McCain's Tough Talk Express [Angry Juan Returns, Mad at Hispanics for Not Supporting Him]

The National Journal ^ | 2009-04-04

[rabscuttle385]

The Senator from Arizona Tells Hispanics to Look to President Obama for Leadership on Immigration.

BY KIRK VICTOR

John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential contest. McCain's raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.

The meeting in the Capitol's Strom Thurmond Room on March 11 was a Republican effort led by Sens. McCain of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota, and Mel Martinez of Florida to reach out to Hispanics. But two people who attended the session say they were taken aback by McCain's anger.

What began as a collegial airing of views abruptly changed when McCain spoke about immigration, according to these sources, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. Anonymity was also requested by a third source, who was not at the meeting but was told, independently of the other two, that McCain had displayed his notorious temper.

"He was angry," one source said. "He was over the top. In some cases, he rolled his eyes a lot. There were portions of the meeting where he was just staring at the ceiling, and he wasn't even listening to us. We came out of the meeting really upset."

McCain's message was obvious, the source continued: After bucking his party on immigration, he had no sympathy for Hispanics who are dissatisfied with President Obama's pace on the issue. "He threw out [the words] 'You people -- you people made your choice. You made your choice during the election,' " the source said. "It was almost as if [he was saying] 'You're cut off!' We felt very uncomfortable when we walked away from the meeting because of that."

In 2006 and 2007, McCain was a leader on immigration, but his efforts ran aground largely because his legislation included what many Republicans derisively characterized as "amnesty," a pathway to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants if they took a series of steps to earn legal status.

Having stuck his neck out in the past, McCain apparently is in no mood to do so again for an ethnic group he seems to view as ungrateful. On NBC's Meet the Press on March 29, McCain repeated his message that the ball is in the Democratic president's court. So far, the senator said, he has not seen much on immigration from the Obama White House, although the president recently met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and set the goal of launching the debate in the fall, a senior administration official said.

Asked on the show whether he would work with Obama on the issue, McCain said, "At any time, I stand ready. But the president has to lead."

McCain, who declined through his spokeswoman to be interviewed about his meeting with the Hispanic leaders, has been dogged throughout his career by stories highlighting his sometimes fierce temper. Both Martinez and Thune take issue with those who said that McCain raged at the group.

"What I saw ... was John McCain saying, 'Look, I didn't get a lot of support from the Hispanic community,' which he deserved to have had," Martinez said. "It frustrated me. It frustrated him. [McCain said,] 'You guys thought this guy [Obama] was going to be your savior. Where is his leadership?' I sort of echo that. It's not like [the meeting] went badly, I don't think."

How did people attending the session react to McCain? Martinez said, "I think they thought he's still smarting a little bit. But I don't think they felt threatened or attacked or anything like that. I don't think so. My sense is the meeting was not ruined by John in any way, shape, or form."

Martinez, who is Hispanic, continued, "John is John. Sometimes when he talks, he talks forcefully. He wasn't ranting or raving or anything. I have seen John rant and rave. I don't think this was one of those moments."

Thune agreed: "It was a spirited discussion, but this sort of incendiary-type way that some people are characterizing it just doesn't fit at all the tone of the meeting." In fact, he added, "after it was over, [the guests] were taking photos [with the senators]. They were handing out business cards."

Carlos Loumiet, chairman of the board of the New America Alliance, a nonpartisan organization of American Latino business leaders, attended and said he has "nothing negative to say." McCain, he added, was "forceful on the need to bring forth comprehensive immigration and for the president to lead on it.... He was just very direct and very forceful."

McCain's communications director, Brooke Buchanan, also disputed the notion that her boss's temper had flared at the meeting. She did not attend, but said she had been briefed at length about it.

Buchanan noted McCain's history of pushing immigration reform in the face of staunch opposition from many in his party, his work across the aisle with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and his popularity among Hispanics in Arizona.

She insisted that the 72-year-old senator's use of the words "you people" was in response to a question about people in general who had voted for Obama and was not meant to refer to Hispanics. To imply otherwise, she said, is "character assassination."

Buchanan said McCain was not angry and was simply offering "a little bit of 'straight talk,' " the senator's pet phrase for his candor. "He gets impassioned about some of these issues, and that is one of them.... Whenever anyone wants to hurt McCain, they say he is angry."

But one person's straight talk is another person's vitriol. "My hands were shaking," one source said. "I was nervous as no-end." The senator's comments went on for several minutes at least. And by the end of the meeting, another participant, who had supported McCain in last year's presidential election, was so shaken by the display of temper that he decided it is good that McCain isn't in the White House.

McCain has become irate over immigration legislation before. During negotiations over a bill two years ago, he was so enraged by the comments of Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that he got in Cornyn's face and said, "F-- you!"

"The F.U. story, which was, like, how long ago?" Buchanan asked. "Yes, it happened, but can anyone give me any other circumstance on any subject where that happened [since then]? And, frankly, [Cornyn and McCain] work together; they campaigned for each other.... As you know, he is an impassioned guy, but he has never lost his temper in the last couple of years."

Going forward, some of McCain's allies question whether Obama will be willing to lead on immigration, especially given what they saw as his failure to take risks to advance immigration reform when he was a senator. "He was AWOL most of the time," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said of Obama in an interview in July. "I learned a lot about Obama on immigration, and it wasn't good. I learned that to talk about bipartisan change and to stick by a bipartisan deal are two different things. He came by several times, more [for] the photo ops. The only time he came by, he wanted to re-litigate something that had already been decided."

Asked recently whether he would be surprised that McCain's feelings about Hispanic voters and immigration legislation sound very raw, Graham, who also took risks in backing the legislation, which was very unpopular in South Carolina, said: "John understands politics. But he is a human being, like all of us, and it is disappointing because he really was the driving force on the Republican side ... to produce a bill that would solve this problem. And the groups that were cheering him on were gone when he needed them."

Hispanics gave Obama a whopping 67 percent of their votes, more than double the 31 percent they gave to McCain. A former colleague of McCain's, Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who opposed immigration reform, told National Journal, "John risked a lot to go out there and do what he did. They basically turned their back on him, a guy who had done a lot more for them than Barack Obama ever would. So I can understand his anger, but I also know that John doesn't get over things easily."

But Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., said in an interview that Hispanics' support for Obama was not a repudiation of McCain, who is highly regarded in the Latino community, but a repudiation of the Republican Party. "His party was his worst enemy in trying to reach out to the Latino community," Becerra said. "Left to his own devices, I think Senator McCain could have done very, very well -- and still could do well -- in the Latino community."

Martinez, upon learning -- in his words -- that National Journal was "getting a story that people were upset" about McCain's behavior at last month's meeting, called to elaborate on his earlier comments. "He did not offend people in that room," Martinez declared. "It was a cordial meeting. And, I think as I told you, John made his point about 'Obama needs to deliver, just like he promised that he would,' and that kind of thing. But, I mean, to suggest that somehow or another that this ended up as a blown-up meeting and people were upset and that McCain was ranting or anything like that, I just don't think that is accurate or the truth.

"I just don't want you to get misled by someone who is trying to screw McCain here, frankly, because he doesn't deserve it," Martinez added.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I will NEVER forgive any motherfolking conservative who says the country got what it deserved.”

No, the country got what it 'wanted'. What it 'wanted' was an end to Bush-McCain republicans. What it 'deserved' is a value judgment. Going after Obama and Dems is not enough. You have to give voters something to vote FOR and they thought Obama gave them that. Republicans didn't come close. McCain was Bla-Bla-Bla, vote for me because of Ayers.

[grey_whiskers]

I *did* so something.

Re-read my post 166, which you appear to have conspicuously ignored so far.

But railing on conservatives for not buckling is not going to draw any of the great middle towards the right; still less will it convert lefties.

...and it will be about as encouraging to the troops in the trenches as Harry Reid and Jack Murtha.

Cheers!

[sickoflibs]

Dont be surprised. Hannity was saying the same thing as MNSlim on Nov 3 and 4(that McCain would win) . His loyal ‘Great Americans’ actually believed him, even after he said the same thing November 2006 and was wrong. I heard him on car radio and was thinking how disappointed his followers would be. How about this? “Wow great news, the economy tanked, the stock market crashed with my 401K and house value, I am really happy about gasoline prices going down. I hope things get worse.”

187 posted on Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:07:08 AM by MNSlim

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2121197/posts?page=187#187

[roamer_1]

hardy har ha

I was not laughing at you (well ok, you were the butt of it, and deservedly so) I was laughing at calcowgirl. What she did was truly funny (that's what the *wink* thingy was for), even if it was at your expense. Humor usually is at someone's expense, you know.

Had I been laughing at you directly, you would have been pinged, I assure you.

it doesn’t change the foking fact that we have a commie for president.....maybe you spelling teachers can come up with a way to do something about it instead of gazing at my spelling

There is little difference in the outcome between Bush/Obama/McCain, so you will find no solace here. All are just as intent upon burying our sovereignty and our rights. You might buy some small amount of time with the Republicans, but anyone looking at it honestly will agree that your position is simply one of arguing about increment.

Any Conservative bound to principle will not be satisfied with that, as it still yields the exact same outcome. So here's the deal:

I am against the Republicans, even as much as I am against the Democrats. Both, as entities, are to be classified as "enemies domestic". I rise against them with equal zeal, tooth and nail, because the outcome from either one is exactly the same, and that condition will not change unless something happens to change the status quo.

It is I, and my kind, who seek to change that status quo. It is you who would be content to appease yourself with the moderate Republicans in control, while doing the very same things as the Democrats, albeit not as forcefully. To wit: I am already fully engaged, seeking to banish socialism from the Republican Party and return it to Reagan Conservatism; or barring that, the destruction of the Republican party so that a Conservative Party can rise to fill it's place.

I will not relent until the leadership of the Republican party is wholly removed and replaced with real Reagan Conservatives, or the Party is wholly destroyed, and I doubt that my fellows will stop either.

There can be no opposition to Obama and the Democrats if the Republicans will not rise to oppose them, and they will not oppose them when they largely are in agreement with them. Reaganites will oppose them with great and natural vigor. Socialists are Reaganites' natural prey.

IOW, you will get *nothing* except my unceasing ire until you make your party yield to the agreement that we all were under in the first place (Reagan). No more promises, no more mulligans. We are in dire need of Conservative leaders and it is the Republicans who are keeping them from rising.

It is not I, or my fellows who aren't "doing something about the communists" in Washington. It is you.

[roamer_1]

Hannity was saying the same thing

Hannity is a tool. I have not been able to stomach him (or Faux News) since he came out as Giuliani's best girlfriend...

[GOPJ]

Quisling:politicians who favor the interests of other nations or cultures over their own.

[sickoflibs]

Then Steele as if McCain wasnt bad enough. Hannity was for GM bailout too.

[calcowgirl]

you two are think you are so cute, you are both being completely obnoxious with that stupid trojan horse, i have been on this site for years cow

hardy har har................it doesn’t change the foking fact that we have a commie for president.....maybe you spelling teachers can come up with a way to do something about it instead of gazing at my spelling

First, the trojan horse was not directed at you, it was adding to terms that are often appropriate when looking at the record of one John Sidney McCain.

Second, noticing your grammar and spelling is unavoidable as you made it a central focal point of your trash-laden cuss-filled posts.

Third, several direct questions have been addressed to you but instead of responding in a reasonable fashion you choose instead to respond with personal attacks, vitriol, and juvenile slurs.

Don't expect to be treated like an adult unless you act like one.

[calcowgirl]

Quisling, Vidkun

(kwz´lng, Nor. vd´kn kvs´lng) (KEY) , 1887–1945, Norwegian fascist leader. An army officer, he served as military attaché in Petrograd (1918–19) and Helsinki (1919–21) and later assisted Fridtjof Nansen in relief work in Russia. He was Norwegian minister of defense from 1931 to 1933. He then left the Agrarian party to found the fascist Nasjonal Samling [national unity] party. In 1940 he helped Germany prepare the conquest of Norway. Remaining at the head of the sole party permitted by the Germans, he was made premier in 1942. Despite his unpopularity and difficulties with his German masters and within his own party, he remained in power until May, 1945, when, after the Germans in Norway surrendered, he was arrested. He was convicted of high treason and shot. From his name came the word quisling, meaning traitor. 1

See biography by P. M. Hayes (1972).

[calcowgirl]

The thing that is really frustrating about the discussion going on at the link you posted is that the economy was a *real* issue to be discussed. Instead, folks on FR and on the campaign trail acted as if it was only a tool for the candidate to represent (or misrepresent) in such a way that it helped them get elected. When Charlie Black came out saying that a war in Georgia would be good for John McCain’s campaign, it showed just how desperate they were, IMO. And it also said what a sad state of affairs we have in this nation today that these are the only type of “leaders” we have to choose from.

[grey_whiskers]

Here, calcowgirl, stand aside one moment, please?

yld, they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Here's some more advice for you.

Cheers!

[sickoflibs]

RE “The thing that is really frustrating about the discussion going on at the link you posted is that the economy was a *real* issue to be discussed. Instead, folks on FR and on the campaign trail acted as if it was only a tool for the candidate to represent (or misrepresent) in such a way that it helped them get elected”

We can see that because we are not blinded by party loyalty.
How could republicans seriously debate the economy in 2008? They had already camped out the “GWB Bush tax cuts created THE strong economy regardless of debt” position. They had already said the economy was looking good but maybe needed a few more tax cuts. Neither party had a clue, or cared.

Sadly back in 2000 I really believed if Republicans got power they would make things right. (I believed talk radio.) Then GWB got Sept 11, he got the country's trust and a blank check. We saw the result. Now I realize how dangerous either party can be. Hearing these Bush-Hannity-Steele-Bots repeat mindless talking points just makes it clearer.

Just now while typing this KNSS radio just played a commercial with a clip Rush paying how strong economy was up to end of 2006 but crashed in 2007 after Pelosi took over congress. So after 5-6 years of Republicans with both WH and congress economy crashes in 2007 (Sept), and Rush says the good was all Rs(GWB) and the bad was democrats. Now why didn't that sell in 2008?

Who would have expected this story by CBS now?

Peter Schiff CBS Evening News 4-2-09(China the ant, US the grasshopper)

[calcowgirl]

I'm with you 100% on your analysis. My simplistic (partial assessment) goes something like this: Clinton built a bubble via the dotcom boom to make his economic stats look positive and for people to feel good. That bubble burst and so the new Administrateion reinflated it with government and personal borrowing for housing, infrastructure and the like. When they didn't have enough workers to build their house-of-cards and inflate the numbers, they imported them via open borders. When they still didn't have enough money to pay for it, they created CDOs and other derivatives. And so on. The CDO/CDS arrangements allowed lenders to quickly purge the risk/liability from their books and to use their profit taking for lavish gifts upon their favored politicians. Lots of back scratching going on...

I remember when people started to float the "economy only bad since the Dems took over" mantra in 2006 and just shook my head. Until the electorate takes their head out of the ground and looks at what is happening, our chances of having a free country left are looking worse and worse.

[roamer_1]

Third, several direct questions have been addressed to you but instead of responding in a reasonable fashion you choose instead to respond with personal attacks, vitriol, and juvenile slurs.

Methinks it squeaks and runs away mouse-wise...

[Chunga]

1) Either man would have been utter disaster for this nation.

Possibly not. We'll never know.

One thing is for sure: Obama's presidency is already the worst political disaster this country has ever seen.

[NonLinear]

you two are think you are so cute, you are both being completely obnoxious with that stupid trojan horse, i have been on this site for years cow



When you find yourself in a hole...

[bcsco]

It’s one of the best.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I remember when people started to float the “economy only bad since the Dems took over” mantra in 2006 and just shook my head. “

I have seen many recent posts/replies using the argument that the GWB tax cuts promoted 5 years of historical economic growth, but Barney Frank crashed economy in 2007 or 2008 with his CRA home loans. Carter and Clinton's names are mentioned at fault too. Oh yes, and all those tax revenues the government got in 2005 and 2006, proof that the GWB tax cuts worked increasing revenue, the GWB economy. Forget the national public and private debt, that was all democrats fault.

I wouldn't even mind as much if these idiotic talking points sold, but they failed badly last election because they are not believable. Yet they not only continue this but they even claim to not repeat them mindlessly will hurt republicans.When you try to point out the illogic you are accused of helping democrats (it's a bit late for that, THEY WON!)

[Grunthor]

“Obama’s presidency is already the worst political disaster this country has ever seen.”

It has been pretty bad. The worst? I think he’s got a ways to go yet.

[Grunthor]

“Shall I forward your message?”

I’s be much obliged.