The Rich And Powerful: Rich Women and Powerful Men
Learn About The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

As ThinkProgress noted on Saturday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made inconsistent immigration pledges in a speech to the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, claiming he would both “secure our borders first” and make comprehensive reform his “top priority”:

n

– [W]e can and will secure our borders first, while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States

n

– Q: Will comprehensive immigration reform - and not just enforcement - be one of your top policy priorities in your first 100 days in office?
nMcCAIN: It’ll be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

n

But that wasn’t the only false claim McCain made that day. Yesterday, the Washington Times noted that McCain also claimed he supported the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, legislation long lambasted by conservatives as an “amnesty” bill:

n

[I]n 1986, we passed a law and stated we would secure the borders and gave amnesty to a couple — three million people. I supported that legislation way back then.

n

Watch it:

n

n

n

In fact, McCain voted against this legislation. As the Times explained, McCain was a vocal opponent of this bill:

n

The Arizona Republic newspaper in 1986 reported that he’d called the bill racist and quoted him as saying the bill’s stipulations for employers to verify workers “would institutionalize discrimination.” He said employers would refuse to hire Hispanics to avoid running afoul of the law.

n

A McCain campaign official stated the senator “was referring to his support for a comprehensive solution - going back to that time. He did oppose some provisions and didn’t end up voting for the bill.” As Time Magazine notes this day, McCain’s shifting immigration stance, which it calls “confusion,” has been “somewhat intentional on the part of the McCain campaign” in order to woo conservatives and moderates.

Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund focusing on state and municipal policy.

n

When Utah Congressman Chris Cannon lost the Republican primary last week to Jason Chaffetz, anti-immigrant groups were swift to define it as an example of a candidate winning because of his restrictionist stance. They were desperate because all of the current election news has been bad for the anti-immigrant crowd, including current losses in once über-red House districts in Illinois and Mississippi.

n

Roy Beck, the head honcho of NumbersUSA — a leading organization opposed to legal immigration — told the Orange County Register:

n

Cannon’s loss was an outburst of Republican frustration with the minority of Republican office-holders who stand in the Bush-McCain amnesty camp.

n

And this from Michelle Malkin:

n

…the simple fact is that voters finally got fed up with Cannon’s constant water-carrying for La Raza and MALDEF…

n

Unfortunately, the AP parroted the anti-immigrants’ talking points, but gave no facts to back up this assertion. Facts lead to a very different conclusion in a race where voters were so dissatisfied that only ten percent of Republicans even bothered to show up.

n

It is true that while staunchly conservative on most matters, Cannon was a moderate on immigration. But what’s apparently not true is that there was a connection between Cannon’s immigration moderation and his loss. In fact, Cannon’s last election had been against a much more zealous anti-immigrant hardliner and he won. It appears that, Cannon became identified as a DC insider who had lost touch with his district at a time when even conservative voters are swept up in the need for change.

n

Brigham Young University’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy exit-polled voters. While Cannon did lose those who disagreed with him on immigration, he lost those voters in his prior election as well – and no more of them turned out this time around. What changed this time was that he lost voters who agreed with him on immigration. According to the Salt Lake Tribune:

n

Roughly the same number of voters who were highly concerned about immigration in 2006, when Cannon won his last primary, showed up this time, when Cannon got whipped. Exit poll results show that more of those who stated they’d a tougher view on undocumented immigrants voted for Cannon’s opponent, Jason Chaffetz, but a majority of those who backed plans like a guest-worker program also favored Chaffetz. … Also, overall, 70 percent of respondents said Chaffetz was the best person to change Washington, while 30 percent picked Cannon.

n

It isn’t surprising that folks like Beck and Malkin would jump to erroneous conclusions about immigration and politics. They have made a profession of doing so.

On Fox News today, host Alexis Glick previewed an interview with Bill Kristol by claiming that the Weekly Standard editor believes “the second John McCain announces his VP pick, gas prices will plummet.” During the segment, the Kristol Ball’s “prediction” turned out to be that he thinks McCain might pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Here’s why Kristol claims such a pick would lower gas prices:

n

KRISTOL: First, I think she would help him get elected, which would be a good thing if you want gas prices to come down. Then she’ll persuade him that we have to drill in ANWR and have an aggressive drilling program across the board.

n

That’s all Kristol offered to support his and Fox’s ridiculous claim. Watch it:

n

n

n

One major flaw in Kristol and Fox’s claim that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would lower prices immediately is the fact that it would take 10 years for the oil to hit the market, and even then, the reserve is estimated to have only enough oil to satisfy six months demand.

Last week, while testifying before Congress, torture fanatic John Yoo sought to discredit torture critic Philippe Sands by suggesting Sands had lied about interviewing him. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) used the allegation to claim it “would perhaps reflect on the veracity” of all of Sands’ allegations:

n

YOO: I did read Mr. Sands’ testimony before this committee, and I noticed in the testimony he stated that he’d interviewed me for the book. And I’ve the capability to state that he didn’t interview me for the book. … So I didn’t quite comprehend why he would tell the committee that he’d actually interviewed me.

n

KING: And with that answer, Professor Yoo then, I’m going to interpret that to mean that at least with regard to that statement that he’d interviewed you, you find that to be a false statement, and that would perhaps reflect on the veracity of the balance of the book.

n

Watch it:
nn

n

Yet, as MoJo blog points out, Sands never said he’d interviewed Yoo for his book. Rather, Sands stated, “[o]ver hundreds of hours I conversed or debated with many of those most deeply involved. They included…the Deputy Assistant Attorney General at DoJ (Mr Yoo).” Indeed, Yoo and Sands had debated torture at the World Affairs Council in 2005.