This a great Ad and hope the Latino’s will start ramping up in support of John McCain, b/c we will need them if hope to compete in these states that’s for sure.
The money statement here is that “they must come into this country legally.” The example cited by McCain in that ad was of “non-citizen green card holders.” Please note that “non-citizen green card holders” are still legal immigrants. I don’t see an issue here. If Hispanics truly think & feel that Republicans are racists as some do, then they won’t ever be voting Republican anyway (assuming of course that they can legally vote).
And what is with this COO of the Federal Government thing? Isn’t that called a cabinet position or the VP slot? If a cabinet position can’t do the job, and if the VP is not up to it, then where or how would a COO of the Federal Government fit in?
cwpete, that distinction would be lost on Hispanics and there’d be no point running the ad if McCain was about to saddle himself with all of Romney’s anti-immigrant rhetoric from the primaries.
Re COO, it would be a new position. Your guy suggested it. Go find out what he said about it.
As for policies, character, and mutual respect… if McCain is looking at primary opponents, Huckabee is the ticket.
All indications are that McCain still thinks Romney is an opportunist without deep convictions.
Just the primary fight over torture between McCain and Romney must leave such a bad taste in McCain’s mouth that Romney is not going to be the pick. Add all the other issues with which they spared and Romney’s attack ads, which were taken bitterly, and no way.
Metro, Can you name one thing that Romney said or did in the primaries that is contrary to what is in this ad? Romney CONSTANTLY throughout the primaries extolled the virtues of immigrants in this nation. He went out of his way to make a point of how valuable the contribution of the legal immigration system to this country has been.
Okay well I’ll give you a few starting points because they are not too hard to find - first of all he made an ad about it and secondly he said it in EVERY DEBATE
Here’s one direct quote: “I believe it’s important to end illegal immigration so we can maintain and encourage legal immigration. Immigration is good for this country; it’s helped us over our history. We need immigration to provide some of the skills that we may miss, migrant workers, and cultural advantages.”
Can we differentiate between “anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric” please? Many liberals can’t make that distinction because since the only thing they know how to do is divide & race-bate. To them, any talk against illegal immigration is racist. Romney’s rhetoric was clearly anti-illegal immigrant.
Why do you suppose Tancredo’s mug was there it two spots of that ad? One front & center? One could make the argument that doing so would remind voters of who Tancredo is and cause them to recall his positions. It could backfire by reminding Hispanics how racist all us Republicans are. I think it was there to differentiate McCain from some of the more extreme immigrant elements of our party.
If Romney could be included within the extreme immigrant elements of our party on the topic of immigration, if Romney were not in the running for VP, then you may have seen his picture there instead of Tancredo’s.
The problem is that most folks on this and other GOP sites are part of the Republican base. As polls show, on issue after issue, the Republican base is disconnected from the rest of the electorate to the greatest extent since 1992, and possibly since 1932.
So members of the GOP base are assuredly going to expect McCain to do things that excite THEM because they assume those things will excite everyone else. But McCain knows how to poll and the polls show that what folks want are messages like this on issues like immigration, as opposed to the Tancredoite message that the base wants. The base is going to continue to be surprised at all of McCain’s apostasies until it learns to read polls and figures out that most people no longer believe what most Republicans believe.
Incidentally, this plus Carly Fiorina winking to pro-choicers plus the Concord Coalition-style budget policy that came out earlier this week from Team McCain suggests to me that there is a move within the camp to clothe McCain in full centrist jacket. I’m DaveG and I approve that message.
I think that was the debate where Tancredo attacked McCain’s immigration bill, which is what triggered that response(and why the camera focused on Tancredo).
Here is my question about this ad. Its patriotic and reflects McCain’s respect for Hispanic veterans, but what is the message? The answer is that it is an immigration ad and it is promoting McCain’s “comprehensive reform.” Well, that does not go over well with conservatives and for that reason its a bit risky.
It was at that moment in the debate that I decided to support McCain, even though I had sworn that I would never vote for a Republican after the Bush disaster.
I assume that the only good VP pick for McCain would be a clone of himself? NO Republican, especially NO conservative is going
to be a perfect match for McCain on the issues because McCain’s instincts are neither Republican or Conservative! He’s a Maverick,
period. A Maverick by definition doesn’t agree with one person all the time. The only requirement his VP needs his competence,
experience and the ability to suck it up and toe the McCain line. This is why Romney has already been chosen.
If Romney could be included within the extreme immigrant elements of our party on the topic of immigration, if Romney were not in the running for VP, then you may have seen his picture there instead of Tancredo’s.
I’m not sure that’s accurate. McCain would have more to lose in NV and CO by pissing off the Romney supporters. If he hones in on Tancredo in an ad he can get the message across that he is not of the Tancredo mindset - and not alienate Mormons whose votes he’ll need. Immigration is, after all, the issue that Tancredo is known for. Romney, while he took a harder approach to the subject in the primaries, doesn’t automatically conjure up the image of being anti-immigrant.
That has to be a tape (voice) over b/c there ain’t no way he spoke that eloquently on debate night.
I remember it turning my stomach when it was said live.
Mitt and McCain’s position on illegal immigration were not that far apart. Mitt even said that in one of the debates. Mitt just continually held to his belief that illegal immigrants would not have a special path to citizenship, and tried to get McCain to get more specific on his views on that matter. Mitt plenty of provision by which they were allowed to stay under different scenarios, but never barge in front of those who had been legally waiting in line for citizenship for years, something most of us I sure as heck hope would agree with. Its certainly something that would be hard to argue against. McCain just ignored that aspect and hoped he could get by with it, and being the media daring of that time, he was able to.
John did a good job on that answer in the debates. And of what he said I would not argue any portion of it. Its what he did not say that cause he and Romney to differ on the issue.
The whole “Romney is anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic” theme was wrong. Romney is definitely anti-illegal immigrant. There is such a huge difference. Tell me what is wrong with being anti-illegal immigrant?
On #30. The fact is for many years the U.S. basically said (not explicitly mind you) “you can come illegally and we won’t prosecute you”. It’s not fair to now say “you broke the law and we’re kicking you out”. It would be like if we suddenly decided to put people in jail for breaking the speed limit YESTURDAY.
Lest you guys think me untruthful, check out what a NY Times writer said about his memory of the Reagan Amnesty Bill. Seems like Romney calling it amnesty lines up with this guys’ memories. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html
A lot of people on this site can’t get over Romney, stop being jeolous guys. He would have made a fantastic president and could still could make a fantastic Vice President. Its funny how some people seem to have an agenda against Romney.
#35 - In some ways I agree with you…we did look the other way for years….But Mitt was not going to kick them out…he was just going to ensure that they could not become citizens before those who had applied legally. they had to go to the back of the line like all of the law abiding citizens…I don’t see how anybody can argue that that is not the proper position.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
This a great Ad and hope the Latino’s will start ramping up in support of John McCain, b/c we will need them if hope to compete in these states that’s for sure.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
And with the release of this ad, people still think he’s going to pick Romney?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
New Gallup Poll Showing Obama now somehow has a 6 Point Lead 48-42.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
2, romney has been worshiping the ground mccain walks on. i’m sure he thinks this ad is Mac’s best yet.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
#4 Which makes the selection of Romney even more remote. Totally unprincipled, the anti-thesis of the theme McCain wants.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Good ad, it made me weepy eyed.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I love how Team McCain focuses on Tancredo’s face there. That little edit makes me even more convinced Romney is not the pick.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
McCain can still announce Romney as his pick for COO of the federal government, a post Romney suggested creating.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Metro,
The money statement here is that “they must come into this country legally.” The example cited by McCain in that ad was of “non-citizen green card holders.” Please note that “non-citizen green card holders” are still legal immigrants. I don’t see an issue here. If Hispanics truly think & feel that Republicans are racists as some do, then they won’t ever be voting Republican anyway (assuming of course that they can legally vote).
And what is with this COO of the Federal Government thing? Isn’t that called a cabinet position or the VP slot? If a cabinet position can’t do the job, and if the VP is not up to it, then where or how would a COO of the Federal Government fit in?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
cwpete, that distinction would be lost on Hispanics and there’d be no point running the ad if McCain was about to saddle himself with all of Romney’s anti-immigrant rhetoric from the primaries.
Re COO, it would be a new position. Your guy suggested it. Go find out what he said about it.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
As for policies, character, and mutual respect… if McCain is looking at primary opponents, Huckabee is the ticket.
All indications are that McCain still thinks Romney is an opportunist without deep convictions.
Just the primary fight over torture between McCain and Romney must leave such a bad taste in McCain’s mouth that Romney is not going to be the pick. Add all the other issues with which they spared and Romney’s attack ads, which were taken bitterly, and no way.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Romney is a man of no principles. Huckabee is a man of wrong principles. Won’t be either.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Metro, Can you name one thing that Romney said or did in the primaries that is contrary to what is in this ad? Romney CONSTANTLY throughout the primaries extolled the virtues of immigrants in this nation. He went out of his way to make a point of how valuable the contribution of the legal immigration system to this country has been.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Not to mention Huckabee would cause the loss of mountain states.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
B Werty, right…. musta missed that. Kind of like the abusive husband who tells his wife how much he loves her from time to time?
July 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Okay well I’ll give you a few starting points because they are not too hard to find - first of all he made an ad about it and secondly he said it in EVERY DEBATE
Here’s one direct quote: “I believe it’s important to end illegal immigration so we can maintain and encourage legal immigration. Immigration is good for this country; it’s helped us over our history. We need immigration to provide some of the skills that we may miss, migrant workers, and cultural advantages.”
July 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
BWerty:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
July 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Metro,
Can we differentiate between “anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric” please? Many liberals can’t make that distinction because since the only thing they know how to do is divide & race-bate. To them, any talk against illegal immigration is racist. Romney’s rhetoric was clearly anti-illegal immigrant.
Why do you suppose Tancredo’s mug was there it two spots of that ad? One front & center? One could make the argument that doing so would remind voters of who Tancredo is and cause them to recall his positions. It could backfire by reminding Hispanics how racist all us Republicans are. I think it was there to differentiate McCain from some of the more extreme immigrant elements of our party.
If Romney could be included within the extreme immigrant elements of our party on the topic of immigration, if Romney were not in the running for VP, then you may have seen his picture there instead of Tancredo’s.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The problem is that most folks on this and other GOP sites are part of the Republican base. As polls show, on issue after issue, the Republican base is disconnected from the rest of the electorate to the greatest extent since 1992, and possibly since 1932.
So members of the GOP base are assuredly going to expect McCain to do things that excite THEM because they assume those things will excite everyone else. But McCain knows how to poll and the polls show that what folks want are messages like this on issues like immigration, as opposed to the Tancredoite message that the base wants. The base is going to continue to be surprised at all of McCain’s apostasies until it learns to read polls and figures out that most people no longer believe what most Republicans believe.
Incidentally, this plus Carly Fiorina winking to pro-choicers plus the Concord Coalition-style budget policy that came out earlier this week from Team McCain suggests to me that there is a move within the camp to clothe McCain in full centrist jacket. I’m DaveG and I approve that message.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think that was the debate where Tancredo attacked McCain’s immigration bill, which is what triggered that response(and why the camera focused on Tancredo).
Here is my question about this ad. Its patriotic and reflects McCain’s respect for Hispanic veterans, but what is the message? The answer is that it is an immigration ad and it is promoting McCain’s “comprehensive reform.” Well, that does not go over well with conservatives and for that reason its a bit risky.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Metro says:
I suspect that you have no data to backup that claim. Huckabee polled better than Romney in just about every region and state in the VP matchups.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Let me just add that I have no problem with this ad and I think it’s smart to show that shot of Tancredo and run it in Colorado.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It was at that moment in the debate that I decided to support McCain, even though I had sworn that I would never vote for a Republican after the Bush disaster.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Donald, odd you’d say that (23) when Bush and McCain are in lock step on immigration.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I like the ad’s message, but I’m not sure it’ll go down well with many of the Republicans that are anti-immigration in general…
July 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Metro, this is the ad you meant being a deal breaker for Romney? ummm….OK.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I assume that the only good VP pick for McCain would be a clone of himself? NO Republican, especially NO conservative is going
to be a perfect match for McCain on the issues because McCain’s instincts are neither Republican or Conservative! He’s a Maverick,
period. A Maverick by definition doesn’t agree with one person all the time. The only requirement his VP needs his competence,
experience and the ability to suck it up and toe the McCain line. This is why Romney has already been chosen.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I’m not sure that’s accurate. McCain would have more to lose in NV and CO by pissing off the Romney supporters. If he hones in on Tancredo in an ad he can get the message across that he is not of the Tancredo mindset - and not alienate Mormons whose votes he’ll need. Immigration is, after all, the issue that Tancredo is known for. Romney, while he took a harder approach to the subject in the primaries, doesn’t automatically conjure up the image of being anti-immigrant.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
That has to be a tape (voice) over b/c there ain’t no way he spoke that eloquently on debate night.
I remember it turning my stomach when it was said live.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Mitt and McCain’s position on illegal immigration were not that far apart. Mitt even said that in one of the debates. Mitt just continually held to his belief that illegal immigrants would not have a special path to citizenship, and tried to get McCain to get more specific on his views on that matter. Mitt plenty of provision by which they were allowed to stay under different scenarios, but never barge in front of those who had been legally waiting in line for citizenship for years, something most of us I sure as heck hope would agree with. Its certainly something that would be hard to argue against. McCain just ignored that aspect and hoped he could get by with it, and being the media daring of that time, he was able to.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
carl,
click the last video (#4). fast-forward to 10:22. It’s verbatim.
http://www.youdecide2008.com/video/cnn-republican-debate-from-new-hampshire-6507/
July 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
John did a good job on that answer in the debates. And of what he said I would not argue any portion of it. Its what he did not say that cause he and Romney to differ on the issue.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The whole “Romney is anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic” theme was wrong. Romney is definitely anti-illegal immigrant. There is such a huge difference. Tell me what is wrong with being anti-illegal immigrant?
July 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
On #33. That must be why Jeb Bush endorsed Romney..oh wait, he didn’t and we all know why.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
On #30. The fact is for many years the U.S. basically said (not explicitly mind you) “you can come illegally and we won’t prosecute you”. It’s not fair to now say “you broke the law and we’re kicking you out”. It would be like if we suddenly decided to put people in jail for breaking the speed limit YESTURDAY.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
#34…
LOL You got any other crap to throw in hopes it sticks? Nice try, but I think you’d better go back to the drawing board.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
#35
Reagan promised Congress and the country that when he got his amnesty bill through it would be the last time and the borders were closed.
So basically you think Congress should keep its unsaid promise to illegal immigrants rather than the fully-documented promise to US citizens?
July 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Lest you guys think me untruthful, check out what a NY Times writer said about his memory of the Reagan Amnesty Bill. Seems like Romney calling it amnesty lines up with this guys’ memories. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html
July 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
A lot of people on this site can’t get over Romney, stop being jeolous guys. He would have made a fantastic president and could still could make a fantastic Vice President. Its funny how some people seem to have an agenda against Romney.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
#35 - In some ways I agree with you…we did look the other way for years….But Mitt was not going to kick them out…he was just going to ensure that they could not become citizens before those who had applied legally. they had to go to the back of the line like all of the law abiding citizens…I don’t see how anybody can argue that that is not the proper position.