Fri 8 Feb 2008
Seeing Red AZ comment section has details on the vote.
Thursday night was the Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee meeting. LD-11 Chair Rob Haney introduced his previously announced motion. According to Mafioso the motion did not pass, the vote was 8 for and 17 against the Haney resolution. We do not have a list of who voted which way but apparently chief name taker and McCainiac Shiree Verdone was present to record the names.
The McCain camp is probably relieved the motion failed even though he appears to have the nomination sown up any way. One cause for concern is that Rob Haney has 7 allies that are not falling in line. Reportedly Haney had more votes lined up than the 7 but some allies threw in the towel at the last minute. It was too late in the evening for us to find out if they just decided to move on of their own accord or were pressure in some way.
Speaking of falling in line it looks like some people did not get the message about no booing at the CPAC meeting. I heard McCain’s speech live on Sean Hannity and could not understand why the CPAC crown was cheering so loudly. Now I understand it was to drowned out the booing from the back of the room (see video above.)
At first glance this whole issue seems like little more than a footnote in the ’08 primary. Arizona had one of the lengthiest Republican records in the union because it was one of only 6 states to vote for Goldwater in ’64. Had being the operative word due to a Democratic win of Arizona in ’96 when an aging war hero Republican nominee lost to a Democrat named Clinton. If the McCain camp knows their history they may be keen to make sure there is no trouble in Arizona come December ‘08.
The media has done a good side business interviewing Haney during the primary and may be even more interested in the story during the general election. That there are 7 other holdouts only adds to the angst within the party establishment.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:38 am
This was a fitting conclusion to a bad idea. If the EGC could not muster up the votes to pass the resolution, it won’t have legs anywhere. The Emperor has no clothes.
Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh and Ingraham will all suffer similar fates. A slide into political irrelevance.
I have to say I am very pleased with the State Party. The State Platform presented at the mandatory meeting was excellent. There is a real effort to build up and unite the GOP in Arizona.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Rush is now saying conservatives must accept John McCain and focus on electing a conservative congress, that sitting it out is not an option. A McCain presidency and a conservative congress is the way to go, so he says. Sounds good to me.
Of course he had an out. He is brighter than some and understands that the need to be the sole holder of truth and keeper of all things conservative, without adapting to the reality, is more about self than the cause. Also, it is not a recipe for longevity.
Haney, and others, do not get it. They have become disconnected from the majority of conservatives and cannot see beyond their own agenda. Their singular need is not to uphold the party but to have their agenda remain relevant. Their ability to do so requires the continued belief that McCain is the enemy and they are our only hope.
In fact, they have found themselves hopeless.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I find it amazing that Chairman Pullen (in his rah-rah McCain message delivered to the EGC by Sean McCaffery) somehow forgot to mention the booing McLame received and also McLames comments where he says (paraphrasing here) ‘will not need those who follow the GOP p[latform, because he will reach out to the independents and other moderates….”
Think about it: By doing just that (and I have no doubt he will) the Republican Party as we know it will be no more….the platform thrown aside so this man can further his personal goals…..
Is that what Republicans want? A new and different party, a different platform, or to do away with it altogether? Think about it!!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Ann,
For once you are exactly correct! Our need in fact, has never been to uphold the Party
We have no agenda but the Country, the Constitution, and the Platform. We would hope that this agenda would always remain relevant. But because we stick up for those principles above a candidate and a party we are continually denigrated as racist, bigots and anything else the McCain backers can throw at us.
The one overriding issue with us is the Border and Illegal Immigration because it affects so many other issues and McCain has shown that he will not secure the border and in fact, encourages the invasion through his opposition to any actions to reverse the invasion. We lose the war against this invasion, and it matters not what happens in Iraq.
Incidentally, that vote last night, I never expected to win. I was speaking for conservative PCs who feel our elected delegation refuses to give voice to their desires and elected me to provide that voice or they would indeed leave the Party.
I suspect the same McCain crew, which included Shiree, who made all the calls and efforts to unseat Dist 11 conservatives in the Symington affair, as well as defeat Randy Pullen for State Chairman were at work here, but more successfully I might add.
They were able to turn 4 members who had earlier given strong assurance they would vote in favor of the grassroots. If the crew hadn’t exerted the effort and the four members not folded, the vote would have been 13 against and 12 in favor. Congratulations to Shiree and the gang.
Shiree could hardly leave quickly enough after the vote to report her success to her handlers.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
So, you would have lost, but thanks to Shiree you lost? Riiiiiight.
No no, I got it now. I was confused before but your explanation just cleared it all up.
Naps Rob, you should seriously start considering naps.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Rob, since you’re participating in this thread, maybe you can clear up why you speak for the “grassroots” but the others don’t? I know the GOP had an election to elect a state party chairman, national committeeman, etc. but I don’t remember seeing any coverage of the election for “Leader of the Grassroots”.
I’m sure you’ll fall back on a straw poll that you ran, you handed out the ballots for, and you counted the ballots for, but that’s not a very scientific measure. Nor does a measure of 5-600 PCs measure the actual opinion of 2,000+ PCs in Maricopa County or the 3-4,000 PCs in Arizona.
Far more scientific would be the poll they had last Tuesday called “the election” where McCain won. Now, I’m not a McCain guy, but the way you wrap yourself in the flag, declare that you and yours speak for the grassroots, and anyone who disagrees with you is voting “against the grassroots” is simply dishonest.
I am the grassroots as much as you are and I would thank the 17 people who voted against your resolution. I guess now they can claim that they were speaking for the grassroots too? Although frankly, they shouldn’t and neither should you.
As a district chairman, you cannot fairly say that you speak for any group of people other than your LD, and even then folks will understand that your LD, like any LD, is not unanimously behind you.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mr. Haney,
If what you write is correct:
“Ann,
For once you are exactly correct! Our need in fact, has never been to uphold the Party
We have no agenda but the Country, the Constitution, and the Platform. We would hope that this agenda would always remain relevant. But because we stick up for those principles above a candidate and a party we are continually denigrated as racist, bigots and anything else the McCain backers can throw at us.”
I ask you, what platform? If not the Republican Party, then whose or what? And if you, as you stated, have no interest in supporting the party then you should immediately resign. It is clear you have a personal agenda and are using your position to accomplish actions other than that which is considered the responsibility of an LD chair.
If this is a legitimate post by Rob Haney, then it is an admission of his desire to serve himself and not the party. In fact, to do contrary if it meets his agenda. You have admitted your disregard for the party, the thousands of Arizona voters who supported Senator McCain, and anyone who challenges your position. You label them in order to discredit their words because you have no defense for your own actions.
A private citizen has every right to support or not support any person, party, position, or platform. You however, are not acting as a private citizen but an officer of the party. When you accept a role in an organization your actions should be to that organization. If you do not believe in that, you need to remove yourself immediately or the sanctions you so freely wield should be used against you.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
FINALLY!!!!
Rob Haney has shown his true colors for ONE ISSUE AND ONLY ONE ISSUE. That is illegal immigration. NOT THE PLATFORM AS HE SUGGESTS!!!
February 8th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Ah John, your sarcasm would be missed if you were to ever leave… Perhaps not by all, but certainly by some of us…
Sounds like the vote was actually a very tame affair except for Phil Corbell getting somebody’s proxy and ranting at anyone who would consider voting against the measure as a sellout and traitor.
Anybody ever get the feeling that Corbell has never had to make a living on sales commissions?
February 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
You know Ann, I’ll stick up for Rob on your argument about representing a group, albeit only to a point. McCain is almost our nominee, in fact, we would be hard pressed to see a situation where Huckabee or Paul can beat him. But he’s not YET the actual nominee. As such, we’re still in primary mode and each of us can support or oppose any Republican candidate we choose.
Where Rob’s official duty to support the nominee kicks in is when McCain becomes the actual nominee. Whether that is when he gets enough delegates or when the actual convention takes place I can’t say for certain, although I think it is when he gets enough delegates. At that point in time, Rob becomes subject to the same rules he voted into place, namely to support the party’s nominee or be stripped of his vote as a PC.
I would imagine that when that time comes, Rob will either support our party’s nominee or resign and let someone fill his position who can do the job.
Now my question for Rob Haney is, since you are opposing John McCain for the Republican nomination, would you have us vote for Mike Huckabee (bad on immigration and spending) or Ron Paul (bad on keeping us alive)?
February 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hmmm, very interesting. What say you Rob?
Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul for President?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Rob has zero explaining to do. Whether the Resolution was brought forth on behalf of one or one million, it puts forth examples of McCain acting in opposition to our Platform. Most of us, the sane ones, aren’t GOP because of people, we’re GOP because of GOP’s stated principles–The Platform. Somebody, Rob, cares enough about upholding conservative and decent values that he brought forth a Resolution on the subject.
Where was the Resolution in celebration of the GOP appearent nomination? There wasn’t one. Nobody cared enough to write one. Understandable.
I only need one issue to send McLame packing. Closing the POW/MIA investigation screams “We got a slime ball here not worthy of the Presidency.” WE HAVE ANYTHING BUT a hero closing in on OUR nomination. We should all be repulsed. But some people need more convincing and for that the Resolution spells out many more ways in which McLame tramples our platform.
The People of Arizona have spoken, as uninformed as they choose to be. But this makes the GOP less of an organization of people in agreement with a Platform, and more a herd of people content to share the same label. Our shared convictions run as deep as the label on the box. Only 8 voted to uphold our stated shared agreements, our platform. And the others just had one burning issue on their minds…light blue or dark blue shirts?
I’ll take Phil’s concern for Republican principles over the deep discussion for short sleeve vs. long sleeve shirts, thank you very much.
Personally, I’m thinking it will be very fitting in November ‘08 to go completely Maverick on McLames (behind).
February 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Tim S. how is Ron Paul bad at keeping us alive since we would all be walking around packin’ heat? An army of 200,000,000 sounds good to me. 9/11 would not have succeeded in Ron Paul’s U.S. because we would defend ourselves right at the moment of the threat. I also never heard him say that he would get rid of our nuclear submarine force or disband the military. Please explain.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
The Republicans that were paying attention (not including activists) left the Party over McCain-Kyl-Kennedy amnesty last year. That left the cheerleaders and the uninformed to make McCain the Arizona choice. That is how a nominee was chosen that so completely disavows his Party’s platform. See YouTube, McCain vs. McCain to see what a military genuis we just “have to” elect according to Ash et al. McCain only won 47% of his home state, there is hope for another Candidate.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Rob Haney,
You might want to adjust your tin foil hat and put your straight jacket back on. The nice men in the white coats will soon be by to pick you up and take you to a safe place.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
John McCain is leading is our presumptive nominee, whether Rob Haney likes it or not. For all of the people that have voted for John McCain, nationwide: are they not true Republicans? Do they not abide by the Republican Party Platform? The answer is one, that you don’t want to admit to. True Republicans, and Republicans who believe in the Republican Party Platform voted for John McCain. John McCain’s policies, votes and history has been laid out by the national media for all to see.
Rob Haney: I am not sure which party that you think that you belong to, but your rhetoric does not align itself with the the Republican Party’s platform.
Perhaps everyone out here is not as dumb as you think that we are. You can’t just speak for the grassroots. You know why? every time you come up with something, you change your mind, and pretty much expect people to follow you like blind sheep. I used to follow you- and then I realized that there there was not a method to this madness.
I, for one, cannot tolerate having Hillary or Obama in office as the President. Rob, if this is what you want, then please show your true colors.
We need to Republican in the White House.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
hmmmm joe and true gop both seem to speak with the same new river nudist colony accent.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Haney is a conservative who, through hard work and some luck, has been successfully recruiting conservatives to become card-carrying Republicans and Precinct Committeemen. Fair enough. But fifteen months later, what happens when the party he is an elected official of does something he despises. Does he rise the to the challenge, does he engage in despair, does he admit defeat and retire, or does he lead a revolution with his newby conservative PC’s against the party in power? Does he go along to get along? Does he go all reform-party on us? Does he “reach out” to pro-life libertarians and form a new party? Haney is a political everyman, on steroids. He’s a part of all of us, and we’ve seen his faults and maybe when we put them under a microscope, we see a lot of McCain in him. Practical, compromising, always political, and in the darkest times intensely and irrationally personal. For Haney, to me, it was when he said Andrew Thomas was bodysnatched by aliens from mars. Sidebar: if Haney is all about stopping illegal immigration, why did he multiple-flame Thomas?
Anyway, McCain is about McCain, and Haney is about Haney. It’s a lesson in personal politics for all of us. Less and less about philosophy and theory, and more and more about tactics, strategy, and punishment.
Are you on the side of the Old Testament or the New?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Josey, the idea that guns would have prevented 9-11 seems to understate their ability to stop a full-size airliner from crashing into a building. I’m not sure what kind of caliber you anticipate the average NYC office worker carrying, but it won’t likely stop an airliner.
Of course, you might be thinking that we should all carry guns onto airplanes as well, presumably to stop hijackers. Of course, thanks to that idea the hijackers now all have guns on the airplaces, and hand grenades, etc. and instead of crashing into buildings, they’re just blowing up all of the airplanes…
I’m not sure I want to live in Ron Paul’s world given your proposals. I guess its your way of saying that Ron Paul would rather fight them over here than fight them over there?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
And lets not forget the lunacy that leads one to believe that if we will just leave the Islamo-Facists alone, they will leave us alone.
Dangerously naive…
February 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Hmm, a whole lot of new user names suddenly pop up to defend Rob Haney? I smell Phil Corbell’s multiple personalities at work here!
And still no word from Rob on who is left to vote for, since we are not supposed to vote for McCain. Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee? Simple question Rob, so why won’t you answer?
I think I know why. Both are also unacceptable and Rob knows he’ll look like a hypocrite to go after McCain for his immigration positions and then support Huckabee instead. And Rob doesn’t want to be for all of Ron Paul’s ideas.
I guess silence is Rob’s way of admitting that whatever problems he has with McCain, he knows we don’t have any better choices left.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Tim S. I did mean to say that civilians should be allowed to carry on planes. Very simple, present government issued photo ID with a current concealed carry permit. No hand grenades, just personal defense weapons (handguns.)
The one area where I disagree with Paul is that the Islamists do hate us just for the sake of hating us. I think if we stopped being a nation of sheep and learned to provide for our personal safety we would be much better off whether we fight them here or over there. What if we fight them over there and a few of them make it here? Do we wait to dial 911 while something bad is happening?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Agreed on carrying, but not actually on airplanes. And all of the GOP candidates are pretty darn good on guns. But does Ron Paul really think that we should carry on airplanes?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Rob is a principled patriot who does not allow the winds of pollitical expediency determine his course of action. There is no better illustration of this than presenting this resolution when he knew it was going to fail and he knew he would be attacked in this manner for doing what he felt was right.
He makes it extremely uncomfortable for those who are more interested in winning an election than staying the course of a consistent, principled position. These people would have taken a tea bag from their pantry and symbolically thrown it in the toilet to demonstrate their dislike for the King.
Whether Rob should or should not have presented the resolution is a matter for debate (I would not have), but no one should ever question the reason why he did it – he did it because he believed it was the right course of action to stand up for his country.
Rob’s unbending commitment is at times uncomfortable, but those who sell out to the open border, reconquista, amnesty advocates are nauseating.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Gone fishin’,
To believe that this resolution was an act of a true Republican, doing whatever it takes to support the “Platform” is beyond short-sighted and arrogant. It is nothing more than the rationalization of a thought born of destruction using a pure motive as cause. And, beyond that, is your assertion that Haney et al are the only true defenders; all others are either too stupid to know the difference or not true Republicans and therefore, have no stand is blatantly offensive and discredits your ability to advocate. There were and are many Republicans still in the party paying attention, we have watched McCain but also Haney, and we believe it is Rob Haney who needs to be sent packing. A 47% victory in a race with 4 candidates is a good victory; of the 21 states on Super Tuesday, there were only 6 states with an over 50% win, McCain had 3 of those and Romney 3. There is no room for another candidate and defeat whatever Dem is the nominee.
Scrupulous, exhumed,
Your analogies are very good and you raise an interesting question. What is he to do? The answer to that reveals his true motive and personal interest rather than any ideological purpose. When his belief system is not the prevailing interest of the group, does he step back and go his way, doing what he can to promote the position he holds on his own? Or, does he stay within the organization and disrupt, destroy, and develop animosity in hopes of denying his nemesis success?
W Phx Activist,
Rob Haney may be a patriot. He may be a very good man. Does that eliminate the ability for him to be wrong sometimes? I didn’t realize that when he was gathering all those PC’s and proxies he did it while walking on water. It is no secret McCain was not my first choice. But the day that I turn this country over to the likes of Hillary or Obama is the day somebody needs to slap the “you know what” out of me. (I’m sure there would be more than enough volunteers for the job) How do you anticipate they will be better on immigration or taxes or defense?
McCain will be the nominee. He is a Republican, of the American type. LD 11 and the AZ GOP is not a mandatory membership organization and Arizona is not the center of the universe.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am
President Reagan’ s National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane has a great article in the WSJ.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251661161755395.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
In case you don’t read the whole thing, here is a tidbit:
“…there is the cost of their extremist rhetoric to the Republican Party. As President Reagan once told me, “Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff.”
February 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Obviously some kool-aid drinker has a life’s ambition of countering and running down Rob. I’m glad that by now, I can rest assured Rob is onto some other project to reflect the preferences of the majority of Arizona GOP voters. 53% of Arizona voters don’t want Hanoi John for President. This majority and Rob, has got it right.
Okay now go ahead…you come back with the democratic response again…..
February 9th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Ann,
Isn’t McFarlane the guy from the Iran-Contra affair who pleaded guilty to withholding information from congress. Nice source to back up your point.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Pullen says elect McCain because of Judge appointments?? Let’s see what can we depend on….A McCain-Harry Reid approach to judgeship appointments, that’s what.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:37 am
gone fishin’,
I have no interest in a back and forth with someone who has no interest in anything but division and defeat. You go ahead and knock yourself out.
az gnat,
Good call, it was the Reagan reference that was the main point. Funny how the “conservatives” paint Reagan and the Reagan years when it serves them and decry some things when they don’t. Self-serving, revisionist politics at its best.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Rob-
Where in this statement from Senator McCain does this state he will not secure the border?
“As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry. ” “I will not make a promise to the American people I don’t intend to keep”
“I was speaking for conservative PCs ” You weren’t speaking for me, and I AM a conservative PC.
“They were able to turn 4 members who had earlier given strong assurance they would vote in favor of the grassroots” So are you saying I am not a part of the grassroots? I believe those 4 came to their senses and did vote for the grassroots. They are trying to unite the party.
Come on Rob- answer the question, who you going to support? Huckabee or Paul? Or will you decide to not vote? Vote for Hillary and her universal health care? Which will force health care on us like it or not by way of garnishment? Here’s a link on how great Canada’s universal health care is.. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
gone fishin’- Name calling is so “lame” how about sticking to the subject and stop the name calling. You know, stick and stones and all that. Who are you to decide who the uninformed are? I am very informed, don’t agree with everything about McCain, but I did vote for him. Maybe he won Arizona because the average voter is more informed than you give credit.
Ann-
Was the word you were looking for “Sweetness”???
Maybe I don’t get it, but aren’t we trying to get a REPUBLICAN voted in here? I tired of hearing how liberal McCain is, all you , McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, on and on and on, who do you want, Hillary, Obama, or Senator McCain? Come on people we have to unite this party and defeat the Dems. I feel like I’m disciplining my children, quit your fighting and name calling, we need to stick together.
Side note: When I did my spell check, the spell checker wanted to change Obama to Osama, gosh that’s scary!!!
One other thing…. Arizona now has the Shaq attack!! Go Suns!
February 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
That would be a McCainesque “secure the borders”. He has said his test of secure borders will be the certification from the border states governors. Let’s see, Napalitano, Schwarzenegger, Richardson. That’s it, no barriers, no additional military, no additional Border Patrol. Just word from open borders governors. And after we get “certification” from the border states governors…then amnesty. McCain says “he heard us, he understands now.” Yeah Right. “Alright..we’ll give them their damn fence.” Okay, where is it?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
ok so he said he gets it. So he’s saying he heard us, he’s not president yet
February 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
McCain, Unfit for Command
By Bob Haran,
I have the utmost respect for Senator John McCain’s service to our country as a career officer in the United States Navy, however, because of positions he has taken as a United States Senator, I can never vote for or support him for any public office, especially for the office of President of the United States.
While acknowledging and appreciating Senator McCain’s support for the sanctity of human life, his positions in regard to illegal immigration and trade make it impossible for me to support his candidacy for President of the United States, even if he does receive the nomination of my party.
Senator McCain has consistently ignored the demands of the people to remedy the out of control illegal immigration situation now plaguing America. These pleas for enforcement of our immigration laws have come from not only the grassroots of the Republican party, but also from citizens of every political strip from all across America.
Instead of working to help solve the problem of illegal immigration, McCain has supported a guest worker program to allow more foreign workers into the American work force which will help to suppress American wages.
He has supported allowing illegal aliens to participate in our Social Security system.
When the people of Arizona introduced a citizen’s initiative, Proposition 200, to restrict persons illegally in our country from receiving non-emergency state government benefits and to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote, John McCain opposed us.
He has introduced legislation in the Congress of the United States to allow persons who are residing illegally in our country and who have violated the sovereignty of the United States, to be placed on a path to obtaining the most valuable possession of every American, citizenship, and he insists that this reward for violating American law and sovereignty, is not an amnesty.
When the Arizona legislature passed a law to discourage the hiring of undocumented workers by providing employer sanctions, John McCain opposed it.
It is my sincere belief that Senator McCain’s motives for his positions on immigration have not been and could not possible be, for what is in the best interest of the American people but only what is in the best interest of satisfying his own political ambition. A person that puts his own ambition before the interest of the people has no business holding any public office.
The position of John McCain and too many other Members of Congress on trade has also been detrimental to the welfare of the American people.
He has voted for trade with Communist Vietnam and permanent normal trade with Communist China.
He is a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement and voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
These trade agreements put American labor at an unfair, uncompetitive, disadvantage, with the cheap labor costs of third world nations, resulting in the exporting of American manufacturing industry and the loss of American jobs and an out of control trade deficit which has resulted in the redistribution of American wealth to foreign nations. Free trade has proven to be bad economically for the American people and not fair trade. Yet hardly a word is spoken of this hemorrhaging of American wealth by John McCain or any of the other major candidates for president. These trade agreements, like illegal immigration, benefit the few at the cost to the many and are not in the best interest of the American people and those that support such agreements do not deserve the support of the American people for public office.
Now we are being urged by many in the Republican party to put aside our great differences with John McCain and support him because he is the candidate most likely to win the GOP presidential nomination and he is better then any candidate the Democrat party may nominate. May I remind these loyal Republicans that the lesser of two evils is still evil and the fact that John McCain may obtain the Republican nomination does not change the fact that to many Republicans who place loyalty to country before party, John McCain is still unacceptable for the office of President of the United States.
John McCain is now attempting to mend fences with conservative Republicans, it is far to late to mend fences with those of us who know him. There is nothing John McCain can do or say to gain our support. We know McCain, like many other professional politicians, will say or do anything to get elected. We do not trust John McCain.
The patriotism that John McCain must have had as a Naval officer has long ago been overtaken by his blind ambition for the White House, this therefore makes him unfit to hold the office of President of the United States.
BOB HARAN,
Phoenix, AZ
February 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Gone Fishin’
Do you not think that federalism is a part of the Republican platform? I always thought that strong state’s rights was a big part, but clearly not. You might say “oh, well national security is different, etc.” Fine, so long as this is about national security then I agree. But then you talk about amnesty like it would be horrible… which makes me think that it about more than natl security to you. What do you think the states role is?
All:
This is just sad. I mean, c’mon, I think i am pretty informed, and most of my family is informed, and if I said the name “Rob Haney” to any of them, they would say “who?” He doesn’t matter, he has no power or influence on anything that actually matters, so just let it go. McCain will be the nominee, he is a conservative who has been willing to do unconservative things (similar to Reagan…), but you play right into the caricature that dems paint of Republicans–A bunch of whiney “me-firsters.” The dems haven’t even had to use spin on the Republicans this cycle, how yall act is enough. You should listen to Ann.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Here’s one problem with amnesty among the 1,000’s more. The $20. per hour carpenter illegaly displaced by the $10. carpenter has hope one day immigration law will be enforced and the false supression of his wages will end. Amnesty will put that hope for the brother American citizen to an end. The market rate of $20. per hour illegaly shifted to $10. per hour and then with amnesty will be sanctioned in law. The Federalism argument against phony border governor certifications? Weak. Aren’t you the guy against Arizona’s fair and legal employment law because “that’s a federal issue.”
February 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Mr. Haran continues his anti-McCain rants and calls himself a ‘principaled’ Conservative. Well Mr. Haran, you have been all ovet the Internet with your support for Mike Huckabee, but you voted for Mitt Romney. Why don’t you just leave the Republican Party? You did so once before
when President Bush did something you didn’t agree with. John McCain WILL BE the Republican nominee for President in 2008. The people of Arizona have spoken and it’s time for you & Rob Haney to finally realize that!
February 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“The market rate of $20. per hour illegaly shifted to $10. per hour and then with amnesty will be sanctioned in law.”
No, apparently the market rate is $10. One of the basic premises of free markets is that “the value of something is that which it will fetch.” This is not a case of ‘market-busting’ such as monopolies, price gouging, etc. This is pure competition–it just turns out that whites aren’t willing to compete. Why won’t you let the market turn its course. Who’s not conservative now?
February 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“No, apparently the market rate is $10. One of the basic premises of free markets is that the value of something is that which it will fetch.”
…fetch “illegaly?” Who ever brought up race? “Free Markets” makes the assumption of “Legal” Markets. We don’t allow the cocaine market to operate where we can shut it down. It’s bad for society and therefore, illegal. McCain receives substantial funding from businesses that profit from illegal hiring. Hence, his wink and a nod border security plan straight into amnesty.
This thread is down to playing the racist card against people that believe in enforced U.S. Borders. Read Bob Haran again. I’m off to report another illegal employer.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“Free Markets” makes the assumption of “Legal” Markets.
Hm. No. You need to read Hayek and Mises a bit more my friend. Free markets makes the assumption of unregulated, unmanipulated markets by an outside force. This is generally why conservatives are against such things as minimum wages. If there was no regulation of immigration at all (which is not what I am advocating for), and everyone had to compete with everyone, what do you think the value of the construction service would be? That is its ‘true’ market value. If you say that citizens of the U.S. could get 20/hr for something that non-citizens get 10/hr for, then what is the extra 10/hr that the U.S. citizen is providing, that is not some sort of externality?
I believe in enforced borders. But if you think that the market value of something is X, when the market actually provides Y, and there is not market-manipulation (which does not mean arbitrary immigration laws that can be changed at any time), then you don’t understand markets. Sorry.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Frank,
Be your logic it would be fine to employ slaves for $1/hour. If the law doesn’t matter then why not go all the way. Maybe 10¢ per hour.
If you draw the line at slavery then let’s bring over some people from Myanmar or Somalia to undercut the illegal Mexican’s and get the prevailing construction wage down to $4/hr. No problem with the minimum wage because the law does not matter, private voluntary contact between employer and employee. They could sleep on cardboard mats at the work site to save a little more on housing cost.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
OK guys, you both have made points to your way of thinking.
Laws are meant to be enforced. Despite the rules of the market, our sovereignty is the real issue. We must secure our borders. As for the certification of the borders by the Governor’s, it has not been said that the process of certification would be at their discretion. That is a red herring used to confuse the issue.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Since we have done this before, this will be my last post on this thread. Plus, 40+ comments is just so many.
AZ Gnat:
Not by my logic, by the logic of the market. yes, if there are people that are willing to only working for 10 cents an hour, than that is the value of the service that they provide. You might not like that, but that is what “free market” means. This is commonly called the “race to the bottom.”
There is a difference between a slave and someone who voluntarily elects to enter into a private contract for some consideration (the formal term for what is required to constitute a legal contract). You should consider reading “The Road to Serfdom” if you have not already.
Ann and AZ Gnat:
I am NOT arguing the law does not matter. What I am arguing is that arguments that illegals are stealing jobs, artificially lowering salaries, etc., are either (a) bad arguments (this is an empirical question that is highly debateable) or (b) not conservative arguments. I just find it ironic that y’all claim to be conservatives, except for when it might hurt you. The free market is taking your jobs? Get rid of the people that are taking the jobs. Unfair competition? There is no market manipulation in the traditional ‘unfair competition’ sense.
We need to secure the border for national security. These other arguments just give the Republican party a bad image, and need to be abandoned. Unless we want to repeat losing entire block of voters like we did during the Civil Rights movement advancing the wrong arguments there as well (I recommend “Parting the Waters” by Taylor Branch if you don’t know what I am saying).
February 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Frank Soto,
So you believe in child labor sweat shops because they will work for less because of threat to life and limb if they don’t. Your argument that if someone comes here illegally and works for an employer for less than the going rate out of fear of being deported makes that the going rate is absolutely insane. The only people who believe in that absurd policy are the ones taking advantage of these 21st century slaves.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I am breaking my own word. Dang.
Lawsupporter:
NO. Please re-read post 43. It needs to be a valid contract. Duress, unconscionability, fraud, etc invalidate a contract.
“your argument that if someone comes here illegally and works for an employer for less than the going rate out of fear of being deported”
Hm, then I guess the solution is to stop threatening to deport them, right?
Let me ask you: how do you determine the *value* of a service?
February 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The children in sweat shops in Asia work there willingly since it helps the family survive. Does that make it right?
As to the value of a service, you look at the going rate for more than a decade with moderate growth in an industry, then, in the midst of a historic high rate of growth of the same industry, the wages go down by 50% during an enormous increase in employment opportunities, it demonstrates clearly there is some other factor outside the normal supply and demand quotient.
In this case it is the illegal invasion of our Sovereignty by workers from a third world country who are encouraged to come here by employers who work outside the rule of law for millions of dollars of additional profit.
These employers are no different than the smugglers that make millions on transporting the illegals for the scofflaw employers.
And, no, you penalize the employers so strongly that they no longer provide the magnet that draws the illegals across the border. It is already being demonstrated that a large percentage are already self-deporting due to a lack of job opportunities. Exactly what the supporters of the crackdown on workplace enforcement predicted.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:34 am
“needs to be a valid contract.” I would like to see them enforce it in court!
Undocumented immigrant: “Your honor I am working in the county illegally for less than the minimum wage. My employer did not pay me the full amount promised when I agreed to work for him last Thursday.”
Judge: “Ruling in favor of plaintiff for $17.”
Andrew Thomas: “Come this way seňor.”
February 10th, 2008 at 5:25 am
THank you az gnat
succinct and efficacious
February 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Oy, I thought we were talking theory of value, and what that looks like. I always forget that the people on this site are more liberal than McCain when it comes to economics (oh yea, I went there).
The theory of market value requires a valid contract (this also includes what is known as the “right to free contract” that we used to have in this country. See, e.g. Lochner v. United States, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) Unfortunately, protectionist and progressive New Deal judges destroyed this right, under guess what, the arguments YOU are making. So, feel proud, you are essentially a New Dealer.
“As to the value of a service, you look at the going rate for more than a decade with moderate growth in an industry, then, in the midst of a historic high rate of growth of the same industry, the wages go down by 50% during an enormous increase in employment opportunities, it demonstrates clearly there is some other factor outside the normal supply and demand quotient.”
Big assumption. It could be that the service was being artificially propped up by market regulation (but I forget you are for market regulation by the gov’t), that people were being irrational in choosing their service (ie., not knowing that there were other competitors in the market), and so on. Would you say that the internet bust of the early 2000s was because there was some illegal force? No, you would say that the market corrected, as it does. Housing market bust? Market corrected. Lowering rates? market is correcting based on more accurate information as to what the absolute value is.
AZ gnat:
You have moved from a theoretical discussion to a hypothetical (which is different), without even noticing it. Too many assumptions in your hypo. One, the illegal must be a legal immigrant to enter into any employment contract, unfortunately. This is the exact problem, are you are just throwing out red herrings to avoid addressing it. Second, and this is a side point, you talk about minimum wage now like you support it… being awfully new deal again, aren’t you? I really don’t understand how you can consider McCain liberal. Third, yes, the point is I would like to see current working illegals be given legal protection, so that the market could work correctly. I did not focus on econometrics, and this would be incredibly difficult to figure out, but I would guess that if the value of construction was 20/hr w/out illegal, 10/hr w/illegal, then it is probably somewhere around 13/hr in absolute value (which is different to the relative value of what you actually pay when you go somewhere). AZ gnat and LAW supporter, you both would be really helped by reading “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. One of the most important economics books ever written (IMO), and should help you guys see the beauty of conservative economics.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Oh, two more things, sorry.
“And, no, you penalize the employers so strongly that they no longer provide the magnet that draws the illegals across the border. It is already being demonstrated that a large percentage are already self-deporting due to a lack of job opportunities. Exactly what the supporters of the crackdown on workplace enforcement predicted.”
Ok. Where are the studies showing this? I am frankly shocked that they would self-deport instead of catching a six hour ride to California.
“The children in sweat shops in Asia work there willingly since it helps the family survive. Does that make it right?”
There are probably two arguments: 1) this is a clear case of duress. Differentiating the line between duress and normal market behavior is difficult and has literally made some economists careers, so you can read up on that if you want. 2) sometimes we as humans think that some things supercede a free market, like human rights. It is possible to think that something is economically efficient and yet immoral at the same time. For instance, in many states there are laws about how much a truck can carry. Shipping companies often still break those weight limits, knowing that they will get the ticket, because the value of being able to ship the extra goods outweighs the probability of being caught times the ticket value. That is a case of efficiency beating morals. Now, if it was the case that killing 10 people would result in better gains for the trucking company (say they purposefully gave all their truckers speed that they knew would kill them w/in a year), we would say that the immorality of the act defeats the efficient result.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Gone fishin- you are drinking Rob’s kool aid. We need to focus locally on winning back leg. seats (hey! it could start in Rob’s own LD-11 district- where we lost because he was on a Republican warpath); State: with taking back Republican statewide seats and Federal. We have our work cut out for us. Let’s work together.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Soto
A valid contract requires that a person is eligible to work in the field of labor. Illegal aliens are not eligible to work here in any field, as opposed to high school dropouts who are not allowed to perform brain surgery in this country. Or maybe they do.
Frankly speaking, your irrational reasoning indicates that perhaps you were the patient in such a lobotomy. I think that I will discontinue the discourse with such a sycophant.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Law supporter,
You are begging the conclusion. And you have now stooped to ad homs.
Hayek and Mises are conservative economists (sadly, I am guessing you have never heard of either, since you are arguing against them). You are right, we should stop discussing this. next thing we know, you will be saying Milton Friedman and Gary Becker are bad liberal economists. I am lucky to personally know better I suppose.