December 10, 2007

INHERITING COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM:

Return of the Nativist: Behind the Republicans’ anti-immigration frenzy. (Ryan Lizza, December 17, 2007, The New Yorker)

Once upon a time, John McCain was favored to win the Republican nomination. His straight-talking appeal and his cultivation of the Republican Party’s right wing put him first—at least in the early conventional wisdom. Then, last summer, his campaign seemed to spontaneously combust in a puff of fund-raising troubles and staff intrigue. But McCain has slowly made his way back into contention. The usual line is that he has done it by being “the old McCain,” the one that New Hampshire voters (and many journalists) fell for during his 2000 Presidential run. [...]

McCain’s standard answer to immigration questions is that he “got the message.” But every so often this practical McCain, bending to the mood of the primary electorate, gets shoved aside by the quixotic McCain, the one who never seems happier than when he’s championing a lost cause. At one stop in South Carolina, at Clemson University, a student engaged McCain in an argument about whether his plan rewarded illegal immigrants for breaking the law. McCain was by then in a combative mood. Minutes earlier, a professor had asked about a piece of Internet-crime legislation that he argued would group terrorism researchers with actual terrorists. “Am I a terrorist?” the professor asked, his querulous tone suggesting that McCain hadn’t answered the original question. The questioner was wearing tennis shoes, jeans, a pink polo shirt, and a gray blazer, and McCain looked at him carefully. “With those sneakers, you’re not a snappy dresser,” McCain replied after a pause, as audience members gasped and laughed. “That doesn’t mean you’re a terrorist. Though you terrorize the senses.” To the student with the immigration question, McCain patiently explained that some illegal immigrants had faced unusual circumstances, and he mentioned a woman who has lived in the United States for decades and has a son and a grandson serving in Iraq. When the student said that he wanted to see punishment meted out to anyone who has broken the law, McCain stopped trying to find common ground. “If you’re prepared to send an eighty-year-old grandmother who’s been here seventy years back to some country, then frankly you’re not quite as compassionate as maybe I am,” he said. Next question.

McCain could stop discussing the controversial parts of his immigration plan or he could drop his support for them altogether, admitting that he was simply wrong, as Romney has done with abortion and other issues. I asked McCain about Romney, who had once expressed support for the comprehensive legislation backed by the Bush Administration—it sounded “reasonable,” he’d said—but now rails against it as “amnesty.” McCain said, “Both he and Rudy had the same position I did. In fact, Rudy was even more liberal. But, look, if that—” He paused and shrugged. “I don’t want to be President that bad.”


Now he just needs to mix in some Ownership Society proposals.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 10, 2007 11:00 AM
Comments

When I asked McCain point blank (a few months ago) whether he supported school choice, Personal accounts, and HSA (CDHC), he emphatically endorsed all three.

Posted by: Bruno at December 10, 2007 1:12 PM

Typical of the media hive not to realize that McCain's problems with conservatives began with taxes, CFR (that bears his name), the Gang of 14, his fawning face time with Chris Matthews, and his rude dismissals towards religious voters.

Unfortunately for the Left, immigration is just as corrosive for Democrats.

Posted by: jim hamlen at December 10, 2007 3:45 PM
« WHICH WOULD MAKE TONY AND W A CIVIL UNION: | Main | AND THE HOUSING SLOWDOWN IS JUST A FUNCTION OF FED ERROR: »