Posted on 06/10/2007 9:46:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When the immigration reform bill stalled in the Senate yesterday, President Bush may have been the most disappointed, having lost a chance at adding a signature domestic achievement to his legacy. Whether there will be a chance to salvage the effort is unclear — and so is the impact of all this on the presidential race.
John McCain couldn't have been happy seeing the bill he co-sponsored hung up, maybe never to be resurrected. Throughout debates and testy campaign exchanges with his GOP rivals, McCain never wavered in his support for this particular reform. When party activists cried "amnesty," McCain countered with impassioned arguments refuting them. When he was lumped in with fellow co-sponsor Ted Kennedy, he didn't run away.
In some ways, a legislative victory would have been a political win for the straight-talker. Those primary voters most unhappy with his position on immigration are equally angry with the Arizona senator on other issues. Those were votes he was not going to win anyway. But an immigration reform law with his name on it might have helped bolster his argument that he alone among GOP hopefuls has the experience to get things done — to lead. At the very least, his "straight talk" reputation would be bolstered.
One could argue that McCain is best served by the current circumstances because it may take some of the focus off of the immigration issue that has put him on the opposite side of a large part of his party. But that’s looking at McCain's world through rose-colored glasses. Immigration, particularly border control, isn't a concern that will fade away just because nothing is done about it — and those Republicans who put this issue at the top of their concerns won’t soon forget McCain’s position. Those feelings will linger.
So McCain is seemingly left holding the cup, having advocated passionately for legislation that has gone nowhere and stepping into a bitter divide in the process. On this issue, his campaign is reduced to hoping that the Senate can find some way to resurrect the bill in some way, or that voters will forget about it — neither likely scenarios at the moment. — Vaughn Ververs
Jumping The Gun On Giuliani? On Thursday, Democrat John Edwards outlined his national security plan, once again giving him the opportunity to express his view that the Bush administration's war on terror is nothing more than a "bumper sticker" slogan and has actually been ineffective in keeping America safe.
He also had the opportunity to respond to Rudy Giuliani, who has based much of his campaign on national security and has criticized Edwards' characterization of the war on terror. "If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has given you,' he's allowed to do that," Edwards said. "He'll never be elected president of the United States, but he's allowed to do that."
Giuliani communications director Katie Levinson fired back. "We are glad to see Rudy's criticism of the Democrats' not understanding the terrorists' war on us is starting to register with them," she said in a statement. "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."
Getting into a tit-for-tat with the Republican front-runner is likely to energize Edwards' supporters and draw more attention to his campaign, which continues to run in third place in national polls of Democrats. But wouldn't his energy be better spent on tackling the front-runner in his own party, Hillary Clinton?
Clinton even provided Edwards with an opening at Sunday's debate in New Hampshire with her claim that the United States is safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001 — a claim also made by the Bush administration but disputed by many Democrats who feel the White House's foreign policy and the war in Iraq have only engendered more anger toward the U.S. and allowed terrorist organizations to rally people to their cause.
Yet Edwards didn't respond to that claim at the debate and has only obliquely referred to it since, saving his most direct barbs for Giuliani. In fact, Giuliani could benefit from the spat — one way to project the image of front-runner is to attack the other party instead of those in your own. It's a tactic both Clinton and Giuliani have used lately. — David Miller
BOOOHOOHOOHOOHOOHOOOOOOOOOO
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA
Lawless Johnny................
Stick a fork in Lawless Johnny!
Looking forward to voting his sorry hyde right out of office. The only straight talk he ever gave was his name, after that he’s as crooked as the day is long.
I despise every aspect of that charlatan’s (lack) of character with unbridled passion — fellow Naval Aviator notwithstanding.
As an aside, McCain’s father was a close personal friend — from Makalapa and Camp Smith days in the 60’s. The Admiral must be spinning in his grave.
Have a great week ahead.
AKA Republicans.
“We are glad to see Rudy’s criticism of the Democrats’ not understanding the terrorists’ war on us is starting to register with them,” she said in a statement. “John Edwards’ track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself.”
“”John Edwards’ track record of predicting election outcomes...”? He did read the Carolina voters’ mood well enough to decline to run for reelection. He apparently preferred running for President as “former Senator” to campaigning as “ousted loser”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.