Will the ‘Dream Act’ be a nightmare for McCain?

July 15, 2008

John McCain, recognizing the importance of Latino voters in the upcoming election, spoke to the National Council of La Raza yesterday. He told the audience, “I do ask for your trust,” adding, “I think I have earned that trust.”

I know McCain often has a dry sense of humor, and in this case, I can’t help but wonder if he was kidding.

We’ve already talked about McCain’s efforts to mislead the audience about his on-again, off-again support/opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. But after his speech, McCain opened the floor to about 15 minutes of Q&A. A young woman asked whether the Republican senator would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military.

McCain didn’t hesitate to endorse the legislation.

That’s clearly the right position for McCain to take. The Dream Act should be a no-brainer: “Roughly 65,000 children graduate each year from high school into a constrained future because they cannot work legally or qualify for most college aid. These are the overlooked bystanders to the ferocious bickering over immigration. They did not ask to be brought here, have worked hard in school and could, given the chance, hone their talents and become members of the homegrown, high-skilled American work force. The bill is one of the least controversial immigration proposals that have been offered in the last five years.”

But what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall.

In fact, it was captured on tape.

The audio in the latter portion of the clip is from a conference call McCain held with right-wing bloggers in October, in which he vowed opposition to the Dream Act — in addition to opposition to the same comprehensive immigration proposal he now claims to support.

When the National Review asked McCain about the Dream Act, McCain said, “I would have voted against it. I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people.”

The man is just shamelessly dishonest. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, then refused to vote for it, then promised to oppose it, then promised to support it. And just to add a little irony to the whole situation, McCain then concluded, “I do ask for your trust.”

Now, under normal circumstances, one might wonder whether McCain will be pressed to explain himself today, maybe with a clarifying press conference. But that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

Part of this, I suspect, is because the media just prefers to go easy on McCain. But the other part of the problem is, I have a hunch reporters aren’t following the race as closely as we are. That may sound silly — they are paid media professionals on the campaign beat — but I genuinely believe they’re not especially well informed.

When I heard McCain vow to support the Dream Act, I immediately knew he was abandoning a pledge he’d made during the primaries. When the reporters who travel with McCain heard it, did they notice the same problem? Do they even know what the Dream Act is?

It’s one reason, I believe, that McCain is so reckless with his rhetoric. He not only assumes the media has given up on holding him accountable, but he also assumes reporters aren’t quite sharp enough to keep track of minor policy details. On this, McCain is probably right.

And what if I’m wrong? What if campaign reporters really do know what the Dream Act is, and knew immediately that McCain is making completely contradictory promises to different groups at different times? That would speak to reporters’ competence — but it wouldn’t explain why not one of them thought to mention it in their reports on McCain’s La Raza appearance.

cbr, this is astounding work. maybe the key is to somehow get your work on the radar of reporters so they can stop acting like secretaries and start acting like journalists.

  • Steve:

    I see your work getting picked up by Keith Olberman on Countdown and sometimes on the Abrams Report. I think that’s great – too bad MSM reporters don’t have the same standards of reporting that you do.

  • There’s at least one reporter — the one who pressed him on Viagra/Birth Control — who’s willing to call him on his bullshit. She’s probably permanently banned from the Straight Talk bus/plane/train/trolley/yacht.

    This really is astounding. It’s beyond a “flip-flop.” It’s a double-reverse, pander-deception with a 9.5 degree of difficulty. Not bad for a senile 72 year old.

  • He’s a maverick. He’s allowed to change positions. It just shows that he is able to amend his stances on issues when new factors develop.

  • Steve are you once again taking McCain out of context.

    Can you please admit it that you like to lie because otherwise your site comes off as being dense.

    McCain said he would secure the borders first then he would support the dream act.

    McCain saying he got the message was about securing the borders first.

    McCain has never backed down from comprehensive reform.

  • Obama voted for the fence on the border then in a univision debate said he was against it.

    When is your site ever going to be fair.

    Just once.

    Why are you such partisan hacks.

    I didn’t see you mention Obama flip flopping on undivided jerusalem.

    To AIPAC Obama is for undivided Jerusalem then he flip flops when he isn’t at AIPAC.

    They should rename this site. Most biased site on the web.

  • Jeff, tsk tsk.
    I thought the right said flip-flopping is a sign of maturity in a candidate? Flip-flopping is simply changing your position to accommodate new developments.
    McCain is a maverick, he has the character and integrity to change his mind if necessary.

    What’s wrong with Obama doing the same?

  • The Dream Act is typically liberal/socialist rhetoric: it makes a lot of sense, it is difficult to argue against rationally because the basis of it is emotional (you wouldn’t want to hurt the children, would you?), and fails to address the underlying problem. The underlying principle here is that we need to stop giving incentives for people to enter the country illegally. I would argue that once we have stopped, or come close to stopping, new illegal immigration, anyone who votes against this type of legislation should be impeached. However, at this point you’re putting money out on the sidewalk and hoping no one takes it without asking first. Let’s overstate this for effect quickly: if legislation had passed in 1790 that said children of slaves were free, but allowed new slaves to be brought over and sold, would that have solved that problem? You have to address the problem before you can remedy the damage that has been done (fix the leaky pipe before you repaint the wall).

    Socialism is Facism by committee.

  • jeff, I think the point is that McPander is trying to fool the latino voters into thinking that he supports a program which he has actively opposed. What’s more, he only supports it if something that’s never happened happens.

    If he was honest (heh) he would tell them that he suports “the dream act” but only if the border states’ governors all certify that the borders are “secured”. (Will that ever happen? Not any time soon!) If he told them about that important caveat, then he wouldn’t be guilty of a huge pander/flipflop/bamboozlement.

    Note to jeff: Context rarely helps Mr McPander.

  • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if mainline news media reported the facts and not what corporate prefers. Americans would be much better informed.

  • I’ve read these sort of descriptions of the corporate press and media many times on the blogs. You’re focusing on what’s usually called the “lazy” factor. The media/press people are too lazy to do the work that they should be doing. Or maybe it’s the “ignorant” factor. They’re not knowledgeable of the facts of the campaign they’re covering. Same difference in that any lack of knowledge on a subject they work with daily indicates a corresponding lack of effort – lazy.

    Either way I don’t buy it. These people are corporate staffers. If what they do upsets the corporation they work for, or in the case of AP, the corporations their group is associated with and dependent on for financial survival, then they’ll quickly be told to change their methods. In plain words, they’re flacks though I usually call them whores.

    The “lazy,” “ignorant” monikers don’t hold because there are many people like you (well, not many, I don’t want to diminish the excellent service to the truth that you provide) that point out the gross “tell ’em want they want to hear” behavior of John McCain. His flip-flopping speed rivals a state of the art microprocessor. So even if the media-press people were too lazy to check McCain’s record, or too ignorant of the facts of his prior wildly divergent statements, they do get informed. And they then ignore that information. That’s a very different type of “ignorant.”

    If a Democrat was as callous a liar as McCain has been it would be front page – six o’clock TV news every day. Obama was hit with a flip-flop blast over his 16 month Iraq withdrawal statement, which was consistent with his long term prior rhetoric. Facts be damned. Lying sound bites get amplified to open air rock concert levels.

  • Aaron, I’ll believe your socialism bias when your politicians act against it–and let the shareholders in the current market die by their own sword.
    I won’t be holding my breath.
    Foreign investors have better access to the American dream than these people do, and they work here. Oh yeah, and a lot of them pay actually pay U.S. taxes.

  • 6.On July 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am, jeff said:
    McCain said he would secure the borders first then he would support the dream act.

    So what you’re saying is that McCain is consistent, he just leaves stuff out depending on the audience? He speaks before conservative groups and only mentions securing the borders first, while leaving out the pesky dream act and comprehensive reform that they hate? He speaks before Latino groups and only mentions the dream act and comprehensive reform, leaving out securing the borders first which they hate? Sounds like your straight talker would be universally hated if he actually told everyone what he really believed.

  • That may sound silly — they are paid media professionals on the campaign beat — but I genuinely believe they’re not especially well informed.

    They’re simply not that bright.

    The most important skill that’s rewarded in writing news articles is writing ability. That might be fine if analytical ability were a close second, but it’s not.

  • 7.On July 15th, 2008 at 9:56 am, jeff said:
    Obama voted for the fence on the border then in a univision debate said he was against it.
    When is your site ever going to be fair.
    Just once.
    Why are you such partisan hacks.

    Uh Jeffy, I personally never hear about these horrible things Obama does except from you and you don’t provide any evidence because you’re too stupid to link. If you were competent at your trolling maybe the message would get around more.

  • ml johnston said: “Wouldn’t it be refreshing if mainline news media reported the facts and not what corporate prefers. Americans would be much better informed.”

    That could only happen if a handful of giant interlocked corporations did not own a functioning monopoly of mass broadcast media.

  • It is no secret that journalism has devolved into simply reporting what each (or in some cases three) side of story has to say about it. This frees the reporter from having to remember anything (like facts), and places an incredible burden on the opposition to get corrections out.

    How many times have we read a claim made by one side, followed by a response by the other, with actually little or nothing from the news media itself. The sad part is is that these institutions often have impressive libraries with staff to do research, and now the internet.

    But reporters can’t be bothered to do journalism anymore, or worse – I suspect thta they are told not to do so by their editors.

  • It is so amusing seeing the McCainites wriggling and squirming when faced with his backtracking, dodging, faking, and twisting himself into a pretzel. McCain can’t use the excuse that he would support the DREAM Act if only the borders were secure because all our troops are in the Middle East and we don’t have enough to man/woman the border. After all, it would take a massive military operation to actually secure the borders even a little (and that wouldn’t do anything for those who sneak through with fake papers or who overstay legal papers.)

    As for abandoning the DREAM Act just because it wouldn’t address the main problem, may I point out that the famous wall faces the same argument? It doesn’t address the main problem either and will be useless for numerous reasons. The first is that there are numerous holes in it where it would inconvenience Republican supporters such as the Hunt brothers as well as big golf resorts. Then it isn’t even planned to cover the whole length of the border. It would just lead to enrichment of the Migra because they would be more open to bribes from coyotes. Finally it wouldn’t address those who come on legal papers and then don’t leave.

    However, Bush II and Bush III are addressing the root problem which is the disparity between economic opportunity here and in the developing world. They are doing their best to reduce the US to the level of a banana republic by destroying the middle class through off-shoring of jobs, shifting the burden of maintaining society from those who benefit most to those who are barely getting along, and cutting wages and salaries for those who aren’t the “best people” (Dan Quayle) to the point that they can’t send their children to college or even keep them alive if they happen to get sick. Another four years of the Bush program should reduce us to the point that Mexico and Canada will have to build walls instead to keep the horde of starving gringos from migrating.

    While we are on the subject of emotional action that doesn’t address the problem, shall we discuss the business of opening the Alaskan North Shore and the continental shelf to drilling? I didn’t think so. Or how about allowing Bush & Co. to monitor anyone’s telephone and email communications? Don’t want to talk about that either, do you?

  • Someone should run a TV ad with McCain’s two-faced positions on the DREAM Act.

    Hillary Clinton would already have one in the can and would be hitting Mccain in key swing states with large Latino populations like New Mexico.

  • Shalimar – jeff will get you that link as soon as he finds it, and it’s the same one that tells him that Obama is a radical Muslim.

  • Pingback: Who is McCain Lying to? | David Ortez

  • Gerald Weinand stole my thunder a bit. I was going to add the example of the coverage of Hon. Sen. McCain’s speech last night:

    BLITZER: Now, let’s bring in Dana Bash. She’s covering the McCain campaign for us.

    So, why is the senator doing this, saying this right now?

    DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this is the third Hispanic conference that actually both candidates have attended in the last few weeks.

    And, at all of them, Barack Obama really actually went after Senator McCain on this whole issue of abandoning what he calls his courageous attempts at immigration reform, because of the fact that Republican primary voters were so opposed to it.

    So, what McCain is trying to do here is trying to turn that into a part of his central theme against Barack Obama. And that is that McCain says, I walk the walk when it comes to this, but he talks — he just talks the talk and that’s it.

    And on immigration, what McCain is basically saying is, wait a minute, I was the one taking those tough votes that were politically suicidal. In fact, that’s the term that he used. And Obama was voting for several measures that everyone, including his supporter Ted Kennedy, knew would actually kill that delicate immigration compromise.

    So, Wolf, it is part of the narrative that McCain is trying to drive here, that Obama says that he’s for a new kind of politics, but when it comes down to it, he votes on the politics of the moment, not doing what’s hard.

    BLITZER: It seems to those of us who have been watching McCain closely when he was with Ted Kennedy on this comprehensive immigration reform, he was taking a huge political gamble, especially among the Republicans. But then after it collapsed, he made a turn and started focusing in on strengthening the borders, wasn’t talking about comprehensive reform. But now he seems to be coming back.

    BASH: It really has been fascinating to watch, Wolf. You’re absolutely right.

    Note how this is just a repeating of Senator McCain’s rhetoric (with a nod toward the idea that the message has had some refinements). It may be true that Hon. Sen. Obama voted for amendments that “everyone… knew would actually kill that delicate immigration compromise,” but these are not at all discussed. Perhaps it’s a pro-Obama bias that omits these details, but as it stands, one gets the impression that Ms. Bash has no idea what these amendments were or even if the claim is valid. Since Senator McCain gave no bill of particulars, it might just as easily be the case that these amendments would have been wildly popular with the audience he was addressing, and was reluctant to crow about his voting against them (even in the name of Broderism). The only way this will enter the news is if the Obama campaign issues a statement. I fail to see how this qualifies as journalism. Why do we have an endless parade of surrogates if the reporters themselves restrict themselves to repeating campaign boilerplate?

  • Texas Aggie:

    At no point did I advocate taking any action at all against those already here. I said that we need to stop incenting additional illegal immigration. Once we do that, let’s give everyone who can show that they were here as of date X a green card and allow them to go through the naturalization process. I’m fine with that. On ANWR and offshore: if drilling is not allowed, everyone can continue to blame those who are blocking it. If it won’t work, where is the harm in granting the ability to drill (immune from pre-emptive litigation or it won’t happen even with permission) with MASSIVE penalties for any spills? If it won’t work, let Big Oil throw their money away. I think your real fear is that it might work, thus robbing you of a crisis to use for political purposes, which is what happened in the 80s with oil shale exploration. Also, the oil companies already lead the world in R&D for alternative energies, and the government makes 4X as much money off of oil as Exxon or BP or whomever you want to cite. Quit running Jimmy Carter’s campaign, he has been shown by history to be incompetent.

    Socialism is Facism by committee.

  • Despite what the post says, the DA is an anti-American bill that lets foreign citizens who are here illegally take college educations from U.S. citizens.

  • hey aaron, the reason teh oil companies havent drilled where they already have plenty of access is because its expensive to do so. opening up additional areas, including oil shales, isnt going to lower the cost of oil because the oil companies will only exploit those sources when oil sells at a high enough price to make it worthwhile. gas prices arent going to go down. its really simple to understand.

    Conservatism is Fascism.

  • “take college educations from U.S. citizens”?

    are they coming to take my college education as we speak? if so, i’m just going to need to straighten up a bit. thanks!

  • “with MASSIVE penalties for any spills”

    lets take a let look at how that’s working out:
    “The Supreme Court handed corporate America a major victory this week when it sharply reduced the amount of money Exxon Mobil has to pay in punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. An Alaskan jury had initially ruled Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages but in 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court cut the award of punitive damages in half. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court cut the amount of punitive damages again and ordered Exxon Mobil to pay just $500 million in punitive damages – one tenth of the original jury’s ruling.”

  • Steve:
    I think your point on reporters being ignorant is right on target, but remember how unusual this campaign is in two ways. First, politics usually goes on the back burner during baseball season — well, the time between April — when the nominations are secure — and Labor Day — right after the conventions. The challenger tries to keep interest up but people drift away, go on vacation, etc. This year the Clinton-Obama fight kept up interest long enough that it didn’t drop off when that was settled. (However, reporters and commentators still go on vacation and there are second-stringers out there during the summer. And even the regulars were caught unprepared.)

    Secondly this is a race when there is neither an incumbent President or Vice-President running. (The last time this was true was in 1952 — remember that Humphrey was the candidate in 1968 — and before that 1928, 1920 — when the President’s son-in-law lost the nomination — and 1908 — when the President (TR) hand-picked his successor (Taft). Those were the only 20th Century examples.) Usually the Administration is ‘remaining Presidential” by sticking to the job, and the challenger is busy making noise against them.

    This year the ground rules are different. And reporters are trying to untrain themselves, but it is taking time. Usually they can wait until Labor Day, ‘swot up’ on the Adminsitration and whatever issues the challenger is trying to raise and then take it from there. This year the campaign is already going full force, and the newspapers and tv are being caught unprepared.

    And just a word to the number of people who are sounding much like 1892 Kansas Populists. No newspaper makes money from political coverage. They consider it a drag on the market that they have to deal with. (Even political ad rates are controlled so they can’t charge as much as they can for other ads, I believe.) They expect readership to drop when politics takes center stage, and it usually does. They’d much rather have a new OJ, Bonds, or other scandal with blood and sex, which would get the readership/viewership up. (Even ARod and Madonna was welcome to the local papers, and gets more coverage than politics.)

    Yes, they lose less money if it is a close election, so maybe they have a slight ‘vested interest’ in making it seem closer than it actually is, but they’d be happier — even in summer, the ‘Silly Season’ — if the candidates would take a vacation until Labor Day and they could get more attractive stories to feature.

  • bill,
    There is a possibility that you are correct. Conversely, OPEC, Venezuela, and others have basically publicly stated that they are witholding product to inflate the price (i.e. Chavez stating publicly he wants to drive crude prices to $200 per barrel). I don’t blame them, because they know that there will be no additional product coming to market. Very little (if any, I would have to do further research) oil shale was actually refined in the 80s, simply the implication that it would become available was enough to bring the market price down. That is how markets work. Speculation is rampant in crude prices right now because the market does not beleive that there is any forseeable increase in supply, which means the price will keep going up. We cannot conserve our way out of this one, China and India will continue to bid up the price of crude regardless of what we do. We need to produce more here, and I would argue that we should ban the export of oil and natural gas from the lower 48 states until such time as true free trade is accomplished.

    Socialism is Fascism by committee (thanks for correcting the typo)

  • Hasn’t every President in the second haf of the 20th century been shown to be a chronic liar? McCain is well qualified for the presidency.

  • Prup makes some interesting points. I’m starting to wonder if maybe the MSM isn’t covering as thoroughly as they are McCain because they don’t believe McCain can win the election. I was watching Charlie Rose last night, and he was interviewing a reporter from NBC and one from the Times, both of whom stated unequivocally that they thought Barack would win.

  • Nice catch, Steve. And while it may be true that candidates will pander and change positions, I have to admit to surprise at how quickly McCain does it. Between the morning pee and coffee, McCain has usually reversed himself twice, and then he pees in his coffee cup.

    On the other hand, you’re a bit too easy on the press. With today’s info barrage, it may be true that some details will be lost. But in addition to having editors, the modern reporter has access to the WWW, where it’s not hard to find a massive feedback loop. One could visit half a dozen carefully chosen sites and review the topics du jour. If they discover they missed an important angle they can bring it up a day later with the campaign in question.

    It only requires dedication to the concept of pursuing the whole story to best inform one’s readers. That ethic, however, is very rare among political journalists, most of whom seem more concerned about their hair than that hard task of actual journamalisming.

  • Um, Jeff, what is so attractive to you about taxpayer subsidies for the largest, most profitable, vicous, corrupt industry in the world? Oil and gas receive huge tax breaks for research and development that other industries (except big Ag) and competitors DON”T. Solar, conservation, wind, fuel cells, wave energy, etc. receive a relative piddle from the taxpayer compared to oil. And it does not end there. You and me, burning oil out of our cars are hugely subsidized (and thus the oil industry is). Carnegie Mellon resource economists estimate that the subsidy to burning a gallon of gas ranges from $5 to 7, depending if the Gulf Wars are thrown in. (Congestion, sprawl – public services, air pollution costs – asthma, lung problems, crop damage, water pollution, climate change, public safety, highway construction, etc.)

    Subsidies skew markets, create inefficiencies and incentivize pollution. You desire to suck every drop of oil out of the ground will extend the U.S. oil supply about a year. Whoo hoo.

  • it’s a google!:

    “In his interview this past weekend with the New York Times, McCain agreed with President Bush’s stance against gay adoption, even if the alternative is that children are kept in the foster care system. But now the McCain camp is backing off that assertion…”

  • It occurred to me recently that given the animal totem – the elephant, associated with the GOP, that a better term for John McCain than “Maverick” would be “Rogue.”
    He’s known to live apart from the Republican pack, he’s got a cantankerous nature, and a wicked temper when challenged. Biologists believe that the rogue elephant may also suffer from brain damage that explains the confusion, memory lapses and uncontrolled charging at perceived threats.
    So how about we change the meme to “That John McCain! He’s quite the rogue!”

    • Comments are closed.