When Wingnuts Fight

Here's a sweet one:

Forget about the president's charge that critics of the amnesty bill "don't want to do what's right for America" — Sen. McCain said Monday that his fellow candidates who oppose the bill "would intentionally make our country's problems worse." Intentionally. In his mind, he alone is morally fit to be president. This should be disqualification enough even for the office he currently holds, let alone the presidency.

One major upside of the current compromise not passing is that it holds out the promise that we can replay this delicious fight again in the future.

Comments

Implying that the opposition isn't merely of differing policy views, but immoral and unamerican? Why [clutches pearls to chest] that's unheard of for a President to do in a debate.

Posted by justin | June 5, 2007 10:46 AM

His argument basically boils down to "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done." If you oppose his favored policy, clearly you don't want to solve the problem at all, but make it worse! It's an argument that Republicans have been hurling at Democrats about the War on Terror for years, and that Democrats have been hurling at Republicans about anti-poverty legislation for decades.

Between this and his "A policy isn't working? We need more of it!" Iraq war stance, the guy is basically a libertarian straw-man argument made flesh.

Posted by solarjetman | June 5, 2007 11:29 AM

Sounds like some of the netroots.

Posted by Korha | June 5, 2007 11:50 AM

Arrogance disqualifies politicians? In what universe is that the case?

Posted by shecky | June 5, 2007 11:50 AM

Here is how I read the left strategy on immigration:

More poor people the better.
Immigration (il/legal) increases the number of poor.
Therefore, immigration is good.

I love how the wealthy liberals are so eager to sell out the poor. Well, at least their heart is in the right place.

Posted by bjkad | June 5, 2007 12:28 PM

Perhaps it's because we're obviously in support of the Democrats, thus making our view of the world skewed, but it seems like the Republicans don't have a strong set of choices this year and that the contest is bound to get messy. A small part of me is happy to see them self-destruct. Is that wrong?

Posted by Brian | June 5, 2007 12:35 PM

1) Re Brian's comment "A small part of me is happy to see them [Republicans] self-destruct. Is that wrong? "

2) Not at all, my son. I see that Scooter Libby was just sentenced to 30 months in prison.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/05cnd-libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

3) Whereupon I remembered the thoughts of a 17th century Chinese playwright named
Chin Shengt'an:
-------
"11. I wake up in the morning and seem to hear someone in the house sighing and saying that last night someone died. I immediately ask to find out who it is, and learn that it is the sharpest,
most calculating fellow in town.

Ah, is this not happiness?"

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2007 12:45 PM

"but it seems like the Republicans don't have a strong set of choices this year"

I think they have several better choices than their nominee in the last two elections. The difference is atmosphere. Any Republican who hopes to win has to be a hell of a lot better than Bush was in 2000 or 2004, and they just aren't.

Posted by Njorl | June 5, 2007 3:52 PM

"One major upside of the current compromise not passing is that it holds out the promise that we can replay this delicious fight again in the future."

It might not end up being so delicious for you. If the bill doesn't pass, immigration will likely be a big issue in the next election. If it is, and we end up with a GOP candidate opposed to open-borders, and a Dem candidate toeing the Bush line -- then it won't be "wingnuts" versus "wingnuts".

Posted by Fred | June 5, 2007 4:00 PM

Re: If it is, and we end up with a GOP candidate opposed to open-borders, and a Dem candidate toeing the Bush line -- then it won't be "wingnuts" versus "wingnuts".

How likely is this? So you think a (serious) GOP candidate could wander that far off the corporatist plantation? Will he also then adopt a Dobbsian stance of trade, maybe even call for universal healthcare?
I just don't see the GOP ever giving in to real populist impulses. They may use wildly populist rhetoric on social issues, but when it comes to anything involving dollars and cents they toe the line their paymasters dictate.

Posted by JonF | June 5, 2007 10:53 PM

JonF:

There are grounds other than populism to oppose massive unskilled immigration. There is, for example, also common sense, and the fiscal reality that a welfare state can't take in unlimited numbers of people who consume more in government services than they pay in taxes. This issue need not be combined with protectionism or Canadian-style health care proposals to draw votes.

If unskilled immigration is clamped down on, but skilled immigration is increased, the GOP's corporate base will be satisfied. So will the 'working rich' base (physicians, stock brokers, etc.) who know that their taxes would have to go up to subsidize more services for more uneducated Mexican immigrants. The GOP might lose some of its small business base (restaurateurs, landscapers, etc.) though.

Posted by Fred | June 6, 2007 2:07 AM