McCain reaches out to blogs…on the left; Update: “A new standard for transparency and accountability”
Scroll down for updates…
The McCain campaign holds weekly blogger conference calls with its candidate. There are many questions I know you’d like asked, but I’ve never been able to ask them because I haven’t been one of the privileged few conservative bloggers allowed into the McCain sanctum to ask those questions for you.
Yesterday, I learned that several far left-wing blogs were invited to participate in The Maverick’s blogger conference call session (it’s part of that Big Vision Thing). I e-mailed McCain’s New Media guy, Patrick Hynes, asking if I could participate in the next blogger conference call.
After all, McCain said yesterday he’ll “listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse” and “will set a new standard for transparency and accountability” and “will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud.”
If he’s willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country “safe, prosperous, and proud?”
I’ll keep you updated.
Here’s the WashTimes’ account of McCain “widening his dialogue” with blogs on the left, including a blogger who posts at The Huffington Post–and even non-political blogs:
Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don’t often delve into conservative politics.
The strategy was in full swing yesterday when Mr. McCain invited non-conservative bloggers to join his regular blogger conference call, just hours after he delivered a major speech previewing his war strategy and other priorities for a first presidential term…
…Mr. McCain’s campaign said the Web outreach is a logical extension of an attempt to reach voters beyond his base. It also builds on his successful use of conference calls with conservative bloggers during the Republican primary, which blunted many of the harshest criticisms of the senator.
“The plan is to take the work we’ve already built on with conservative bloggers and to open up a dialogue with non-conservative bloggers and even nonpolitical bloggers,” said Patrick Hynes, Mr. McCain’s point man for blog outreach.
“We hope to be the most accessible and transparent campaign in history, to take advantage of what we think is one of the campaign’s strongest assets, which is Senator McCain himself, and frankly to empower voters who are also bloggers to get the answers they need to decide who to vote for.”
Even sports bloggers will get a chance to hang with McCain:
Going forward, Mr. Hynes said, the campaign would like to have Mr. McCain talk to sports bloggers, too, as a way to “humanize John McCain as something other than a carbon-copy politician running for office, delivering talking points.”
On yesterday’s call, Mr. McCain fielded seven questions, including three from non-conservative bloggers: Kate Sheppard, political reporter for environmental Web site Grist.org; Joanne Bamberger of PunditMom (http://punditmom1. blogspot.com); and Erin Kotecki Vest, who blogs at catchall site BlogHer.com as well as liberal sites HuffingtonPost.com and MOMocrats.com.
“I give them an A for effort,” Ms. Vest said in a phone interview after the conference call.
She asked Mr. McCain whether the vision he laid out yesterday of U.S. troops succeeding in Iraq by 2013 didn’t amount to the sort of timetable he has criticized when Democrats propose a specific date for withdrawal.
Mr. McCain shot right back: “Either you didn’t read or didn’t understand my speech. One of the two.”
Ms. Vest said she “read it and understood it just fine, and I don’t understand how 2013 isn’t a date.”
She said she doesn’t expect bloggers to be as nice as some of the traditional media have been in asking him questions, and was thankful for the chance.
“The fact that I could ask my question and have it smacked down is farther than a lot of people could get,” she said.
Yeah, tell me about it.
***
This is indeed an instructive example of how a McCain White House would run: He’ll talk to the far left. He’ll talk to “acceptable” conservatives. But the grass-roots Right? Immigration enforcement proponents? You’ll be as out of luck as you would be with Barack Obama in office.
Commenter MadMoney: “I need a list of the pre-approved conservative blogs so I can read those and learn to love the change we deserve.”
Heh. You’re screwed.
***
Update 10:17am: I kid you not. I just received an e-mail from Republican Internet strategist David All touting McCain’s liberal blogger outreach.
It is titled: “McCain: Model of effective blogger outreach” and touts the Washington Times article:
I wanted to share with you a story that quotes me running on the front page of today’s Washington Times which reports on John McCain’s willingness to reach beyond his likely allies in the blogosphere to disarm his critics on the left and further amplify his message with niche bloggers.
And that’s what’s so noxious about this entire illusion of “outreach.” Not that McCain exercises his prerogative to shut out unacceptable conservative blogs, but that he and his promoters are so self-congratulatory about their illusion of inclusion.
Update 10:35am: Now, the RNC is sending out the Washington Times article. Just got an e-mail from the RNC online communications director: “If you post on it, please can you send me a link.”
I did.
Update 11:36am Eastern: Just heard from Patrick Hynes: “Yes, you will be invited to all future calls.”
Stay tuned.
Hey, now that the McCain campaign is embracing a “new standard of transparency and accountability,” how about opening up the weekly blogger conference calls to other conservative bloggers who haven’t had a seat at the table?
Post your recommendations in comments.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Conservative Pulse: Noonan on the Republican Party, Mitch for VP?, and more at The Liberty Preservation Alliance
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 05/16/08
- Interesting McCain Speech « Tai-Chi Policy
- Invitation To A McCain Blogger Conference Call - Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts.
- Liberty Pundit
- Advice for McCain « Obi’s Sister
- Access to 2008 Candidates for Prez: What It Might Mean for Bloggers
- Meet the New Press… International Baccalaureate-Palooza!
- GraniteGrok
- The Republican Party’s Resident Minority show’s her lameness « The American Nationalist News Service
- The McCain Blogger Call, again (!) | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- Radio Left
- Tragic Tales of Woe « The Poor Man Institute
- Michelle Malkin » 31,072 scientists John McCain needs to talk to
- McCain excludes Malkin from blog conference calls - Southern Maryland Community Forums
- Blogs Receive More Clout Than Ever in 2008 Presidential Campaign | Blog World Expo Blog
- Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » It’s About Time
- The Other McCain: RNC/McCain fusion
- McCain excludes Malkin from blog conference calls - Southern Maryland Community Forums
- Michelle Malkin » When the shoe is on the other foot
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain
Legal Insurrection
» Will The Truth Be Hasan's Last Victim?
The Powers That Be
» US Intel Knew Hasan Was Trying to Contact Al QaedaYourish.com
» Tom Friedman urges Bush policy on IsraelHot Air
» Iran to Obama: Pound sandThe Other McCain
» Because Paul Krugman cares so much about the Republican PartyCommentary
» Bad Policy and Bad Politics Meet
That puts you in a very small minority, good luck with that.
#98:
I despise this argument; it’s so disingenuous. What this argument boils down to is: if you don’t vote for the winner, then you’ve wasted your vote. As I stated above, my principles and beliefs – my core – are what guide me, not a letter in parenthesis behind someone’s name.
You deserve flak for this statement. Republican principles (at least the conservative/libertarian ones it is supposed to be based on) are what has made America the most successful society in history. Respect for individual rights and freedoms, and a freedom from government oppression is paramount to a free and open society. What you are advocating is the worst kind of totalitarian socialism. The devil’s trade of freedom for security, an implicit trust in big government to make you safer from international boogeymen.
Re: #58
wise_man,
Many will agree with your criticism of my referring to McCain as a “POS.” Fair enough…hot rhetoric is not privileged against a critical response.
What amazes me is that you lump right into the same basket my criticism of other blogs (like Powerline) for participating in McCain blogger Q&As that explicitly exclude MM.
Your idea of what is over-the-top McCain derangement includes criticizing him for shutting out so responsible and important a conservative voice as MM merely because she is critical of him?
Your expectation of everyone getting into line takes my breath away.
let me help ya griz
Hippies and anti-war people
ban transfats and things “bad” for you, make porn more mainstream, and legalize pot
Drug legalization jargon.
I’m guessing advocacy for gay marriage/unions, but this could stretch to lower age limits for minor/adult relations, as well as overturning of sodomy statutes in certain states, etc.
cynical a bit, but had to help
On May 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am, jkstewart2 said:
If your central issue is the war on terrorism, then yea, mcamnesty is the guy for sure. Unfortunately for me, massive immigration (especially illegal) is the central issue. And I am completely hosed on this issue with these candidates. Terrorism is a concern, but how can we truly fight terrorism while levaing the borders wide open and allowing muslims to immigrate here legally which are the same group repsonsible for 99% of all terrorism around the world (god forbid I said the obvious). While at the same time importing millions of uneducated socialist loving illiterates who will suck off the gov’t teat. What good is stamping out terrorism around the world, which is relatively small threat to us currently, if the homeland devolves into a broke, minority squabbling, 3rd world hellhole?
#101:
AG, I don’t care if my beliefs are popular or are reflective of the majority. I’m not a sapling that bends in the wind of popular opinion. My roots are strong.
I was really hoping you’d answer my questions, or at least hoped they would have given you pause for thought, but I am optimistic at times. Instead, a dismissive comment that didn’t acknowledge them at all.
So why is it ok for local, state and federal government to regulate something completely legal – cigarettes. Oh yeah…right…all this 2nd hand smoke that’s cause people to drop like flies – by the way – I don’t smoke..This is a completely liberal issue. They seem to be very concerned nowadways about those who smoke.
No to McCain, yes to voting. We can sit around and talk about about how you HAVE to vote McCain because blah blah blah, but there are six months left and you have given up. No to McCain!
This election is so obviously about more than just parties and much of it comes down to control of the country by Congress. Listen to McCain and he talks about it all the time. The history of the US is laden with struggles between congress and the President, between the courts and Congress, between the states and the federal gov’t and these will continue. The fact we have three Senators running for Pres (yes I realize soon it will be only two) only confirms one thing and that is that Congress will win the Presidency. McCain wants to fill he cabinets positions and others with democrats and other congressional fellows.
We gave up on our ability to allow our own states to run the government years ago unfortunately and this will just be another capitulation, but this time of the executive branch to the legislative.
This election is so much more about control by the central gov’t against the people than it is about parties and unfortuantely, up until this time, we have no candidate.
#105:
you are way off the mark on all of that. for example, libertarians are not advocating the ban of transfats or anything “bad for you”. quite the opposite. and for the record, i’m peaceful and honest, and i am neither a hippie nor anti-war. I don’t think you understand libertarianism at all.
You act as if I don’t know anything about Libertarians and that you are one. I get what you stand for, and I agree with some points of Libertarians and disagree on a whole lot more of them, hence why I fit in with the conservative camp (the one that tends to post here the most since this is a conservative blog).
Give me Ronald Reagan any day, best President I ever lived under. It’s a shame we haven’t been able to produce anything close since then to lead this great country.
#108:
apart from government buildings, it isn’t ok. not in my book.
Ahhh…I think it is that part where you not only smacked around people who are harshly critical of John McCain but also people who have been harshly critical of George Bush.
If John McCain were a Captain of a Naval ship there would be an investigation launched centering around the morale problem on board. When it was discovered what he has been doing he would be relieved of command. I saw an article referring to the McCain mutiny but that’s wrong McCain is no Captain Queeg he’s worse. McCain is reaching out to the left, thats right, the same people that have taken the side of islamists over our troops. If anyone thinks he will fight the islamists as they should be fought I’m more inclined to believe there will be more reach out programs under him, you know, brining them here so we don’t have to fight them there. The trouble is McCain has never been right in the past so why would anyone think he will be right in the future? If someone is wrong time after time hoping they will all of a sudden get it right is a dream a gamble, it’s a lotta hope on the premise that he will change. The immigration debate and his subsequent smackdown by the people made him mad real mad, he lost face heads are going to roll. Well maybe he understands the enemy better than I thought.
No, I was just disappointed that you didn’t answer my questions and instead chose to go with a dismissive, sarcastic response.
I agree. Unfortunately, the man is dead and he’s not going to be running for president any time in the future.
McCain’s thinking is transparent enough: unlike 2004, in which George Bush won with a huge get-out-the-vote effort by the Republican base, in 2008 it will be the political center – true independents and “moderates” of both parties – that decides.
With maybe a little less than 6 months to election day, there’s nothing to change the smart money bet that 2008 is going to be a bad year for Republicans; “victory” may turn out to be nothing more than preventing the donkeys from gaining veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress while hanging onto the presidency.
Things are this bad partly because the conservative base is upset and demoralized. If they rely on a 2004-style grass-roots mobilization, Republicans — not only McCain — might as well concede every race right now.
But more important from McCain’s perspective is that the Republican brand stinks right now — not only with conservatives, but with a lot of folks in the center as well. Lose the center this year, and it doesn’t matter whether the base supports you or not.
Playing the numbers, the question becomes whether by campaigning as a moderate and a centrist instead of as a conservative McCain can gain enough ground in the middle to make up for the lukewarm support he’s going to get from the conservatives. It’s still too early to tell what the answer will be.
*sigh*
OK. Go ahead and make your “statement” by not voting. Or throw away your vote (yep, throw it away) on this election’s “flavor of the month” third party candidate.
kahn, your principles and beliefs won’t matter much when we have a president in power that just may start throwing away some of our constitutional rights (can you say serious assault on the second amendment? how about the “fairness doctrine”?) Frankly, I’d just as soon not take that chance.
Just don’t complain when President Obama takes office with control of the house and the senate. After all, McCain is worse than Obama or Clinton, right?
I fear for my country.
Point taken Khan; I was reading Times while in the doctor’s office not too long ago and came across an article that I thought summed up the differences between leaning heavily in the Libertarian view vs Conservative view:
Times article
Honestly people, how the hell did this guy get the GOP nomination? INCONCEIVABLE! It sickens me every time I think about it.
Re: khan
I always enjoy reading your comments. Calling out republicans who want strict government enforcement of social norms and religious doctrine shows a real schism in the republican party. The term ‘Social Conservative’ is used to identify people who are actually supporting ‘Social Authoritarianism’ which makes the former label an oxymoron. A true ‘Social Conservative’ would advocate that drugs/prostitution/homosexuality/alcohol are despicable vices, but they would recognize people’s freedom to choose to partake. Authoritarians depend on their government to enforce their morality on the general populace, for the greater good.
Of course, dependence on government leads only to bigger and more oppressive government, and little to negative impact on the vices targeted.
If we do have a split in the republican party it will be with the true conservatives leaving. The republican party will be left with the authoritarians and globalists, who advocate for bigger government in every aspect of the publics life.
When did I advocate totalitarian socialism? I’m not voting for Obummer. That’s where that kind of socialism will come from.
To be clear, so I do not give the wrong impression.
I will not vote for a democrat. No matter how disappointed I will be in McCain, the only way we have any chance of even being considered is with a republican in office.
I will not be a part of turning complete control of our economy, our values, our military and our foreign policy over to a Democrat controlled, House, Senate and Executive Branch.
With 2 impending Supreme Court retirements awaiting January 20, 2009. You can be assured those will be Bader-Ginsburg clones under a democrat adminsitration.
No matter how disappointing a McCain presidency will be, I will not turn my back and cede complete top to bottom control of this great country to a democrat party which is more and more embracing of socialism each day.
If you imagine a McCain presidency, like I do, to be an impending disappointment. Take the emotion out of it and look at the alternative option.
I vote and will vote this time. I have been disappointed before, sometimes with the results. Both of the winner and the resulting winners choices. But I vote.
Turn your back if you want. I cannot. I will do as much as I can to have my little voice heard.
For those willing to work for the future of this party, you have a partner.
For those who are reassessing what their core values are, we will be here waiting for you.
As for me, some of my core values are, a strong military, Conservative politicians who believe the government best serves the people when it protects and serves the people.
Not when it bleeds and feeds.
The government best serves the people when it gets out of the way of business, not when it treats business as an adversary.
Government is best when it treats the peoples earnings as the peoples instead of treating the people as an ATM to be abused.
I could go on, but this is not about me, what we do in the next few months and next few elections will determine the future direction of our country.
I cannot guarantee anything other than that I will be engaged.
How about you?
I would, in counter, debate that point for a moment.
Incarceration for drugs…its against the law right now. that is the penalty.
There is anecdotal evidence, and plenty of source, of offenders using or attempting to purchase drugs, that commit a wide variety of offenses that in fact deprive people of life, liberty, and property.
Not to mention the destruction these people bring on themselves by its use.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s especially true in the case of narcotics.
Analysis right on the money, I think.
#108:
So if you vote for John McCain, and he loses, then you’ve wasted your vote; you’ve thrown your vote away. This is in essence what you are saying. There is no such thing as “throwing away” one’s vote when a person casts his vote for the person he wants to hold office.
Funny that you mention a president in power throwing away some of our constitutional rights, because I immediately thought of John McCain and his unconstitutional McCain-Feingold act.
Oh, I’ll complain, and I’ll have every right to since I’m not going to be the nitwit who voted for any of them.
If you think McCain is any different than Obama or Clinton, you’re fooling yourself. Wacko-eco policies, his wanting to cap profits and wall st., his amnesty plans, etc.
Here’s a question:
How does McCain plan on reconciling his calls for tax cuts and also implementing his carbon cap and trade scheme?
How can one honestly lower the overall tax rate for businesses and individuals in America, if we are going to implement the massive taxes and regulation which will be required for caps and trading?
I already know the answer – you can’t – but it would be nice to hear the question asked.
Regulus,
It is certainly true that this is going to be a bad year for Republicans. In fact, I think the party finished, and no one did more to bring on the end than John McCain. Now, he is feasting on the carcass.
Now that I’m “done” for the summer, how about throwin’ Doc at the Autopsy a bone? My loyal readership of 4 people and 12,568,931 Russian spambots would like the exposure!
Honestly, we’ve had one for the last eight years. Plus, McCain has already sponsored and passed legislation that shreds our first amendment.
Yes, it is. I would like the law abolished.
Those other offenses are illegal and would still be illegal if drugs were decriminalized and legalized. Buying drugs and using drugs does not infringe on anyone else’s life, liberty, or property.
That’s fine in my book. They are personally responsible for their decisions and for themselves.
That is in line with what I’ve said: Hence money would be better spent on treatment, rehabilitation, turning their lives around, and turning them into contributing taxpayers rather than societal leeches.
The bottom line is that the “war on drugs” is a failure: “Study after study has shown that he most cost-effective way to reduce drug use in the U.S. is through treatment, not through criminalization and law enforcement. Americans just have this puritanical need to punish those who get involved in drugs. Stupid? Sure they’re stupid. Weak? Yeah, they’re weak. Stupidity and weakness aren’t crimes. We could save billions of dollars a year in law enforcement and incarceration costs if we would wise up and stop this absurd war on drugs. Identify the users and offer them treatment. Crime rate goes down. Money is saved, and we get reduced usage and dependence on drugs.”
Governmentdrone said: “kahn, your principles and beliefs won’t matter much when we have a president in power that just may start throwing away some of our constitutional rights (can you say serious assault on the second amendment? how about the “fairness doctrine”?) Frankly, I’d just as soon not take that chance.”
Ummmm – I would not bring up trampling on constitutional rights as an argument FOR McCain.
Really? I thought that one had passed the Supreme Court’s “constitutionality” test. Everybody always says that it’s unconstitutional, but I haven’t seen the Supremes throw it out yet.
In response to the first part of that: Always nice to see BDS on display.
In response to the second part of that: see my response above to khan.
Other than Michelle, the blogger I would most like to see question McCain is Dave Burge. It could lead to some interesting answers. Plus it would have the added benefit of being entertaining, which the Republicans could use this cycle.
OK. Again, I haven’t seen where the Supreme Court has ruled McCain/Feingold unconstitutional. Or did I miss something? If I did, please provide me a link. If I have been so asleep as to miss that, then I will gladly stop posting here forever . . . I would even consider handing in my “American Citizen” card, because it would mean that I missed something of massive importance to this nation.
Just to make it clear (once again for those who skipped over my first post) I’M NOT A MCCAIN FAN. I just think that even with his flaws (and there are plenty), he’s a darned sight better than any of the alternatives.
Michelle,
Don’t know about other conservative bloggers, since I don’t have a handle on just who he includes now.
But, I believe he needs to address not only his promises at CPAC, but the growing sense of abandonment by conseratives.
I don’t think anyone has come out and stated this in so many words, but there appears to be a rising and well-founded fear among conservatives that if McCain is elected, it will send a strong message to the Republican Party that conservatives are irrelevant to the future of the party.
Since McCain has secured the nomination, his rhetoric and that of his supporters has been harsh on conservatives within his own party. He has chosen to employ the stick on his own party, while reserving the carrot for the liberal camp.
Further, while McCain committed to keep an open mind, that has not been the case. He has not budged on any issues of concern to conservatives. To the contrary, he has gone further left on issues of immigration, global warming and energy policy.
No voter wants to vote themselves into irrelevance, which a vote for McCain will do for conservatives. Will voting for McCain eliminate a voice for conservatives within the Republican Party? At this point, it appears that the answer to that question is “yes”.
The supreme court has been shredding the Constitution for decades. Simply because they say it doesn’t make something right.
Any good conservative should have a healthy amount of BDS, and trying to straw man me with it only exposed you as a lemming(R).
Re: governmentdrone
Here
Hmm. And I thought we were a nation of laws, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate authority.
Guess I was wrong.
Hmm again. A “good” conservative should exhibit traits of irrational distrust and hatred of anything associated with President Bush?
Sounds to me more like you’ve exposed yourself as a lemming(D).
Ace from Ace of Spades, I know he can be rough sometimes but he is spot on a lot of the time.
Maybe Snooper from a site called A Newt One
Jenn from Jenn of the Jungle
Because it hasn’t come before the Supreme Court, only portions and provisions have.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4633.html
Nice try, but:
“the ruling does not affect the main provision of the campaign finance law, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns”
Also, government drone:
Give me an example of Bush upholding the 10th amendment. And was I dreaming, or did Bush and a couple of senators give the end around themselves on a sovereign state’s supreme court ruling regarding Schiavo?
You still lost your own bet though, the Supreme Court did find that the 1st Amendment rights had been violated. Thus proving the intended point that McCain trampled on the Constitution.
You are wrong. None of the three branches of federal government is an ultimate authority. Have you never heard the branches referred to as “separate but equal”?
Looks like it’s curtains for your “American Citizen” card.
I want John McCain to answer one question.
If we continue to allow undocumented individuals, as well as enormous numbers of documented individuals from questionable countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Pakistan) into this country, at what point does it become fighting them over here instead of fighting them over there?
If this continues for another 30 days, I’d like to see what defense those of you who still support McCain will offer…it should be interesting reading
If we vote the courts intervene and overturn results. When we vote our politicians don’t listen to us. We have but one alternative and that’s the wallet. This is what they respect above all they talk about it non stop. Liberals are cheap and try in every way to avoid paying taxes insurance they seek out OPM through guvment programs etc. Conservatives spend money provide jobs pay their fair share and refuse the guvments assistance. The result is that the conservative group continues to drive the economy the liberals continue to do whatever they want and so do the pols. We must stop all unnecessary spending, cut our purchases of gas to a bare minimum tighten up the belt at work or in the companies we own. If you must hire someone make sure they are conservative not to do so is a bad business decision and bad for the country as well.
When the trough starts to dry up they will begin to get the message. Its time to put the squeeze on them it will be tough for awhile you will have to think before you buy and you will have to go without some things you are accustomed to but the ultimate goal, saving our country is a worthy one. This will help all-round illegal’s will leave at a faster rate, the Chinese will slow their deliveries of junky or dangerous goods, welfare programs will become overburdened and will be forced to cut back. The ingrates will begin to feel the pain. They have taken away the power of our vote, they are deliberately sneaking unpopular legislation into bills in the middle of the night but the power of capitalism is still in your purse or back pocket. They will never dare to tell you just how much power you have and remember that the only way to curtail that power is through socialism, hmmmm.
I wish, but it’ll probably be the same old crap we see everyday: “McCain is bad, but not as bad as Obama”, or “McCain won’t surrender”. Stuff like that.
Not quite. I said that the Supreme Court hadn’t overturned McCain/Feingold. Maybe parts of it, but McCain/Feingold still stands. Doesn’t mean I like it, but it still stands.
It’s kinda like Roe v. Wade. Parts of it have been overturned by the Supreme Court, but Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. I might not like it (I don’t – this should be a state’s rights issue IMHO) but it’s still the law of the land.
How so? Here’s the short version: Congress passes bills. The President can sign these bills or veto them. If signed, these bills become laws. The Supreme Court, if called upon, rules on the constitutionality of such laws. If ruled unconstitutional, it is incumbent upon Congress to pass a new law that will have the intended effect but remain within the Constitution should they so desire. Neither Congress nor the President has the power to rule on the constitutionality of such laws.
You wish.
Really, we could go back and forth all day, but what’s the point? You have your opinion, I have mine. I’m willing to simply say that I agree to disagree.
And with that, farewell for today. The real world is calling.
The Supreme Court is not the final arbitrer of what is and what is not constititional. At least, that power is never given to them in the Constitution.
Mr. McCain?
One question…
I have an internet friend, who lives in Canada, and has been trying, for eight years, along with her husband, to gain, legally, Citizenship in this country, but they’re all wrapped up in red tape, and all but given up hope…She’s a nurse, and he’s a construction contractor, who has been doing business in this country…Two prospective, productive people, who would be a benefit to our Nation, and who I would be proud to call Fellow Citizens.
What do you say to them?
Except that this isn’t a matter of opinion.
Has anyone seen this Rush legal immigration video? I’ll just direct you to the page the links at the top middle for now it’s a link to a media player pop up. He’s absolutely right.
Michelle, be sure to ask McCain why don’t we just make remove the incentives for illegal immigrants to stay (by instituting employer sanctions, biometric ID, no welfare benefits, and so on) so they will just leave on their own. He’s talked before about how impractical it would be busing 12,000,000 back to Mexico. Well, they will leave if there’s nothing for them here. How does he feel about that? Does he think it’s a good idea, or does he think it’s inhumane? I’d like to get him on the record there. It’s a fair question.
The issue to which I was referring was whether or not McCain would be preferable to Obama/Clinton.
Sorry I wasn’t specific.
Really? Who is then? Tri-Lateral Commission? Freemasons?
I’m serious. I’d like to know. It sure isn’t either the legislative or executive branch.
That is an EXCELLENT question! I would truly love to hear his answer. Well done!
Thank you and well said. Importing muslims, albeit not all are bad, is a sure fire way to bring the terorist fight to our own front yard.
Connie
Exactly. Easy answer is: chaos makes the sheeple easier to control. Bring the USA down to a third world level and you have control. Our leaders have long admired other governments control over their populace. They can do anything they want….and they do. Look at our failing schools for example. Self-esteem and gay rights is what they teach…..not math, science, reading, writing etc. etc. The dumbing down of our society is in high gear. Ask most high school kids ANYTHING about the constitution and they look at you with blank stares…..but ask them about stupid sh!t like who won on American idol or who that tramp Kardashian is sleeping with this week….and they sure know the answers to that crap. We are doomed if we let this continue. But…then again…we get what we deserve.
One last thought:
Do I think it’s a good idea to hold McCain’s feet to the fire on issues we disagree with him on? ABSOLUTELY. I agree that he’s thumbed his nose at conservatives – taking us for granted or even outright dismissing us. Bad move on his part. And a bad campaign strategy overall on his part. To quote Rush: “Conservatism works every time it’s tried.”
However, I still maintain that as bad as a McCain presidency would be, it would still be far preferable to Obama/Clinton. Ah A Lion!, you may think it’s the “same old crap”, but it’s true nonetheless.
Governmentdrone – I agree to disagree. However, doesn’t it make you sick deep inside that you have to defend this McCain?
I would only be proud to call them fellow citizens if your friend….who is a construction contractor….were to come here and hire ONLY US citizens to work with. If he comes down to the USA and hires a bunch of mexicans…which he will probably need to in order to compete….then he can stay in Canada for all I care.
Why do I have to say anything to them?
Why should I care that you’d be proud to call them fellow citizens?
This is a very odd question.
Lets assume that there are three billion people on the planet who are hard working and productive.
Does it follow that those three billion should be given entrance to America on that basis?
On May 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm, franksalterego said:
Correct response to your “exception” scenario. “That is bad. And we should have a system that allows people with skills that benefit America to immigrate here instead of the masses of people who do get here which have no skills to offer our great country. We must limit immigration and citizenship, prized resources, to those with the most to offer. The key is to be selective. I propose we set a rating system to be used for immigration candidates (education and skills being paramount). Eliminate chain migration policies. Assylum only in extreme situations. These actions would clear the system of 90% of current applicants and let those wiht the desired qualities to be cleared sooner. And above all, remove all illegal aleins in the US currently.”
What’s this “us” stuff? I’ve seen no sign that you’re a conservative at all.
More than you’ll ever know. And word that he’s got Lindsay Graham on his short list for veep may be enough to push me over the edge and join the ranks of non-voters for POTUS. I’m disgusted and frankly a little ashamed of myself for defending him.
My biggest disappointment this campaign season? The fact that a great conservative like JC Watts hasn’t found a way to get into this whole mess somehow. And as a Husker fan, it hurts a little every time I praise JC.
Seriously, it’s guys like Watts that the Republican party ought to be hanging their hats on. Solid young conservatives that unabashedly cling to their core principles and who have the charisma to win elections. When I looked at the crop that ran for the GOP this time around, all I could do was shake my head and wonder where in the world the future of the conservative movement was.
Saddest part? It’s been less than 4 years since we really had liberalism on the ropes in this country. Why, oh why couldn’t we deliver the knockout blow? I guess because the Republican Party has always been the masters of shooting themselves in the foot. That and the fact that we allowed the “country club” wing of the party to take it back over.
Hey Flenser:
Get a life. And maybe stop taking “bitter” pills. Just because I disagree with you over whether McCain is “worthy” of your vote doesn’t mean you know me, my philosophy, or my core beliefs.
I’ve been voting for conservatives (of any party), campaigning for conservatives (of any party), and working for conservatives (of any party) probably longer than you’ve been alive. So back off.
If I were to play your game, I’d say you sound more like a fascist than a conservative, but that would be wrong. So I won’t.
I sure wish a candidate from either party would pander to me…a middle class, law-abiding, tax paying, mortgage paying, recycling, parent with kids in public school.
I feel like I haven’t been represented by anybody at any level of government in years…if ever.
I believe that John McCain should always be treated with respect and although he should answer the tough questions, I don’t think that personal insults directed at him solve anything. I disagree with McCain on alot of issues, particularly domestic ones. But I believe that any soldier, sailor or airman who lived through the hell of a NorthVietNamese prison deserves to be respected with respect. I live near a big navy base in SoCal and one of the guys I see from time to time at the local NFCU is a former POW who knew McCain from that era. Although this man, like McCain, doesn’t talk much about his captivity, I asked him one day if he could talk a little about what he remembered of John McCain. And he told me alot of things about John McCain that the public generally does not know. The torture that McCain endured was horrific and it involved the tying of his arms and other things that should never be done to any American soldier or sailor. And through it all, McCain never flinched. Yes, he is dead wrong on immigration and dead wrong on hobnobbing with liberal media types. But all the guys who were POWs deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect. That is what makes America a special place
Ditkaca #170 – I’m right there with ya!
Thinking of giving amnesty to illegals … they’ve made a choice to break the law in a most sweeping and flagrant way. Their whole status is a lie, is the breaking of the immigration laws. Are these the kind of “hard working people” we want to naturalize as citizens? Probably not.
I do not understand the continuing whining in this forum about McCain and illegal immigration. He promised us that he would “build the goddamn fence.” And his increased political clout has already had an amazing, salutary effect on this problem. He was able to announce only this week that “our southern border is now secure.” And people think he has not come around on this problem? Such skpetics. [/sarcasm]
Husker fan???
41-6
OK. How about “Game of the Century”.
Talk is cheap.
It would be liberal. Liberals are the people who describe everything they don’t like as “fascist”. I’d be more impressed with your claimed conservatism if you were aware of that.
Hey Flenser, I’m still waiting on who that “ultimate arbitrer (sic)” of issues of constitutionality is.
You’re growing tiresome.
And how will electing McCain as President help us take the party back from the “country club” set, aka the Chamber of Commerce?
Still waiting, flenser.
You’re not growing tiresome, you are tiresome. And ignorant.
Who had the say to begin with as to the Constitution? Was it the Supreme Court? Did they create the same Constitution which created themselves?
Still waiting for what, drone?
Still waiting.
Nice personal attack, btw.
Still waiting for what, drone?
One last time:
Who is the final arbiter of constitutional issues? You said it wasn’t the Supreme Court. Who then is it? I ask again, is it the Tri-Lateral Commission, or perhaps the Freemasons? Maybe some other super-secret society which we don’t even know exists.
I have never met a conservative who thinks that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does.
And I’m pretty sure that I did not meet one today.
Of couse, I suppose only a “fascist” would say ssuch things. We all recall how the fascists were opposed to arbitrary and unaccountable power and in favor of democracy.
Surely a “long time conservative activist” such as yourself has read the Federalist papers? What is the conservative answer to your question, Mr Conservative?
flenser, why don’t you just admit that you were wrong, and that you don’t know diddly about the structure of American Government.
I would imagine that you think we have a democracy in this country.
Take any civics classes?
BTW, it’s people like you that give conservatism a bad name.
Yeah, they are fascinating. I would suggest you try reading them sometime.
Big Vision thing?
Cut from the lyrics of Sisters of Mercy’s Vision Thing:
“Take back what I paid
For another mother****er in a motorcade”
Don’t they Vet slogans anymore?
- The Cat
You’re a fraud, drone. If you’re a conservative, I’m the King of Siam. No conservative accepts the notion that the SCOTUS has the final say as to the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not say that. The Court has claimed that power for itself.
I’ll match my knowledge of them up against yours any time, Mr Liberal.
What exactly do you think conservatism is? Based on your long time conservative activism, perhaps you can answer that question.
I would imagine you think we have an oligarchy in this country. Spare me your high school level knowledge of politics.
#188:
This coming from someone who called the Supreme Court “the ultimate authority.”
Flenser:
WHO HAS THE FINAL SAY AS TO ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? IF NOT THE SCOTUS, THEN WHO?
You have masterfully avoided answering this question, however you still have not answered it.
As to what type of government we have, you again take the tack of giving a wordy and combative non-answer.
To save you the trouble of further non-answers on this question, we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
Next you’ll be telling me that we have a fundamental right to vote on the national level in this country.
Spare me your nursery school level knowledge of government (note I said government, not politics – that’s what these questions have been about. But given your level of competence, it’s nothing more than I would have expected.)
et tu khan?
I’ll ask you the same question I have been asking flenser:
Who has the ultimate authority to determine the constitutionality of laws in the United States? If not the SCOTUS, then who or what body?
flenser,
not that I give a darn what you think, but unlike you, I’ll give you an answer:
Conservatism is the belief that smaller government is better. It is the belief that federal government should have a limited role in the lives of citizens. It is a belief that people should depend on themselves and not the government. It is the belief that private enterprise works wonderfully and would work even better if government quit regulating and taxing it to death. Conservatism is the belief that social ills are better addressed through the local community, charities and churches rather than the federal government. Conservatism is the belief that the main function of government is to provide for the common defense of the states. Conservatism is the belief that anybody, even you flenser, is entitled to their opinion and should have the freedom to express that opinion. Conservatism is the belief that “government schools” is an oxymoron.
Conservatism is all these things and more.
Now, how about answering my question?
I can’t help but notice that you have managed not to answer any questions yourself, in spite of your assurances that you are a font of wisdom.
The final authority on the Constitution are it’s creators. Who are they? The Constitution makes that clear, as do the Federalist papers. It is “the People” who created the Constitution, and who have the final say on it.
To quote Hamilton in Federalist 84, discussing press freedom, “What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.”
Not the Supreme Court. All our rights stem from the general spirit of the people and are protected by it.
Your whole “judicial supremacy” schtick is NOT what conservatives believe. Here is counter opinion from the “fascists” at National Review.
But the entire conservative legal project is built on a rejection of the sort of sweeping powers you want to grant the SCOTUS. Have your ever read Bork? Levin? Any conservative legal opinion?