Thread: John McCain’s Address To CPAC Silent On Amnesty Issue

John McCain’s Address To CPAC Silent On Amnesty Issue
Thursday February 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm

John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party nominee in the 2008 race for the White House, tried to mend fences with the GOP’s core conservative base today in an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The speech, on the whole, appeared to be well received, as I watched his address on the FOX News Channel.

However, it should be noted that on a significant national issue that has materially estranged “the baseâ€

When Romney mentioned immigration enforcement, in his farewell speech, CPAC went wild.

How do you think McAmnesty would have been received? I heard one rumor that they were going around the room asking people not to boo him.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

When Romney mentioned immigration enforcement, in his farewell speech, CPAC went wild.

How do you think McAmnesty would have been received? I heard one rumor that they were going around the room asking people not to boo him.

Dixie

Laura Ingraham said they managed to stash an number of ardent McCain supporters into the room with signs and placards. As soon as McLame appeared, the McLameinites brought out their signs and chants for McCain.

I heard some booing during McCain's unimpressive cliche-ridden speech.

I agree with what Kevin James said last night: there is no good reason to throw in with and support McCain now, because he needs our (conservative) support. If we come out and support him right now (like Hugh Hewitt did), we lose our negotiating leverage.

McCain needs the conservative base, so we should wring specific, public concessions from him before he gets any possible support from us.

One speech is FAR from doing it. We still have about 9 months until the general election.

The above premise is what I'm basically hearing from talk radio hosts Kevin James, John & Ken & Mark Levin. Others?

Originally Posted by Populist

I heard some booing during McCain's unimpressive cliche-ridden speech.

I agree with what Kevin James said last night: there is no good reason to throw in with and support McCain now, because he needs our (conservative) support. If we come out and support him right now (like Hugh Hewitt did), we lose our negotiating leverage.

McCain needs the conservative base, so we should wring specific, public concessions from him before he gets any possible support from us.

One speech is FAR from doing it. We still have about 9 months until the general election.

The above premise is what I'm basically hearing from talk radio hosts Kevin James, John & Ken & Mark Levin. Others?

Populist, I could never even remotely consider voting for McLame, unless he specifically and unequivocally comes out and states: "I will build the entire wall specified in Duncan Hunter's bill AND I will not pursue amnesty, earned legalization or a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants." I will enforce ALL immigration laws to the letter of their intent and I will seek punishment for the aiders and abettors of illegal immigrants, including the employers of illegals. To cement my intentions to these statements, I will sign both NumbersUSA pledge AND Senator Sessions 15-point questionaire."
...So, after monkeys fly out of McCain's butt, we can expect him to say all of the above.

I hear you zeez. I still doubt I can vote for McCain, especially after reading that article from CQ about how McCain would work with a Dem controlled Congress (with likely larger majorities).

Maybe if he did what you note, AND picked Romney as veep, but I doubt this will happen.

As Rush noted this am, which I agree with, if we don't vote for a president, it's critical that we still vote for and support real enforcement conservatives both in Congress and in state legislatures.

In other words, we have to limit the damage over the next four years from Hilary/Obama/McCain and a Dem controlled Congress. It's sad it's come ot this, but we have to deal with reality.

But one thing is for sure, these events should NOT be interpreted that Americans want CIR (i.e., amnesty). There have been several good articles posted that show why these events should not be interpreted as an accpetance of amnesty by the American people.