left the country.

    What we call “amnesty” is really a reward for lawbreaking. So, yes, there’s some dishonesty, but not in your favor.

    What McCain has proposed lately is still “amnesty”, but it costs the recipient a small bribe. The real prize is getting to stay here. Illegal aliens would have no problem fronting a few thousand dollars, because legal residence is worth many multiples of that. So your “fine” is no such thing. It’s just a payoff, and nominal one at that.

16. 24AheadDotCom, on October 24th, 2008 at 12:25 am Said:

    A quick check will show that I’ve covered this issue from the anti-illegal/massive immigration side for over *five years* and I’ve written literally *thousands of posts about this issue* divided into *fifteen categories*. I also used to contribute to Malkin’s blog about this issue.

    So, I think I’ve got some bona fides.

    And, I’m not worried about her or McCain or this issue actually going through. We blocked it before, we can block it again.

    What Larison should be worried about is that he keeps getting linked approvingly by the post-delusional Sully and now even Crooks & Liars. That site’s PAC is/was working with a group headed by someone linked to the Mexican government.

    I got linked by Icke once, but if I kept getting linked approvingly by Icke I’d take a good look in the mirror.

    The bottom line is what it’s always been: BHO would be a complete and utter disaster for this country.

    See my comments here:

    http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/16/palin-and-reagan/

17. DaveA, on October 24th, 2008 at 7:46 am Said:

    “What Larison should be worried about is that he keeps getting linked approvingly by the post-delusional Sully and now even Crooks & Liars. ”

    And he even blogs at the web site of a magazine whose editor-in-chief endorsed Kerry in 2004!

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00008/

    ZOMG Daniel! Run for your life!

18. Derek Copold, on October 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am Said:

    That site’s PAC is/was working with a group headed by someone linked to the Mexican government.

    As opposed to McCain, who has directly hired Juan Hernandez, who served in the Mexican government as a cabinet official.

19. 24AheadDotCom, on October 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am Said:

    DaveA: don’t waste my time. Here’s my Kerry endorsement from 2004:

    24ahead.com/blog/archives/002135.html

    Derek Copold: don’t waste my time either. I’ve got 18 mentions of JH at my site, with this as the latest:

    http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007842.html

    Once again: you people have absolutely no clue how disastrous a BHO presidency is going to be. There will be a backlash, but not before the ChicagoMachine has gotten its people permanently embedded in the Federal government.

20. DaveA, on October 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm Said:

    “but not before the ChicagoMachine has gotten its people permanently embedded in the Federal government.”

    That’s what has you all a-twitter? Sheesh, that Obama’s nothing more than a front for the Chicago Dem machine (which isn’t anything near what it once was) is among the more comforting thoughts this election cycle.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.