Yes, I am thinking about the immigration reform issue as Senator McCain brought up in this NY Times article.

He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”

Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.

But, I am out of time, work is calling, so, I will have more to say a bit later.

Got a break: OK, here is my 2 cents. When I look out there and consider “what does a Conservative stand for?”, I come to a few simple conclusions based on what we really are: Classical Liberals. There are 3 cores to the Democracy political theory, the moral, the economic, and the political. CL’s are in the middle, between the Socialist model and the Conservative model (as they practice in places like Britain.) Today’s American conservatives, also known as neo-conservatives (our liberal buds are actually neo-liberals - long story, not going to get in to that political theory at this time), stand for a few simple things, based on the tenets of classical liberalism and the Constitution of the USA

1. low taxation
2. strong national defense
3. limited government intrusion in our personal and business lives (this is part of where the moral and economic cores come in to play
4. open and responsive government
5. “the government that governs least governs best”
6. States Rights

I believe that those six are the basis for the Conservative movement. As to #3, I detest when those on the far Right get involved in pushing their morals as I do when those on the left do it.

Getting beyond those 6, we then get many other more personal issues for people on the right, some of which work in to the top 6, ones such as

• abortion on demand
• homosexual marriage and homosexuality
• anti-terrorism
• conservation
• anti-anthropogenic global warming
• illegal immigration
• others

And illegal immigration is a huge issue with today’s conservatives. It is for me. I have several other interests, such as anti-terrorism, conservation/environmentalism, and anti-man made global warming. Sometimes I get involved in the others, but, more as a lark then anything else. I avoid abortion on demand, except now and then regarding late term and parental notification.

Illegal immigration is a huge issue with me, and I have never been particularly happy with Senator McCain’s stance on it, in terms of giving people who broke federal law a free, if not difficult, pass. I can understand why John Hawkins, Michelle Malkin, and others are upset. I am a bit, too. I respect John and Michelle immensely, and will not denigrate their positions, but, I do not share them.

I would very much like to get rid of all illegals. But, we all know, ‘taint going to happen. 12-20 estimated million deported? Good luck with that. In reality, we just cannot do it, and Senator McCain understands that and he is standing up for what he thinks is the right thing to do, which is one of the things that changed my mind about him. Personal principle. Plus, face it, he’s a politician. Politicians do this stuff.

Can you imagine what kind of flak Ronald Reagan would have gotten today, when he signed off on true amnesty? BTW, I never agreed at all with his environmental policies. Despised them. But, I still agreed with him on most things.

McCain is, and has been, arguing for securing the borders first. I think there are a few things that he and the others are missing, such as putting huge fines on companies that hire illegals, but, it is a start. If you look at it, Bush is not a conservative, ranking well below McCain, and is very much for comprehensive immigration. Yet, we would, for the most part, all vote for him again, despite him having done about 2 conservative things his whole tenure as President.

I’m not going to delve into the whole issue of what McCain is pushing, what he means, etc and so on, but, as a person who has a main interest in stopping illegal immigration, and reforming legal, yes, McCain ticks me off a bit. However, he stands up for enough of my principles, my thoughts, and my cares, that I am behind him for president. If I wasn’t, I would not be writing here at McCain Blogs. I wouldn’t have stuff on the sidebar at Pirate’s Cove. In politics, we do not always agree. Sometimes we vehemently disagree. But, you have to look at the whole package. And, it is better to have a Republican in the White House, where we can at least try to influence him, then an Obama.

Captain Ed writes

The consequences of an Obama presidency go far beyond immigration. That is what voters need to keep in mind, especially given the likely Democratic victory in both chambers of Congress this fall. Immigration and border security are important issues, but they’re not the only ones, and stark differences exist between Barack Obama and John McCain. That’s what our vote should consider — all of the consequences of the election.

The Strata-Sphere provides interesting food for thought

If I may be so blunt as to remind those on the right that we are at war with religious fanatics who demand purity to their views at gunpoint. I am not equating Islamo Fascism with ‘true’ conservatives. I am only pointing out that a country which is tired of the war on fanatics, but sees no path out except to keep soldiering on, may take its frustrations out on the next best example they can find and impact.

There is too much demand to toe-the-line on ideological grounds for this nation to stomach anymore. By far the most cancerous and destructive variant comes from the Jihadis. But the endless griping between far left and far right is not earning respect or support either. At some point America is saying enough to the purists, we are going back to the respect on peaceful coexistence of diversity and impurity.

Sister Toldjah

I see no need in rehashing them, as I’ve stated before that I am not going to beat my readers over the head on this issue, but would like to emphasize again one point I made previously on the point about “taking a principled stand” one way or another. Probably the one thing I’ve despised the most about the intra-party debate on this issue is one side or the other trying to claim the moral high ground.

Finally, I am not trying to beat up on John, who graciously allows me to blog at Right Wing News on Sunday’s, and sometimes during the week. I am simply stating where I stand on this issue.

Send a trackback to this post, but don’t forget to link it.

As the Democrats bloviate on and on and on and on about gas prices (notice their massive escalation since the Democrats regained control of Congress?) yet offer no viable ideas, we learn about NIMBY

The United States should increase its domestic oil supply by opening up more drilling sites, several members of the Senate told Cybercast News Service Thursday, when surveyed on the issue at the U.S. Capitol. But some senators also said they are wary of allowing increased drilling in many locations - especially in their own states.

“There may be places that make sense, I am not saying, ‘Let’s not drill anywhere,’ ” Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in response to the question. “But do I want to drill off the California coast? No. Do I want to drill in the Arctic in endangered areas? No.”

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), strongly endorsed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — but not in his home state of Florida.

“I just don’t think we should do it in areas like the Florida Keys, which are environmentally very sensitive,” Martinez told Cybercast News Service.

So, drill away, as long as it is not in my back yard. Does anyone think that, if the oil companies moved to actually drill in other states, that Democrats wouldn’t work hard to block it?

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who joined Feinstein in limited support, echoed her exact words, saying, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”

On one hand, he is correct. We can’t, at least in the short term. We should have been working hard to open up our own wells starting the moment OPEC pulled their shenanigans in the 70’s, but, guess which side of the political aisle block it, and has been blocking it ever since, along with building new nuclear reactors and new refineries? But, if Senator Levin has a better idea, let’s hear it. What does he suggest? More of the “we need to invest in alternative energy,” with no specifics? I personally would love to have other alternatives. What are they? Bio fuels is a disaster, windfarms only work in certain areas, and solar is not ready for prime time. What else is there, Carl?

Interesting how liberal/Democrat policies have led to us being beholden to terrorist and terrorist supporting countries, eh? And these are the same types of policies we would get from an Obama presidency. After he talks one on one with folks like Ahmadenijad, of course.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Back on May 4, the NY Times editorial board had a bit of a meltdown over John McCain’s medical records

Senator John McCain is 71 years old, a survivor of an aggressive form of skin cancer. If elected, he would be the oldest man to become president.

These factors are not disqualifying, but they impose on Mr. McCain a larger duty than usual to provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health. So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.

At the time of writing that, they knew that McCain would be releasing his medical records today. And he has. Interesting how the AP story the Times uses mentions

His likely Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will be 47 in August. Obama, lean and agile and a frequent basketball player, says he has quit smoking. Neither he nor Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton has released health records.

Isn’t it cute how Obama is “lean and agile and a frequent basketball player?” He says he has quit smoking, but, is there proof? Oh, and where is the Times in demanding, DEMANDING, I say, that Obama release his medical records?

The medical records show that he has some of the issues that those of his age suffer from. Many of them, such as melenoma, are ones anyone can suffer from. I am rather surprised by the even tone and factual presentation that the AP provides in the story. One interesting paragraph 6 in

”I think physiologically he is considerably younger than his chronologic age based on his cardiovascular fitness,” Eckstein said in an interview Thursday. ”I got a call from the cardiologist who said that he had not seen anyone that age exercise for that long in a long time.”

Also

Early on in the primaries, a number of voters said McCain’s age was a problem, but recent surveys suggest it may not be as big an issue. An ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted in April found 70 percent saying McCain’s age would not make any difference to their vote. Other recent polls found similar results, with two-thirds or more saying his age doesn’t matter.

McCain has shrugged off the issue [of his age] by highlighting his stamina and strong genes. He has recalled his ”rim-to-rim” Grand Canyon hike in 2006; he has campaigned with his energetic mother, age 96.

I wonder how well the rest of us would do with that.

He appears to be in pretty good health and demeanor. So, when will the NY Times editorial board chime in on how good his health is? Should I hold my breath?

Or, as they termed it

Critics Try To Make McCain’s Age An Issue
CBSNews.com Reports: Senator Using Humor To Deflect Charges He Is Too Old For Presidency

John McCain is 71 years old. You would be hard pressed to argue that that’s an insignificant number - it’s only a few years less than the average lifespan of U.S. men, now about 75 years. But it perhaps does not have the sort of visceral impact that some of McCain’s critics might wish it did.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, at 88, could be McCain’s father, after all. Harrison Ford, who, at 65, is only a few years younger than McCain, is once again gallivanting through an Indiana Jones blockbuster. And an unprecedented number of Americans are crossing the threshold into retirement with the belief that they will stay active into their 80s and even 90s.

So what is someone who wants to spotlight McCain’s age - and the questions they believe it raises about his presidential aspirations - to do? One strategy: Focus not on how old McCain is but on all that is younger than him. That’s the concept behind www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com, a Web site spotlighting some of the people and things that came into the world after the presumptive GOP nominee - among them Alaska, penicillin and Bugs Bunny, not to mention Barack Obama’s parents.

“The world is a pretty complicated place right now and I’m thinking that it’s not such a great time to elect our oldest President ever,” writes the man behind the site, who wants only to be identified as Joe. “So sue me.”

In fact, the majority of the piece is designed to get people wondering “sheesh! This guy is old. He might just die on us in office. Perhaps we should vote for that younger Obama guy.” It is very slick, certainly nicer then previous NY Times hit pieces, but, considering that the group one can depend on during election is the 55 and older crowd, it is not a road the Credentialed Media and the Democrats should go down.

It is one I hope they continue going down, so as to tick of the 55 and older crowd, pushing them squarely in to the McCain camp.

A McCain press release

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on Senator Barack Obama’s remarks concerning veterans benefits:

“It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can’t always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America’s veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

“When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well.

Triple Shot Thursday: Ed Morrissey has an interesting story up

Does the New York Times leverage access to campaign events through threats of negative news articles? According to one source at the McCain campaign, the answer is yes. (Ed mentions many of the Times’ dishonest stories, which then moved to the editorial page)

All of that brings us to today. It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate, and they decided not to extend an invitation to the Times for the media pool at the release of the medical records on Friday. According to my source close to the part of the campaign that deals with these issues, they have invited a variety of media outlets, including national-reach newspapers, wire services, and cable-news networks into the pool, but told the Times that they would not receive any credentials for the event.

This prompted a conversation between one Times editor and the campaign staff. Again according to the source, the editor told the campaign that the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.

So, a bit of extortion from the Paper of Record. Read the rest of Ed’s post and see what the Times’ ethics policy is.

Told you it was a Grey Lady kinda day

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

And this was a “superpower” that Kennedy was dealing with, rather then a pissant terror supporting country. Read the rest.

It is going to be a New York (Times) kinda day

Headline: Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama

At the Aberdeen Golf and Country Club on Sunday, the fountains were burbling, the man-made lakes were shining, and Shirley Weitz and Ruth Grossman were debating why Jews in this gated neighborhood of airy retirement homes feel so much trepidation about Senator Barack Obama.

“The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel,” Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

“They’re going to vote for McCain,” she said.

I bet the neocons have something to do with it, too!

But, it is really no wonder those “Florida Jews” (seems slightly derogatory, doesn’t it?) do not trust Obama, considering his willingness to engage in one on one talks with the president of Iran, a man who has repeatedly stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map, with no preconditions.

Now, personally, I believe that Man is a minor, minor cause of global warming, so, I disagree quite a bit with both Senator McCain and George Bush on the issue, and neither are going to change my mind on it. That said, I have reflected on Senator McCain’s policy positions, and find that they are pretty smart. The thing with anthropogenic global warming is, the political aspect is not going away. The average person hears and reads that we are all going to die from it, but doesn’t dig into the substance. So, while the science doesn’t bear the theory out, that has never mattered in politics. So, it is wise for Senator McCain to get out front of the issue, and move for methods that do not damage the environment. You decide