Yes, the whiirling, Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate has stopped spinning once again (as it weekly does since I reprised the old "Laugh In" award). "The Finger" (represented by a statuette of an INDEX finger), stopped this week pointing at JOHN McCAIN.
Oh ,thre were others worthy of it. There was the stupidest "global warming" story I have evern seen from the truly despicable Associated Press (see this week's entry about the Koala bear, and how AOL and the AP managed to LIE in their headline, even when you compared the headline with their own stupid, propaganda story). U.S.A. Today managed to do another one of those disgraceful, propaganda stories about our military, using numbers culled by "advocacy groups" with an agenda pouring over every military record they can get their hands on--then DISTORTING the infomration. You have Alan Colmmes acting like the polictical hack he is by putting forth every Democratic Party/leftist talking point about John McCain--even those that make no sense. You have Howard Dean, the DNC, and Barack Obama continuing to FALSELY say that John McCain said that it was "fine with him" if we stayed fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when McCain said no such thing. The Coulumbia School of Journalism, MONTHS AGO (there is an entry in the archives on it), declared that a disgraceful LIE and SMEAR. The LIE, which Democrats seem to want to turn into an Orwellian Big Lie (repeated over and over again until people think it is true) is that McCain was saying that it was okay with himm if the War in Iraq lasts 100 years. McCain almost said the exact OPPOSITE--that it was "fine with me" ONLY if NO Americans are being killed or injured in Iraq. Are Democrats really saying that it would be a BAD thing if Iraq turned into an Germany like ally? We still have troops in Germany more than 60 years after the end of World War II. McCain was merely saying that such a development in Iraq would be "fine with him" AFTER we won the war in Iraq (which he expects we can do relatively quickly). Howard Dean even defended the DNC digraceful LIE (in an ad), by saying that it did not matter that McCain had said that it was "fine" ony if Americans were not being killed or injured, because as long as we are there we will be the target of roadside bombs and explosive devicies. Talk about restating a LIE!!! McCain was saying that it would NOT be "fine" if that was still happening. McCain was merely stating that IF we can get to a position in Iraq where Iraq is an ally, with Americans NOT being killed or injured, then that is "fine with" McCain. How can anyone disagree with that (unless they are promoting a Big Lie)?
Nevertheless, despite all of those potential, worthy places for "the Pinger" to point, it pointed at John McCain. Here is why.
Joh McCain has, during the past week or so, again criticized conservatives who opposed his "comprehensive immigration bill" as "hurting" Republicans by alienating Hipanics. Again, McCain (as he has done in the past) did the next best thing to calling opponents of his bill xenophobes and racists. He said that the WAY people so vehemently opposed his bill drove Latinos away from Republicans.
I repeat what I have said before: It is John McCain and President Bush who have SABOTAGED the Republican Party by this death wish on illegal immigration enforcement--by not favoring such enforcement. This has UNDERMINED any Republican "voice" on the issue. Voters are rightly confused, partly because proponents of lack of encorcement on illegal immgiration (like McCain and Bush, but certainly the leftists who even more strongly favor "open borders") are pursuing a deliberate campaign of DECEPTION.
Then McCain went on O'Reilly for an interview. You will remember how Hillary Clinton evaded and conradicited herself totally on sanctuary cities? Those are cities that refuse to cooperate with Federal law even to the point of reporting illegal immigrants ARRESTED FOR CRIMES. A number of thos illegal immigrants have afterward COMMITTED MURDER. Well, Hillary Clinton first said the leftist "party line": that cities have no choice because of lack of a "comprehensive" immigration reform bill. Then, when O'Reilly confronted her with the specific examples of MURDERS being committed because of the "sanctuary city" policy, she immediately contradicted herself by saying that was unacceptable (without explaining what she would do about it--NOTHING--except try to pass a comprensive, amesty billl). As I have said repeatedly in this blog, in many fore that 50 entries, the pro-illegal immigrant forces are all deception, all of the time.
Can Republicans exploit this insane, leftist idea that we should not even enforce our immigration laws against CRIMINALS? Nope. McCain said essentially the SAME thing as Hillary Clinton. He, too, evaded and squirmed to avoid saying that he would crack down on "sanctuary cities". He, too, eventually said O'Reilly's examples were "unacceptable", while IMMEIDIATELY suggesting that the answer is to pass a comprehensive "reform" bill like he proposed before.
Goodbye, issue. How can Republicans, even those running for Congress, make this an EFFECTIVE issue when the Party has no VOICE on the issue? Barack Obama is probably WORSE than Hillary Clinton on the issue of illegal immigration (certainly at least as bad). It does not matter. McCain can't make it an issue. Worse, he and President Bush have SABOTAGED the ability of ANY Republican candidates to make it an issue (with perhaps an exception here and there).
Sure, McCain repeats that SLOGAN he added after his humiliating defeat on his "comprehensive immigration reform bill". McCain always now says that the American people want to "secure the borders first". Anyone who thinks McCain is serious about this one is not listening (Alan Colmes, for example--see below). This is just another element of "all deception, all of the time". The DEFEATED McCain/Kennedy bill (not Ted Kennedy as a co-sponsor) was modified to try to DECEIVE by suggesting that President Bush had to "certify" that border control measures had gone into effect. Since then, the "vritual fence" has been ABANDONED. There is no indication whatever that we are any further toward "securing our borders".
McCain has merely added a new wrinkle of DECEPTION. He has suggested that it be required that the four "border state" governors "certify" that the borders are secure. Of course, while we are waiting for that absurd "certification", you can safely assume that NO ONE will be deported (except in egregious cases). This is DECEPTION--nothing but DECPETION.
Dirty little secret: The border will NEVER be "secure" (any governor who "certified" otherwise would be a LIAR). Am I saying that border security is useless? Nope. We need to make it as hard as possible for people to cross illegally. But consider the Berlin Wall. They had MACHINE GUNS, and a better wall than we are ever likely to have. We tend to PROSECUTE our border patrol people who shoot illegal immigrants. We are certainlynot machine gunning them. But the Berlin Wall did not stop people from getting OUT (here, of course, they want to get IN to this country, despite the leftist mantra of how bad this country is). Plus, people cross LEGALLY all of the time, with temporary visas. Then they STAY illegally.
It is absolutely clear that we MUST make it HARD for illegal immigrants to STAY here (which we can do, including merely by ENFORCING the matching of names and social security numbers we already do as employers report social security payments with information where FRAUDULENT social security numbers are obvious). Otherwise, we can't stop illegal immigration (as if the people opposing enforcing the law really want to do that).
Is McCain saying that we have to show that we can STOP people from STAYING here before we pass "comprehensive reform". Don't be silly. That is the very purpose of this "comprehensive" dodge: to AVOID making it hard for illegal immigrants to stay here. As I have said, it is all deception, all of the time.
Enter Alan Colmes. Have you ever doubted me that he is a total, unprincipled political hack doing nothing more than spout the Democratic/lefits "party line"? Well, he has again proven my point. In fact, as I have said, I t;hink he considers it his JOB to defend the "liberal"/Democratic Party point of view on all things. I would be ashamed to be Alan Colmes. (If you think I follow anyone's "party line", you have not been reading this blog.).
I saw Alan Colmes say this week, and I only watch him by accident--meaning that he probably is saying it all of the time, that McCain has CHANGED on immigratiion because of this "secure the borders first" deception. Colmes also said that McCain has tried to appease the "religious right". ANYONE who would say those two things shoud never be listened to on politcs. He has no intelletual integrity, and is merely trying to bolster the Democratic Party line that McCain would only be a continuation of President Bush (which, on immigration, he would, but NOT because he is pandering to the "right wing"). As I have repeatedly stated, McCain seems to be happiest CRITICIZING conservatives, and the "religious right". (Lefitsts like to associate President Bush with the "religioous right", but a fair question is: what has President Bush actually DONE to advance the agenda of the "religious right", except for lip service; with McCain you don't even get the lip service, excpet pro-forma statments that he is "pro-life", with a pretty silent pro-life voting record). McCain is most PASSIONATE (excluding national security, and even there on waterboarding) when is is talking AGAINST conservatives.
What is funny here is that Alan Colmes knows this, but does not seem to understand it. It HELPS McCain for leftists (like Colmes and the New York Times) to criticize McCain for "pandering" to conservatives. Conservatives need a reason to vote for McCain. They don't have much of a reason. Unlike the unvonvincing political hackery of Alan Colmes, conservatives understand fully what McCain is saying--on immigration and any number of other things. If conservatives FALSELY believe that McCain has "seen the light" on illegal immigration, it HELPS McCain. I even think that would help him among DEMORATS (especially those small town Democrats DISSED by Barack Obama). Q.E.D. Colmes is an intellectually dishones hack who does not even understnad what is effective and what is not.
What is John McCain's consituency? He really has none (people really enthusiastic about him). Oh, I think there IS one group relatively enthusiastic: That is liberal Republicans who think McCain represents their final success in retaking the REpublican Party from the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan conservatives. Excpet for them, and they are not that numerous (despite their ability to sabotage conservatives), McCain has NO constituency. What about "independents" and "moderate" Democrats? Those people have been brainwashed for at least four years, and starting before that, to HATE Republicans. They are the people that Alan colmes is targeting with his stupidities. By their very nature ("moderate" means no really strong views), these people are subject to media BRAINWASHING. The mainstream media is goingo to do its very best to DEFEAT McCain (despite his pandering to them all of these years).
Nope. McCain absolutely cannot rely on "indpendents", and "moderate Democrats". They can certainly be lured away from him, Nor can he really rely on conservatives being enthusiastic. We know McCain too well.
But I have suggested that Barack Obama can't win. How can I say that, and at the same time suggest that McCain can't win? Well, both of them losing would be a GOOD THING. That, however, is not what I mean. Barack Obama can't win IF the "not Obama" voters vote for McCain. Obama DOES have an enthusiastic constuency (both AFrican-Americans and committed leftists) But Obama has shown that most Americans should NOT waant him for President--both because he is too far left and because he has no experience of any substantial kind. Most Americans (including those "moderate" Democrats and indpendents) regard McCain as "solid" and "safe", even if they are not enthused. But there is NO group as enthusiastic about McCain as those are who support Obama. Therefore, McCain has to win NEGATIVELY. He has to convicne people that Obama is way too extreme and leftist. How can McCain do that when McCain has never been COMFORTABLE attacking leftists. He has onlly been COMFORTABLE attacking CONSERVATIVES. Not going to happen.
does that mean McCain loses? Not quite. Obama may beat HIMSELF--may already have beaten himself. I have confidence McCain can blow it, but Obama really has shown himself to be unacceptable to massive numbers of voters--with no nudge from McCain. Rather than talk about REvend Wright, McCain has preferred to talk about HAMAS (the idea that terrorists dupport Obama because they don't think he will be as strong as McCain actually makes some logical sense, but is NOT going to convince anyone that Hamas knows whether Obama will be good for them or not).
Q.E.D. McCain is hopeless, but may yet win as the "safe" alternative to Obama. But there was NO alternative for "the Finger" this week. It pointed to McCain all of the way, as McCain absolutely sabotaged all chance of Republicans making an issue out of illegal immigration--even the most outrageous, leftist positions on illegal immigration. Pllus, it was another week where McCain proved he was most COMFORTABLE attacking conserviatives.
Award ceremony:
This is a "virtual" ceremony (no video), where you have to uses your IMAGINATION to imagine Dick Martin thrusting the famed statuette at the camera and saying: "John McCain, this award is for YOU; you DESERVE it."
Thus, John McCain joins the roster of deserving winners of "the Finger".
No comments:
Post a Comment