02/09/2008
Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column: Keep The Faith — McCain (And Amnesty) Will Fail
Joe Guzzardi writes: Readers responded immediately and passionately to my column earlier this week predicting that John McCain would not be elected president and that, no matter whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama prevails in November, amnesty is nowhere on the political horizon.
Correspondents unanimously appreciated my column’s hopeful tone and joined me in deriding McCain.
But, as you might expect, some readers thought that McCain will win regardless of his well-documented immigration enthusiasm. And others took the position that Hillary Clinton seems a better choice, at least on the immigration issue.
One of the things I should have done before so boldly projecting a McCain November defeat was to crunch the Electoral College numbers. This morning, to reassure myself, I did that very thing.
Here’s what I came up with.
Assuming the presidential election were held today, I calculate that the Democrat nominee would win a minimum of 319 electoral votes.
Here are the states that I have placed as either heavily leaning or solidly in the Democratic camp: AK, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WI
In 2004, Bush narrowly carried some of these key states — most notably Ohio and Florida — but in 2008, they will vote Democratic.
Other states with a total of 36 electoral votes — IA, MO, WV and even VA with its newly-elected Democratic anti-Iraq War Senator Jim Webb — promise to be toss-ups. If those votes are split evenly between the two candidates, the Democratic total becomes 337.
Finally, should Clinton represent the Democrats, add six electoral votes from Arkansas to make Clinton’s tally 343.
Between now and November, you'll read about and hear hundreds of conservative Republicans speculating on how McCain can win and why California, Ohio and Florida are within his reach.
Do yourself a favor and don’t waste your time listening to any of it.
Now…on to what you, the readers, think!
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Eric Fowler
Best case:
Worst case:
Fowler is a software engineer married to a legal Scandinavian immigrant. The couple has one "non- anchor baby"
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Georgiana Preskar
As I watched and listened to John McCain at the Conservative Political Action Conference, my gloom about his candidacy lifted and I saw sunshine.
For those who choose to continue with your criticism of McCain, I ask you, "What will you gain by it?" We have only two choices and for those who say they will not vote or they will vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, your decision is unwise.
Demeaning McCain or voting for the opposition will make matters worse. We must now consider the nation’s future and put petty party squabbles aside.
Pessimistic activists against McCain hurt the nation’s unity by not coming together for the only person who can beat our Democratic rivals.
McCain touched on important issues in his CPAC speech: our liberty created by God, the safety of the born and unborn, securing the border, permanently reducing taxes, reduced government spending, sensible health care programs, pulling troops from Iraq only when the time is right and appointing conservative judges.
We must put our trust in McCain. Otherwise Clinton or Obama will destroy the nation.
Although I doubted him once, McCain has me fired up again. I am choosing to move forward and unite others under McCain.
Preskar, a registered nurse and the author of Seeds of Deception: Planting the Destruction of America’s Children, is the director of the Eagle Forum of Sacramento.
From: William Flax
McCain only seems electable.
But once he gets the nomination, he will be under sustained attack from conservatives such as myself.
McCain, clueless on how to fight the war on terror, has a hopelessly flawed foreign policy. He would be a Godsend to the international terrorists who feed on American truculence.
Ron Paul may not get the nomination but every vote for him is a vote to restore sanity in the Republican Party. If McCain can be blocked, it will help move us in the right direction.
Flax practices in southwest Ohio.
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Robert B. Murray II, Ph.D.
Guzzardi’s analysis is fascinating but let’s examine another facet of the immigration crisis.
Obviously, we stopped the Senate amnesty in its tracks. Yet, nothing substantial has happened to prove the government takes the illegal immigration problem seriously.
The borders are still open. President Bush and the neocons have the SPP-NAU in the wings to insure the border stays open. No serious attempts have been made to build a fence, to round up the 600,000 deportable criminal aliens or to deal harshly with Mexico about its own problems.
The government has allowed the U.S. to become a safe haven thus providing a rolling, de facto amnesty.
And, the last straw, Bush is attempting to outmaneuver us by changing the rules for obtaining H-2A visas. What is comical is that Homeland Security is going to start a pilot program to track individuals with H-2A visas to see if they go home after their visas expire. This is unprecedented…and probably cannot be done.
Yet curiously people still support the Democrats and Republicans. No wonder nothing changes.
Murray attended Forestry School at the University of Montana (BSF and MSF) and earned a Ph.D. in Plant Ecology at Washington State University. His previous letters about his Senators Craig and Crapo, hiring foreign-born teachers and Cardinal Roger Mahony are here, here and here.
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Paul Clark
At 67, and as a life-long Republican, I am giving serious consideration to not voting for McCain.
Besides being far too old to embark on the presidency, McCain is mentally unstable and unfit to serve because of his volatile temper.
During his years in the Senate, McCain has been a destructive force like a spoiled child trying to unnecessarily complicate or thwart the legislative process.
McCain’s attitude may be attributable to his years in captivity as a POW. But, while I am sorry for whatever suffering McCain endured in Vietnam, Guzzardi’s column has helped me make the decision to sit this election out.
In the end, McCain will be far more destructive to our liberties than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Clark, who was born in San Francisco, is a former three-term member of the Contra Costa County Republican Central Committee.
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: William Hughes
It may even be better to have an open-borders Democrat in the White House so that Republicans will have another reason to rally against amnesty.
Strangely, worse is sometimes better. When Ronald Reagan had James G. Watt as Secretary of the Interior in his cabinet, environmentalists had an adversary to unify them.
Then, when Bill Clinton became president, environmentalists lost their enemy and the movement petered out.
The same dynamic could apply to immigration.
Hughes is Professor of English at Lorain County Community College. He has supported immigration reform, for mostly environmental reasons, for twenty-five years.
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Matt Parrott
Guzzardi fails to account for the dramatic shift to the left that is likely to occur in Congress, given how demoralized conservatives are versus the mobilized liberals.
Our immigration victories in the Senate would not have been possible if the arithmetic were then as the prediction markets imply it will be after the 2008 election.
As for the toxicity of the immigration issue, both John McCain and Barack Obama have eschewed pragmatism and politics to do what is on their agenda — managing to mysteriously defy political gravity while pursuing unpopular initiatives.
If the Democrats gain control of Congress as well as the White House, control of both houses of congress and the presidency, they could and would pass an amnesty bill. The Democrats calculate that whatever indigestion they cause among moderates and independents will be compensated for by the enfranchisement of tens of millions of fiercely loyal (if not reliable) voters.
Curiously, our best hope for surviving until 2010 lies with Hillary Clinton. My bet is that she will stall on the issue, investing her political capital in the stuff she cares about — like her health care initiative. Unless Ron Paul goes third party, this Taft conservative will vote for the principled conservative candidate — Hillary Clinton.
Parrott’s previous letter to VDARE.COM discussing Clinton’s possible conversion to immigration reform is here. He maintains his blog here.[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.