Comments on: “Straight Talk” My [...]

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:09:44 +0000

admin: anti-mormon bigotry = ban

By: Tap

Tap — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:18:44 +0000

That was the purpose of the Cornyn amendment. To make the whole thing a bit more palatable to some opponents by actually excluding those convicted of certain crimes from the ‘path to citizenship.’ The bill as it existed did not include such a provision - and McCain refused to add it.

By: Tap

Tap — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:15:47 +0000

"The question was just whether it would offer a path to legalization for people convicted of certain crimes here, and that’s a definite no."

I’m sorry, but that is absolute hogwash. It’s just not true.

By: Alan Stewart Carl

Alan Stewart Carl — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:04:31 +0000

It’s a flat out lie to claim McCain isn’t a conservative. Use any metric you want to analyze his lifelong votes. A lot of people are lying when they claim McCain isn’t conservative.

And Sanatorum told a big ole lie when he said he can’t think of a thing he and McCain agree on. Really? Is that why Sanatorum asked McCain to campaign with him and used those appearances in ads?

That said, I’m not making excuses for McCain’s distortions here. I’m just saying he likely felt pushed into it and it’s a bit disingenuous for any Romney supporter to act as if their guy and his surrogates haven’t benefitted from distortions of McCain and his record.

By: Dan Pawson

Dan Pawson — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:33:11 +0000

Tap: there’s no question that McCain-Kennedy didn’t kick out all illegal immigrants, but that’s not what I (or Romney) meant by "criminals". (And of course a large number of people here unlawfully have committed no crime at all; overstaying a visa is a civil, not a criminal, offense, and most people deported are never actually convicted of the crime of illegal entry.) The question was just whether it would offer a path to legalization for people convicted of certain crimes here, and that’s a definite no.

As for the Cornyn amendment, many amendments were offered on both sides that proponents would have otherwise supported, but voted no on because of the (fatal) fragility of the compromise. Not sure what McCain’s position would be on that particular amendment outside of that particular legislative fight.

By: Tap

Tap — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:44:50 +0000

I didn’t see the ad, but…McCain Kennedy didn’t kick all the illegal immigrants out. I know McCain voted against the Cornyn Amendment that would have established a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.

By: Dan Pawson

Dan Pawson — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:59:27 +0000

Well, the biggest thing I can remember about Romney lying about McCain is the ad that ran for weeks up here about McCain-Kennedy not kicking any illegal immigrants out of the country. Romney later constructively retracted that by saying in the debates, "except criminals," but that’s not the ad that ran up here. (Up here = Boston media market.)

After seeing McCain on his weekly appearance on Meet the Press today, I feel a little bit better, but not much. Romney’s asked, "would you support timetables for withdrawal," and he responds, "I support timetables, but not public ones, so that the enemy doesn’t know when we’re leaving." Technically, you can see how that has to be support for a timetable for withdrawal, but it’s certainly not a flat statement of support, and it’s not at all something I’d feel comfortable going on the attack with.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:48:10 +0000

As usual, I suggest that everyone go to factcheck.org to see the distortions that have taken place on all sides. Unfortunately it seems when some people support a particular candidate, they then refuse to acknowledge when their candidate attacks by distorting his opponents’ records and they constantly see the opponents’ attacks as being false.

I’d prefer that all of the candidates be more honest, but would also prefer if the supporters of candidates would take the blinders off and be more honest too. I really haven’t seen any one candidate who was more or less guilty of this kind of attack on the GOP side in this cycle- it’s pretty much been tit for tat IMO. So if your preferred candidate is attacked, refute the attack if you feel it’s false. But have the integrity to also admit when your candidate does the same to the opponents.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:36:38 +0000

Tap: they haven’t.

By: Tap

Tap — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:33:58 +0000

That’s a pretty big leap there…to go from ‘well, some people who like Romney attack McCain, so it’s okay for McCain to do it to Romney’.

It’s entirely possible I’m missing it, but I’m not sure what flat out lying about McCain’s credentials you are talking about.