Hispanic Democrat Leader endorses McCain

[whottt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122179087917055511.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

As Barack Obama and John McCain battle for the Hispanic vote, a leading Latino backer of Hillary Clinton is crossing party lines to support the Republican presidential nominee.

In an interview Thursday, Miguel D. Lausell, a Puerto Rican businessman and longtime Democratic activist and fund-raiser, came out for Sen. McCain. While he said he doesn't agree with all the policy positions of the Republican candidate and his running mate, Sarah Palin, Mr. Lausell added: "I find McCain to be a sound person and a man with a track record. I know where he is coming from." Mr. Lausell had been a major backer of Bill Clinton and served as a senior political adviser to Sen. Clinton's unsuccessful bid this year for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Mr. Lausell said he feels Sen. Obama "doesn't really regard the Hispanic community as important." Sen. Clinton won a large majority of the Hispanic vote in most primaries, and Latino voters are an important bloc in swing states such as Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Most polls show Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain among Latinos.

Mr. Lausell said that as a "lifelong Democrat," this is the first time he has supported a Republican presidential candidate. A Harvard Law School graduate, Mr. Lausell's business career has included a stint as chief executive of the Puerto Rico Telephone Co. and chairman of PonceBank, a large Puerto Rican financial institution. Mr. Lausell once had a position with the Democratic National Committee and served on a national finance board for Al Gore's unsuccessful 2000 presidential run. In 2004, he helped start a nonprofit aimed at boosting Latino turnout for Democrats.

Sen. Clinton, for her part, has firmly come out for Sen. Obama and asked her supporters to do the same. While many of her biggest backers have gotten on the Obama bandwagon, numerous others have held back and some have been looking to support Sen. Obama's general-election opponent. Earlier this week, another prominent Clinton supporter, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, declared for the Republican nominee. Other former Clinton backers may be declaring for Sen. McCain in the days ahead, according to someone familiar with the situation.

Public-opinion polls in recent weeks also show that a potentially significant minority of Clinton voters from the primaries still haven't decided whether to vote for Sen. Obama. If the Democratic nominee loses a large number of Clinton voters, it could prove crucial in a close presidential race.

A spokesman for Sen. Obama declined to comment on the move of some Clinton backers to the McCain camp. In recent weeks, the Obama campaign has touted the endorsements of current and former Republican officeholders, including Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach and former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

Mr. Lausell cited several objections he has with Sen. Obama. "The U.S. is in a very difficult situation these days and I don't want someone without experience at the helm," he said. Mr. Lausell said he likes Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, but felt that if Sen. Obama was going to reach inside of Washington for a vice presidential running mate, he should have chosen Sen. Clinton, "who received 18 million votes" during the presidential primaries.

[Mr. Peabody]

Do you really want to do this every time some former Clinton backer comes out for McCain?


How John McCain lost me
By: Elizabeth Drew
September 18, 2008 11:05 AM EST

I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans’ whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, “Citizen McCain.”

I admired John McCain as a man of principle and honor. He had become emblematic of someone who spoke his mind, voted his conscience, and demonstrated courage in bucking his own party and fighting for what he believed in. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a maverick. He was seen as taking principled positions on such issues as tax equity (opposing the newly elected Bush’s tax cut), fighting political corruption, and, later, taking on the Bush administration on torture. He came off as a man of decency. He took political risks.

Having emerged, ironically, from his bitter 2000 primary fight against Bush as an immensely popular figure, he set out to be a new force in American politics. He decided to form and lead a centrist movement, believing that that was where the country was and needed leadership. He went against the grain of his party on the environment, patients’ bill of rights, and, of course, campaign finance reform.

While McCain’s movement to the center was widely popular (if not on the right) – and he even flirted with becoming a Democrat – there’s now strong reason to question whether it was anything but a temporary, expedient tactic. (In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” he wrote, revealingly, “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”)

When he decided to run for president in 2008, he felt he couldn’t win without the support of the right, so he adapted.

In retrospect, other once-hailed McCain efforts – his cultivation of the press (“my base”) and even his fight for campaign finance reform (launched in the wake of his embarrassment over the Keating Five scandal) now seem to have been simply maneuvers. The “Straight Talk Express” – a brilliant p.r. stroke in 2000 – has now been shut down.

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, widely opposed by Republicans, began to seem a liability during the 2008 primaries, his reforming zeal gave way to political exigencies, and he ceased mentioning his one-time triumph. Though in 2003 he had introduced a bill to fix some other problems with the campaign finance system, in later years his name was no longer on the bill.

When Bush, issued a “signing statement” in 2006 on McCain’s hard-fought legislation placing prohibitions on torture, saying he would interpret the measure as he chose, McCain barely uttered a peep. And then, in 2006, in one of his most disheartening acts, McCain supported a “compromise” with the administration on trials of Guantanamo detainees, yielding too much of what the administration wanted, and accepted provisions he had originally opposed on principle. Among other things, the bill sharply limited the rights of detainees in military trials, stripped habeas corpus rights from a broad swath of people “suspected” of cooperating with terrorists, and loosened restrictions on the administration’s use of torture. (The Supreme Court later ruled portions of this measure unconstitutional.)

McCain’s caving in to this “compromise” did it for me. This was further evidence that the former free-spirited, supposedly principled, maverick was morphing into just another panderer – to Bush and the Republican Party’s conservative base.

Other aspects of McCain, including his temperament, began to trouble me. He seemed disturbingly bellicose. He gave the Iraq war unflagging support no matter the facts. He still talks about “winning” the war, though George W. Bush gave that up some time ago. As the war became increasingly unpopular, he employed the useful technique of blaming its execution rather than recognizing the misconceptions that had led him to be one of the most enthusiastic champions of the war in the first place.

Similarly, in making a big issue of having backed the surge (and simplifying the reasons for its apparent success), he preempts debate on the very idea of the war. He has talked (and sung) loosely about attacking Iran. More recently, he oversimplified this summer’s events in Georgia and made intemperate remarks about Russia, about which he’s been more belligerent than the administration for some time. (He has his own set of neocons.)

There’s an argument that all this compromise wasn’t necessary: some very smart political analysts believed from the outset that McCain could win the nomination by sticking with his old self. And they still believe that McCain won the nomination not because he gave himself over to the base but as a result of a process of elimination of inferior candidates who divided up the conservative vote, as these observers had predicted. (These people insisted on anonymity because McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory and a vindictive streak.)

By then I had already concluded that that there was a disturbingly erratic side of McCain’s nature. There’s a certain lack of seriousness in him. And he does not appear to be a reflective man, or very interested in domestic issues. One cannot imagine him ruminating late into the night about, say, how to educate and train Americans for the new global and technological challenges.

McCain’s making a big issue of “earmarks” and citing entertaining examples of idiculous-sounding ones, circumvents discussion of the larger issues of the allocation of funds in the federal budget: according to the Office of Management and Budget, earmarks represent less than one percent of federal spending.

Now he’s back to declaring himself a maverick, but it’s not clear what that means. If he gains the presidency, is he going to rebel against the base he’s now depending on to get him elected? (Hence his selection of running mate Sarah Palin.) Campaigns matter. If he means “shaking up the system” (which is not the same thing), opposing earmarks doesn’t cut it.

McCain’s recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.
In fact, it’s not clear who he is.

Elizabeth Drew is author of “Citizen McCain” (Simon & Schuster, 2002; paperback with new introduction, 2008.)

[whottt]

Do you really want to do this every time some former Clinton backer comes out for McCain?

Do what? Post news?

I'm posting news from the Wall Street Journal...don't click on it if you don't want to read it.

[ggoose25]

This guy is the Alan Keyes of the Hispanic community. The vast majority of Hispanic voters will go Democratic this year. The Republicans have ruined their brand during the immigration debate and the only votes they'll get from the Latino community will be from the wealthy and staunch pro-lifers, no more than 30%.

[whottt]

What's Obama's stance on immigration?

[ggoose25]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/

But really it doesn't matter what it is. The perception is that Republicans are anti-immigrant so the Democrats win by default.

[boutons_]

Conservative Andrew Sullivan: HUSSEIN

Here's thorogh comdemnation of McShitHead by a former ardent supporter:

Opinion



How John McCain Lost Me (http://www.truthout.org/article/how-john-mccain-lost-me)

Thursday 18 September 2008
» (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=71BBF99A-18FE-70B2-A864E9E1EC671646)
by: Elizabeth Drew, Politico.com
http://www.truthout.org/files/images/E1_091808R.jpg
Elizabeth Drew, a long-time supporter of John McCain, describes the myriad of reasons why she no longer supports him. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries, I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans' whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, "Citizen McCain."
I admired John McCain as a man of principle and honor. He had become emblematic of someone who spoke his mind, voted his conscience, and demonstrated courage in bucking his own party and fighting for what he believed in. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a maverick. He was seen as taking principled positions on such issues as tax equity (opposing the newly elected Bush's tax cut), fighting political corruption, and, later, taking on the Bush administration on torture. He came off as a man of decency. He took political risks.

Having emerged, ironically, from his bitter 2000 primary fight against Bush as an immensely popular figure, he set out to be a new force in American politics. He decided to form and lead a centrist movement, believing that that was where the country was and needed leadership. He went against the grain of his party on the environment, patients' bill of rights, and, of course, campaign finance reform.

While McCain's movement to the center was widely popular (if not on the right) - and he even flirted with becoming a Democrat - there's now strong reason to question whether it was anything but a temporary, expedient tactic. (In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," he wrote, revealingly, "I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president.... In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time.")

When he decided to run for president in 2008, he felt he couldn't win without the support of the right, so he adapted.

In retrospect, other once-hailed McCain efforts - his cultivation of the press ("my base") and even his fight for campaign finance reform (launched in the wake of his embarrassment over the Keating Five scandal) now seem to have been simply maneuvers. The "Straight Talk Express" - a brilliant p.r. stroke in 2000 - has now been shut down.

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, widely opposed by Republicans, began to seem a liability during the 2008 primaries, his reforming zeal gave way to political exigencies, and he ceased mentioning his one-time triumph. Though in 2003 he had introduced a bill to fix some other problems with the campaign finance system, in later years his name was no longer on the bill.

When Bush, issued a "signing statement" in 2006 on McCain's hard-fought legislation placing prohibitions on torture, saying he would interpret the measure as he chose, McCain barely uttered a peep. And then, in 2006, in one of his most disheartening acts, McCain supported a "compromise" with the administration on trials of Guantanamo detainees, yielding too much of what the administration wanted, and accepted provisions he had originally opposed on principle. Among other things, the bill sharply limited the rights of detainees in military trials, stripped habeas corpus rights from a broad swath of people "suspected" of cooperating with terrorists, and loosened restrictions on the administration's use of torture. (The Supreme Court later ruled portions of this measure unconstitutional.)

McCain's caving in to this "compromise" did it for me. This was further evidence that the former free-spirited, supposedly principled, maverick was morphing into just another panderer - to Bush and the Republican Party's conservative base.

Other aspects of McCain, including his temperament, began to trouble me. He seemed disturbingly bellicose. He gave the Iraq war unflagging support no matter the facts. He still talks about "winning" the war, though George W. Bush gave that up some time ago. As the war became increasingly unpopular, he employed the useful technique of blaming its execution rather than recognizing the misconceptions that had led him to be one of the most enthusiastic champions of the war in the first place.

Similarly, in making a big issue of having backed the surge (and simplifying the reasons for its apparent success), he preempts debate on the very idea of the war. He has talked (and sung) loosely about attacking Iran. More recently, he oversimplified this summer's events in Georgia and made intemperate remarks about Russia, about which he's been more belligerent than the administration for some time. (He has his own set of neocons.)

There's an argument that all this compromise wasn't necessary: some very smart political analysts believed from the outset that McCain could win the nomination by sticking with his old self. And they still believe that McCain won the nomination not because he gave himself over to the base but as a result of a process of elimination of inferior candidates who divided up the conservative vote, as these observers had predicted. (These people insisted on anonymity because McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory and a vindictive streak.)

By then I had already concluded that that there was a disturbingly erratic side of McCain's nature. There's a certain lack of seriousness in him. And he does not appear to be a reflective man, or very interested in domestic issues. One cannot imagine him ruminating late into the night about, say, how to educate and train Americans for the new global and technological challenges.

McCain's making a big issue of "earmarks" and citing entertaining examples of ridiculous-sounding ones, circumvents discussion of the larger issues of the allocation of funds in the federal budget: according to the Office of Management and Budget, earmarks represent less than one percent of federal spending.

Now he's back to declaring himself a maverick, but it's not clear what that means. If he gains the presidency, is he going to rebel against the base he's now depending on to get him elected? (Hence his selection of running mate Sarah Palin.) Campaigns matter. If he means "shaking up the system" (which is not the same thing), opposing earmarks doesn't cut it.

McCain's recent conduct of his campaign - his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition - has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.

In fact, it's not clear who he is.
--------
Elizabeth Drew is author of "Citizen McCain" (Simon & Schuster, 2002; paperback with new introduction, 2008.

==========

iow, McWorse has transformed himself into a lying, foolish scumbag. In his own book and recorded on tape in his own voice, he runs for personal ambition primarily, not for patriotism, nor for any "vision thang" but just for John McCain.

[whottt]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/

But really it doesn't matter what it is. The perception is that Republicans are anti-immigrant so the Democrats win by default.

_ZF2kFbnYaA

[whottt]

...



Already posted stupid fuck.

[ggoose25]

Like I said. That video doesn't matter. Just like it doesnt matter if John McCain has absolutely no idea where Spain is or who leads the country. The perception is that he has command of foreign policy, so I don't expect him to get too damaged by the recent gaffe.

[ggoose25]

I've not said John McCain is anti-immigrant. He is by far one of the more progressive Republicans when it comes to immigration reform, as evidenced by Obama acknowledging their positions are very similar.

But his party has been irrevocably damaged with anti-immigrant rhetoric that its hard to see many Hispanics looking past party affiliations when there is so much hurt and emotion behind the issue.

[whottt]

I've not said John McCain is anti-immigrant. He is by far one of the more progressive Republicans when it comes to immigration reform, as evidenced by Obama acknowledging their positions are very similar.

But his party has been irrevocably damaged with anti-immigrant rhetoric that its hard to see many Hispanics looking past party affiliations when there is so much hurt and emotion behind the issue.



Whatever man...just posting the article.

[ggoose25]

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=90

[whottt]

Nontheless...this guy is still jumping.

[Clandestino]

This guy is the Alan Keyes of the Hispanic community. The vast majority of Hispanic voters will go Democratic this year. The Republicans have ruined their brand during the immigration debate and the only votes they'll get from the Latino community will be from the wealthy and staunch pro-lifers, no more than 30%.

you can't be hispanic if you think a majority of hispanics will vote for obama.

[Oh, Gee!!]

a leading Latino backer of Hillary Clinton is crossing party lines to support the Republican presidential nominee.

what a sore loser. get over it, hillary lost :baby

[101A]

This is the second this week; not a big deal, really.

Can't help but wonder, however, if the Clinton's don't have these people lined up, every couple of days for the rest of the election.

[TheMadHatter]

The Hispanics will deliver NM and CO to Obama.

[Findog]

The Hispanics will deliver NM and CO to Obama.

New Mexico for sure. Colorado is more of a tossup.

[Findog]

Whatever man...just posting the article.

"Stop bothering me with your facts!"

[Tully365]

Both parties spend most of their time talking about how stupid the other side is, but then when someone from that other side crosses party lines for an endorsement, they brag about it... happens on both sides.

[ggoose25]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13550.html