ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told ABC's David Muir Saturday that his support for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants will not block his path to the White House because he and G.O.P. frontrunner John McCain share substantial overlap on immigration.
"I think they will pounce on any issue that has to do with immigration," said Obama, referring to Republicans, "but my position has been very similar to John McCain's, who's may be the likely Republican nominee, and if he wants to try to parse out this one issue of driver's licenses, an issue of public safety, my response is that we have to solve the overall problem and this driver's license issue is a distraction."
Now, on licenses, his position isn't similar to McCain's according to the article, however, on balance, the Obama and McCain positions on illegal immigration aren't that dissimilar.
Ed Morrissey brings us his take on the surprise chat between John McCain and Hillary Clinton on yesterday's Fox News Sunday:
Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be "respectful". Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans.
Both candidates got taken by surprise, but Hillary hasn't got Democrats wondering if the Clintons can fight hard enough against Republicans.
It appears, given the probability of a McCain nomination and either of the Democrats as their nominee that the choice for small/less intrusive government voters will be lacking.
If it is McCain/Clinton, it's hard to decide who the less attractive candidate may be. If it is McCain/Obama, I don't think McCain will come off well against Obama. McCain is not a great speaker (in fact, as he stumbles and bumbles along, he reminds me a bit of Bush), and that particular stark difference may be enough, in the minds of uncommitted voters, to overshadow the supposed stark difference in issues - especially with the "change" mantra so popular and seemingly powerful at the moment. As most will decide, when they listen to McCain, he is anything but change when compared to Obama. And, given the "respectful" pledge above, I have to wonder, as does Ed Morrissey, if McCain will actually go after either of the possible Dem nominees effectively. I get the impression he's more worried about being in good standing with his Democratic colleagues than doing what is necessary to win.
No such qualms with Clinton, despite her pledge. Push polling and whatever subrosa plot which might be effective in yielding enough votes for her to overcome her negatives will be considered and used. I couldn't help but believe that McCain was getting sandbagged in that brief exchange yesterday.
Bottom line, as this is shaping up I see no one on either side to be excited about. Except for minor differences, none of the three even begin to reflect my philosophy about government.
I know what Obama and Clinton plan, and I have no confidence that McCain is really that much better of a choice even knowing that. But the field pretty much describes what politics has devolved into over the past decades - picking the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of doing that.
I’m also sick and tired of having to factor in things I never expected to worry about. Thanks to Bush, we now know that a Republican president who drifts leftwards will have no effective opposition in Congress. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we know that a Democratic president will be opposed on collectivist policies. Therefore, we have to take into account the effects of electing someone a bit more liberal, but who will have some opposition from Congress, vs someone a bit less liberal, but with no effective opposition in Congress. That’s just wrong.
I used to occasionally lament the fact that I supported Libertarian candidates over GOP candidates throughout the nineties. The GOP very seldom seemed to do much to promote the freedom-oriented issues I really cared about. The Republicans kept telling me "Just you wait until we get the White House and both houses of Congress. Then we’ll get to work on that minimal government stuff you libertarians want. So help us get there."
I no longer regret what I did then, even though the LP turned out much flakier than I hoped it would. I now know that it would not have made any difference to support Republicans, because as soon as they got any real power, they turned into pale copies of the Democrats.
I am of a similar mind when it comes to voting for political candidates. As a Canadian, our choices over the past few Federal elections have looked a lot like yours will be in November: Left, Lefter and Leftist. Either way you cut it, American politics at the Presidential level is headed left, and you can expect the media worldwide to herald its arrival.
In a political climate such as this, the question that interests me is just how marginal is our pro-market, pro-liberty perspective? I am sure I don’t have to tell you that when I talk about the importance of individual freedom on issues such as schooling, gun ownership and health care, I get a lot of blank stares.
NPR recently played a segment where they asked famous people "What They Believe". Well, in that same spirit...I believe the average voter (those American and Canadians that actually do vote), is woefully uninformed on most serious issues, has a poor grasp of the relationship between beliefs, politicians, legislation and liberty, and has a populist, laughably facile understanding of our economy, trade, and how businesses operate.
Why according to Scott Erb we should be drooling over the possibility of a McCain presidency. I just dont understand.
"How about if Clinton and McCain just choose each other as their running mates?"
If McCain loses the republican nomination I would be willing to bet that he will become Hillary’s VP choice. He knows this is his last shot and 2nd chair is better than no chair. Hillary would love to have him to garner the middle vote and assure her of the win.
Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be "respectful". Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans
I have zero problem with a "respectful" campaign, but chances are it won’t be so much respectful as McCain being a punching bag for Hilalry’s subordinates, minions, stalking horses and "unaffiliated" mouthpieces.