Which Candidate Benefits From The Immigration Bill's Demise?
Now that the comprehensive immigration reform bill has died, analysts have looked at winners and losers of the contest. Almost certainly, one of the main losers has to be George Bush, who pushed hard publicly and privately for its passage. US News says, "Bush Sinking Along With Immigration Bill," a fairly clear conclusion based on the extensive roundup they provide. He put his credibility on the line for this bill, and in the end could not even get a majority of his own Senate caucus to support him.
But which of the candidates to replace Bush gained the most from the bill's failure? The Politico argues that could be John McCain:
While his office put out the requisite statement expressing disappointment that the immigration compromise failed, a McCain aide I talked with sounded more relieved that the issue was off the table.While lamenting that its failure was "bad for the country," this person indicated that they were looking forward to getting past an issue that had been the focus of the campaign for the last six weeks.
"We talked about it at every town hall meeting, we did talk radio, we did O'Reilly, we did regional press conference calls, we gave a speech in Florida on it," the source pointed out. But having fought the good fight for what was recognized as a political loser, this person said they would use the summer to do grass-roots campaigning and seek to shift the focus onto "core economic issues" such as taxes, trade and spending.
This sounds counterintuitive, but Jonathan Martin may be right. First, no one who knows John McCain can honestly say that this bill changed their opinion of him. He introduced and vociferously championed a worse bill last year, and he has made no secret of his preferences on immigration. In many ways, he conducted himself in a more positive manner last year; his tone was intended to be as inclusive as possible, after lashing out a couple of times last year in frustration.
In a season of gotcha games on flip-flops, McCain may (eventually) get some credit for standing on principle. Senator Tom Coburn, who opposed the immigration bill, wrote an essay in National Review praising McCain for his political courage:
As the American people, elected officials, and commentators reflect on the heated immigration debate that came to a temporary close in the Senate this week many will ask, and have asked, why U.S. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) staked out a position that may, in retrospect, be seen as devastating to his presidential ambitions. I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time. ...I opposed Senator McCain in this immigration debate. I believed the policies he advocated were wrong for America and I used every tool at my disposal to defeat his position. However, the way Senator McCain conducted himself represented the essential qualities of leadership the American people deserve.
Senator McCain didn’t speak in generalities. He spoke in specific terms. He didn’t take a position and change his position when he came under withering fire. He didn’t pander. He didn’t equivocate. He didn’t demean his opponents in the Senate or insinuate we harbored base motives or secret prejudices. He was motivated by principle. He believed he was serving his country. He was not inspired by political strategists who foolishly believed they could use this bill to grow the Republicans party, and did not lecture his colleagues about why those strategists were smarter and wiser than 80 percent of Americans.
When Senator McCain lost this battle he didn’t express self-pity or bitterness. Instead, he said he would carry on and offered a unifying message that is beyond debate, saying, “The American people will not settle for the status quo — de facto amnesty and broken borders.”
Whether you agree with him or not, Senator McCain’s actions demonstrated the qualities we rarely see in Washington — courage, character, honor, and dignity.
McCain's numbers have drifted downward since the beginning of this debate, as voters get reminded of his position on immigration. However, now that the topic is off the table, he may start winning back some of those voters, who had to have known his position in January when he ran neck-and-neck for the lead in these same polls. As Dr. Coburn notes, he stayed firm in his convictions and gracious in his tactics, and some may reconsider him on that basis.
Some may not, too, and I suspect that McCain will find it difficult to recover the lost ground. Like Dr. Coburn, I'm not making endorsements, and I have disagreed with McCain in immigration, the BCRA, and on his actions in 2005 regarding judicial nominations. He takes positions and almost always tries to lead the national debate, sometimes to the extent that some feel he's chasing the media when he parts with the GOP on policy. When a politician does that, he's going to annoy a lot of people, sometimes rightly so.
However, and I have mentioned this more than once in my radio shows this week, there are few men who have given as much to his country and lived. A man who spent 7 years being tortured as a POW doesn't deserve to be called a "traitor" over sincere policy disputes. McCain has made mistakes and may not be a good choice for the presidency, but he's a man who deserves respect and an opportunity to make his case -- and, like Dr. Coburn says, a man whose courage did not end with his return from Viet Nam.
We may not like the policies he promotes with such tenacity -- but in an age where politicians too often change positions to suit fashion, one should at least respect fidelity when they see it. McCain may or may not benefit from the end of the immigration debate, but now that the debate has finished, hopefully we can at least give him the benefit of the doubt about his intention to do what he thinks is best for the nation.
UPDATE: Some people believe I'm "kissing up" to John McCain, which seems a little silly. Did Dr. Coburn "kiss up" to McCain? I admire the man for his service to our country, I'll admit that, and in my limited contacts with him, he has struck me as a pretty nice guy overall. It doesn't mean I'd vote for him or support his actions on immigration, the BCRA, or other issues, and I've been pretty critical of his politics. I don't think treating an ex-POW as though he acts on honorable motives is unreasonable, outside of solid evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 29, 2007 4:58 PM | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (32)
Posted by Eric | June 29, 2007 5:39 PM
Both sides of the aisle can have political courage. Good thinking and good ideas, instead of faulty thinking and bad ideas, are needed as well.
The points for political courage only go so far. I don't think we should romanticize the virtue.
Posted by Skip | June 29, 2007 5:54 PM
McCain may rebound a bit from the single digits he's fallen to, but I doubt that he'll ever recover back to front-runner status because this fight was too bitter.
And it's a good thing, too, because if in some strange quirk of fate McCain gets the nomination, the bill will be brought back up by Reid in a heartbeat to torpedo his chances of winning.
Posted by ggeisel | June 29, 2007 6:13 PM
Why do you continue to schmooze McCain? He is a danger to free political speech. His support of this hideous immigration bill was shameful. His career, such as it is, can remain in the Senate, but as a Kennedy analog, is that desirable? Phooey.
Posted by Nedra Lee | June 29, 2007 6:36 PM
I also can't figure out why you continue to kiss up to McCain, Ed ... I was terribly against the immigration bill. I don't care what McCain is!
The fact that he digs in his heels and refuses to budge is a trait that lots of us Conservatives have as well. The defeat of that horrilbe bill is proof of that.
Posted by GarandFan | June 29, 2007 6:49 PM
Talking to friends from AZ, if McCain ran for office today, he'd be dead meat. As for running for President.....the buzzards are circling for a reason.
The immigration bill was built on a pack of lies, he backed it, it was a loser.
Posted by bindare4u | June 29, 2007 7:56 PM
Who gains from the defeat of the immigration bill. Duncan Hunter is looking much better to me now. Why doesn'.t he generate more enthusiasm from right wing bloggers?. Is it because he is ignored by the mainstream media?
Posted by george | June 29, 2007 8:00 PM
The idea that military service in some way innoculates you from corrupt motives is foolish. Does the Keating five ring a bell. How about Duke Cunningham. I served as a medic in a rifle platoon in Vietnam. I saw some of my buddies literally blown in half. They didn't die so that ANYONE could sell America's sovreignty for cheap labor. Which is really at the heart of this issue.
Posted by Captain Ed | June 29, 2007 8:11 PM
Indeed -- it's possible to be a war hero and a corrupt politician. It doesn't mean that I have to assume McCain is corrupt or traitorous without evidence in support of that conclusion.
Do a search about the Keating Five on this site. You'll find me highly critical of McCain on this point.
Posted by george | June 29, 2007 8:15 PM
Actually, you were arguing the opposite point.
Posted by TheGrandMufti | June 29, 2007 8:48 PM
That McCain benefits is wishful thinking.
I'd sit out the '08 election before voting for him
Posted by burt | June 29, 2007 8:53 PM
Most people poled in the last six months have been voting on name recognition rather than issues. I think this has changed for many people in the last couple of months as they have become very serious about one issue, immigration. These casual voters now know which politicians championed the various versions of the bill that the voters now hate but for which the voters had only a casual dislike six months ago. Many of these people are not going to vote for anyone in a leadership position on the wrong side of this bill. McCain is finally finished.
Posted by RBMN | June 29, 2007 10:10 PM
I think history will be kind to John McCain on the immigration issue, and on the others that were in favor of comprehensive immigration reform in June of 2007, but history's judgment will come much too late to help McCain and the others in 2008. McCain's so old, he may not even live to see it.
Posted by Carol Herman | June 29, 2007 10:13 PM
It's easier to rise from the dead.
While the "grasp" the MSM uses to float its balloons, still seems centered on "which idiot is gonna blow the most money running for president." Hillary. Bloomberg. Or, McCain?
Meanwhile, the people who've called McCain a "friend of there's," and this INCLUDES Guiliani, are sweating, now to define what they meant by "friend." (Like "I didn't know my friend had cancer.") Or fill in the blank.
Brownback is dead.
Lindsey Graham, when he was first called over to see Michelle Malkin's "Muchias Gracias" 30-second spot; addressed to voters in South Carolina; must have had one of those "come to Jesus moments" that clued him in to his backing of this amnesty bill as a great personal disaster.
Now, I don't read the Wall Street Journal. I get all my information from the Net. But there was a link, I think, up at InstaPundit. Where the WSJ was musing about Michelle's Madison Avenue "skills." And, it was explained to the genius, asking, that this stuff now sits on home computers. So, whose not in touch?
And, the BEST LINE AWARD, goes to a commenter up at Lucianne. He remarked: "I didn't even know Immigration BILL was sick." Well, an untimely passing, in some circles.
A wonderful victory for the Net. Uncontaminated by the rages of the seething reporters. And, their usual propaganda stuff.
Teddy Kennedy? Still not sober enough to know.
Dubya? He's gone now to his parents home, to enjoy putin's company. He sure puts a lot of stock in this diplomatic drivel. So, if you're wondering what his White House looks like, ahead? Full of diplomatic dinners; and assorted bullshit. For aristocrats on their ways out.
I guess, in Kennebunkport, if they're not discussing the $100-fake bill one of putin's men tried to pass, at a local liquor store, I guess they can discuss Dubya's blazing legacy problems. See if I care?
I'm just glad Olmert came. Took the $2.4 billion in aid back to Israel. And, pretty much didn't tussle with the news media.
Which left the room for the immigration disaster bill to develop.
Oh. I also agree with Ann Coulter, who said. "See? Bush is a uniter! Now even republicans have joined the bandwagon waiting for the day, this nincompoop leaves office."
Not a bad newsday for the GOP. The Internet is helping brand new senators, still in their first term, to slug it out in the cloakroom; rather than following the Pied Piper.
Posted by edward cropper | June 29, 2007 10:43 PM
all patriotic Americans appreciate John McCain's service to his country but that is history. What John McCain does now is what matters.John Mitchell had a great war record, but still turned out to be a Nixon crook. McCain can be as noble as they come in defeat, the fact remains he supported a rotten bill that was a disaster for this country. He showed a certain degree of stupidity that did not bode well for a presidential candidate.
Posted by edward cropper | June 29, 2007 10:45 PM
all patriotic Americans appreciate John McCain's service to his country but that is history. What John McCain does now is what matters.John Mitchell had a great war record, but still turned out to be a Nixon crook. McCain can be as noble as they come in defeat, the fact remains he supported a rotten bill that was a disaster for this country. He showed a certain degree of stupidity that did not bode well for a presidential candidate.
Posted by Rose | June 29, 2007 11:22 PM
McCain is a vicious man who hides in the fold most of the time, in order to be able to dart out from time to time with DEVASTATION in his heart, for America - and I do believe it is with malice for the nation and the Party that rejected him from being President of the USA. And the Arizona GOP rejected him LAST TIME from being SENATOR - it took the DIM CROSSOVERS to elect him back to his current status.
I don't like him, and I don't admire him. Nothing that could happen to him would make me shed a bloody tear for him.
I find him to be consumed with ego and vindictiveness.
Posted by Rose | June 30, 2007 12:00 AM
I think history will be kind to John McCain on the immigration issue, and on the others that were in favor of comprehensive immigration reform in June of 2007, but history's judgment will come much too late to help McCain and the others in 2008. McCain's so old, he may not even live to see it.
Posted by: RBMN at June 29, 2007 10:10 PM
****************
People are always kind to McCain - much kinder than he deserves.
He always knows when to come out "gracious" when he has pushed everyone in the Conservative base way too far - counting on their inherent good nature to be quickly forgiving AND FORGETTING of his many vicious jabs.
How often can one fight so very hard for the WORST thing imaginable for America, and Conservatives still decide, based on a few contrite words or a few grand speeches, that he was merely stupid or "too hard-headed", or something.
Once or twice might be an accident, yet Thomas Jefferson said his enemies only agreed with him ONCE - and they certainly never would have over-rode Jefferson's own party to make sure he got re-elected!
Articles in major Arizona papers still record that while the DIMS re-elected him, the Arizona GOP CAUCUS gathered to UNANIMOUSLY CENSURE HIM and to demand that the National GOP Committee also censure him, which they refused to do.
Yet, here you have a man that spent many months seriously considering becoming Kerry's running mate!
"The vote of your opponents is the most honorable mark by which the soundness of your conduct could be stamped. I claim the same honorable testimonial. There was but a single act of my whole administration of which [the opposing] party approved... And when I found they approved of it, I confess I began strongly to apprehend I had done wrong, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, 'Lord, what have I done that the wicked should praise me?'" --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1812. ME 13:162
That is certainly the way I would feel if Hanoi John admired me so highly as to offer a place on his ticket to ME.
Yet McCain is flattered to have that treasonous scumbag offer it to him, actually spent time seriously considering ACCEPTING it.
This is a serious character flaw.
Sooner or later, some of you conservatives are going to have to admit that some of your opposition members are NOT "just like you" only with "differing opinions" ".
You will have to admit that some of them are cold-blooded and evil, with malicious intentions towards America.
Don't try to tell me that the Senator of a BORDER STATE cannot see the damage being done to America with illegal alien promotion, and a bill that would swamp America in destruction.
And until you get serious about defeating those things AND PEOPLE that are tearing America apart, we will never see the HEALING process begin.
It is to me like patient's family members that are in denial about the gangrene on a leg that must be removed to save the patient's life - yet they fight the surgeon til the patient dies, arguing that it isn't really gangrene at all, but something more ordinary and harmless, more antibiotics will work, if the doctors just "TRY"!
Posted by Rose | June 30, 2007 12:08 AM
Who gains from the defeat of the immigration bill. Duncan Hunter is looking much better to me now. Why doesn'.t he generate more enthusiasm from right wing bloggers?. Is it because he is ignored by the mainstream media?
Posted by: bindare4u at June 29, 2007 7:56 PM
***********************
Duncan is MY personal favorite as well!
And the fact that Chuck Yeager endorses him is highly impressive to ME.
Many of the MSM and others are simply blocking their minds to him MERELY because of name recognition - as if nobody else with LOW name recognition has ever gotten elected.
Yet look at them - they were hysterical over name recognition when they elected Dah Ahnold Man over Tom McClintock - and they got exactly what they deserve!
A TOTAL DISASTER, after McClintock had already pulled them out of the fire once.
I'm fed up with such star-struck silly nillies.
Posted by FredWM | June 30, 2007 2:10 AM
There are many brave and courageous people in this world who are simply unfit to be President. John McCain is one of them. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks the First Amendment should have loopholes is not up to the job. I'm not normally a one issue voter, but finding out a candidate has no respect for the U.S. Constitution is similar to being told your cruise ship has a gapping hole in its hull. It’s just time to look elsewhere.
Posted by The Yell | June 30, 2007 3:47 AM
What's his war record got to do with his atrocious performance as a politician? Why bring it up?
Posted by swabjockey05 | June 30, 2007 4:12 AM
As a Big Ten ROTC candidate, the first Navy training film (DC) I saw featured actual footage of McCain scampering out of his Skyhawk as the USS Forrestal was erupting in flames....several years later during pilot training, McCain was again a key player. This time it was during SERE training..the “R” part. No doubt about it, he is a bonafide war hero.
Yell: McCain served what 20+ years in the military? How can you not bring up a 20 year chunk of a candidate’s professional life history? Given the fact that he’s been re-elected many times, and is a supposedly “front runner” for President, I’d have to say he must be a pretty successful “politician”.
Personally, I think his years as guest at the Hanoi Hilton have made him damaged goods. I don’t think he’s stable. This swabbie would salute Sen McCain in a heartbeat…but I wouldn’t vote for him if he were the only candidate. I’d vote for the Hildebeast first…
You Republicans will nominate Sen McCain at your own risk.
Posted by Rose | June 30, 2007 4:25 AM
There are many brave and courageous people in this world who are simply unfit to be President. John McCain is one of them. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks the First Amendment should have loopholes is not up to the job. I'm not normally a one issue voter, but finding out a candidate has no respect for the U.S. Constitution is similar to being told your cruise ship has a gapping hole in its hull. It’s just time to look elsewhere.
Posted by: FredWM at June 30, 2007 2:10 AM
*****************************
Beautiful sentiments.
but finding out a candidate has no respect for the U.S. Constitution is similar to being told your cruise ship has a gapping hole in its hull
Pure perfection.
Posted by swabjockey05 | June 30, 2007 4:25 AM
IMO a liberal Republican is more dangerous than Hildabeast.
McCain would be exponentially more effective at getting "conservative" Repubs to go along with liberal boondoggles. A Pres Hildabeast would find it more difficult.
If Mcain is the Repub, you'll see this swabbie pulling Hildabeast's handle in the booth...even if I have to hold my nose and push my way past the monkeys, moonbats and other trolls to get at the handle.
Posted by Rose | June 30, 2007 4:34 AM
If Mcain is the Repub, you'll see this swabbie pulling Hildabeast's handle in the booth...even if I have to hold my nose and push my way past the monkeys, moonbats and other trolls to get at the handle.
Posted by: swabjockey05 at June 30, 2007 4:25 AM
**************************
I'll be doing a write-in of someone I admire, if about 4 different of the GOP Candidates make it into the post-primary sweet spot.
I voted for Carter, but we really thought a FARMER had more sense than he does - we were wrong! But that doesn't mean he was worse than Gerald Ford!
So I won't vote for ANOTHER DIM, but I won't support the GOP RINO, either.
That will force elections officials to stay up later that night counting individual write-ins that have to be counted AND INDIVIDUALLY LOGGED , and making them wonder WHAT ON EARTH possessed the voter to such rank inconsideration as to make them stay up later at night doing the count.
The GOP Voters who deliberately vote for people they KNOW the Conservative will not ever join them in supporting, them blame us because their manipulative blackmail didn't work, they are perfectly welcome to the full consequences of voting for these people who hate our Constitution.
Posted by swabjockey05 | June 30, 2007 6:01 AM
Relax Rosie, I didn't "blame you" for anything. The system is broken. Has been broken for some time. As for what’s written in the Constitution…some of us do more than blather away on Blogs…some are actually putting their asses on the line for it.
I challenge you to find a candidate who has been more consistently "Constitutionalist" than Ron Paul (John Birch Society endorsed). You know, the guy most of the CQ commentators say is an idiot. If you too say he is an idiot, you haven’t looked at his voting record…or read what he’s said on the floor…or you’re probably fixated on his stand against the war in Iraq (which, by the way is mostly based on Constitutional / Federalist Papers points).
Posted by The Yell | June 30, 2007 6:13 AM
"How can you not bring up a 20 year chunk of a candidate’s professional life history?"
What's it got to do with the procedural flamenco that was Amnesty '07? It's just brought up, Kerry-style, to check the backlash. Speaking of Kerry, did you know he wanted the bill to go forward? And he won 3 Purple Hearts and a Silver Star with a "V" for valor in Vietnam.
Posted by swabjockey05 | June 30, 2007 6:35 AM
By the way, Rosie...if you're looking for someone to stop the Democrats check out how many times Ron Paul voted for a bill sponsored by one of them.
He's probably voted for less Democrat bills than any "republican"....of course the "republicans" will call him an "obstructionist" or non-team player.
When the Captain’s trolls and moonbats say they'd vote for Ron Paul…it’s really guano emanating from their pie holes. The ONLY thing they agree with him on is the Iraq war.
There are no Nationally-elected officials who have consistently supported Constitutional principals more than Ron Paul. While better than most of the Dhimmis, the Repubs still only pay lip service to the Constitution. So you want to write in your city dog catcher because you “admire” him? That’ll do about as much good as voting for Ron Paul…Go for it. Maybe it’s not such a bad idea.
But if I get to vote in ’08 (ie. not KIA in ME)…and I have the choice between McCain and Hildabeast…I may decide to pull the handle for the beast. If I do, I’ve earned the right to do so. It wasn’t a right “given” to me.
I don’t need a lecture. Lectures for anonymous people on a blog only make me surly.
Posted by swabjockey05 | June 30, 2007 6:52 AM
Yell. Good point, shipmate. I thought we were talking about the "big picture" implications of ALL his actions...and how they will impact his Presidential bid.
Posted by Eugene Podrazik | June 30, 2007 7:30 AM
The real winners are conservatives and the spirit of 1994 that took both houses from the democrats. The candidate that will benefit most and win the white house in 2008, is the candidate that will take the lesson of this immigration reform fraud, and clearly articulate as a conservative.
I'm actually hopeful that this successful fight over this immigration fraud is the watershed event that will re-energize the conservative movement after the torpor of the last 6 years of the conservative message being diluted by pandering to the RINO's in both houses of congress.
Posted by Ensign | June 30, 2007 10:53 AM
I think the point that Captain Ed is trying to get across is that although he disagrees with Sen. McCain's politics, he does not dislike him personally. So lay off the Captain. His relationship with McCain, outlined in his post, is a good example of how to disagree without being disagreeable. There are plenty of you who could benefit from that example.
Posted by Ordinary Coloradan | June 30, 2007 11:08 AM
Heroism in war is not guarantee that a man will not be a traitor in the future.
Need I remind you of a 2 time Medal of Honor Winner that was a maverick, loud mouth, and ended up decrying the US Military as a tool of industrialists and imperialists - and he was aiding socialists and pacifists just before WW2?
So McCain's service does not shield him for charges of treason. However, just calling him a traitor is not proof thereof - if you want to say his was treasonous, then spell out what he did that broke the laws for treason.
Myself, I see McCain like Lott: a walking talking argument for term limits and Washington cronyism.
Posted by firedup | June 30, 2007 12:03 PM
To answer the question: Duncan Hunter, the only Republican candidate to issue a statement on the defeat of shamnesty. To my knowledge no other has done so.
Rep. Hunter will be spending July 4th in New Hampshire, participating in the Merrimack parade.
Today he is in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.