How would a McCain presidency compare to Bush?

[Stratocaster]

Thanks. Not trying to be difficult here, but that doesn’t seem to say what I inferred from your posts. The fact that this clusterfuck of “debate” included a one-off vote where there was not a consensus for a 700-mile fence does not mean that border security isn’t a prerequisite for immigration reform. It means the two idiot fraternities in the Senate didn’t have any affection for this particular strategy. In your cite:

Critics of the bill – on the conservative wing of the Republican Party and both wings of the Democratic Party – say that sponsors still have to come to terms with objections to the substance of the bill, ranging from how the enforcement system will work to whether the bill will adequately protect American workers from unfair competition.

It wasn’t a single “poison pill” amendment that killed this week’s deal, as many supporters had feared. After two weeks of floor debate, leaders on both sides of the aisle couldn’t agree on how to manage the growing volume of objections to the vast and complex bill.

In short, there was no consensus around which this could have crystallized, not at that point. I still don’t see how that contradicts anything I said previously.

[Richard_Parker]

@Stratocaster

Thanks. Not trying to be difficult here, but that doesn’t seem to say what I inferred from your posts. The fact that this clusterfuck of “debate” included a one-off vote where there was not a consensus for a 700-mile fence does not mean that border security isn’t a prerequisite for immigration reform. It means the two idiot fraternities in the Senate didn’t have any affection for this particular strategy.

In a context where a serious fence was the measure most strongly supported by the conservative base who wanted border security accomplished before other reforms, this vote strongly suggests that, as a political matter, “fence first” is not any more viable than comprehensive reform. This is further bolstered by the total failure of subsequent “fence first” bills.

@Stratocaster

In short, there was no consensus around which this could have crystallized, not at that point. I still don’t see how that contradicts anything I said previously.

I’m not challenging that. There was no consensus indeed. The question is what those events tell us about where the consensus lies. And I’m saying the events strongly suggest that consensus does not lie in pursuing border security before legal reform.

Inevitably, matters like this cannot be proven by syllogism. The question is which scenario is more likely. That McCain changed positions because it was the only way he could be nominated by his the base of his party which was very anti-immigration-reform. Or that McCain saw what happened and concluded that the only way to get a bill through the Senate was to put security first. The available evidence leans against the latter scenario–and at a minimum cannot be used to bolster it.

[gonzomax]

@Pochacco

There’s no indication of that. He said in his own biography that he likes to make snap decisions and then deal with the consequences later.

His voting record has been solidly conservative. He’s not a moderate by any means.

He was far more bellicose than Bush during the recent Georgia crisis. His record suggests that he’s actually MORE likely to use military force over diplomacy than the current administration.

You’re plannin on voting for a fiction. Take a closer look at the real McCain.

Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran ,ring a bell. He will bankrupt us even more with his war lke ways. We can not afford these stupid adventures.