Latest Politics  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  | 

McCain Blogger Call Transcript

by Ryan Sager
Tue, 22 May 2007 at 12:17 PM
updated Tue, 22 May 2007 at 12:26 PM

Print

Send

RSS

Share:

The McCain campaign has released a transcript of yesterday's blogger call. The big news out of it, of course, was Mr. McCain's attack on Mitt Romney (about which I wrote a column here).

However, some might be interested in this exchange regarding Ron Paul and 9/11 "trutherism."

The exchange, and the full transcript, are after the jump...

Interesting bits include Mr. McCain's reference to conspiracy theories, and that they get an airing, as a sign of a healthy democracy, and Mr. McCain ascribing the 30% or so of Democrats who believe President Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand to irrational hatred of the president:

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from…

PAT CURLEY: Sen. McCain Congressman Ron Paul indicated at the debate last week that 9/11 was blow back for Americas bombing of Iraq in the 90's. Some saw this as Paul engaging in 9/11 trutherism and while I think that's a little unfair in this particular instance Ron Paul did appear on the Alex Jones show in January of this year and stated he's for a new investigation of 9/11 and that the prior investigation was nothing more than a cover up. We've also seen a recent poll that indicates up to 35% of Democrats now believe that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. You've been forceful in combating these 9/11 conspiracy theories including writing a forward to the popular mechanics book debunking the 9/11 myths could you talk for a moment about how damaging to the U.S. prestige both at home and abroad these myths are and is there anything more we can be doing to combat the truth or virus?

SEN. MCCAIN: I think that it's that it's something that happens in America and probably a sign of a healthy America these theories are given visibility. You know the Jack Kennedy we just heard another theory just these last few days how his assassination occurred but at the same time it does hurt us to particularly in this war. Public opinion which we are not doing as well as we should be to say the least have some credible people from members of congress questioning the whole rationale for our response and our and our highest priority to combating radical Islamic extremism. He's entitled to his views. I don't believe. That number disturbing of the 30% of the democrats but I think that has more to do with the dislike the irrational dislike in my view personal dislike of President Bush than it does most anything else. So it disturbs me if things like that get too much currency but at the same time at the end of the day I rely on the good sense of the American people. By the way the 9/11 commission was composed of some of the most credible people and highly respected people in America

PAT CURLEY: And they did a terrific job

SEN. MCCAIN: I think so

***

Sen. John McCain Blogger Call
5/21/07

PAT HYNES: Thank you all for joining today on our regular conference calls for Sen. John McCain. Today's call relates to Sen. McCain's speech later today on government reform. And of course he will take your questions after his brief remarks. Sen. McCain?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you Pat. Thanks for joining me again. Just very quickly, I'm gonna address the Oklahoma Legislature today on the need for government reform, the need for transparency in government, the need to clean up the corruption which has caused the American people to have such a low opinion of us. To reform defense acquisition and frankly restore some confidence on the part of our fellow citizens that we are careful stewards of their tax dollars and we act in a transparent and honorable fashion. Second item, very briefly, I would suggest that the exchange between myself and my friend John Cornyn was a bit exaggerated, may not surprise you to find out that every day when we're are in close door negotiations, kind of hard words are exchanged from time to time and I'm sorry YouTube wasn't there to give the full and complete picture of what took place. Sometimes we have tough issues and sometimes we are very frank with each other. So, the third thing of course, is the issue of immigration reform and I will be brief except to say the immigration system in this country is broken. The system poses an enormous national security risk. There are 12 million people in the country illegally. We have no idea who they are or where they are. The system has been broken for a generation. This legislation is first and foremost securing the border, in fact, 18 months is given for the notification that the border is going to be secured before any other action could be taken place. The Fort Dix Six can be in the country illegally for years and years and be arrested many times and some of those people came across our border illegally, some of them came about 30% have with visas that have expired, which is the argument for a comprehensive approach. We can secure the border. We can identify people who are here illegally. We can end the ability for employers to hire illegal aliens. These are the choices and there is not enough votes in the Congress to deal with this issue in small bites. We are either gonna do nothing or we are gonna resolve to make our country more secure by addressing the three elements of a broken immigration system. Secure our border, temporary worker program, and identify who is in the country illegally and punish them with fines et cetera. On the issue of amnesty, I don't know how you can call a $5,000 fine, a wait of at least eight years, going back to the country of origin, as fitting the dictionary definition. Finally, finally and I will leave this now for the questions. If this isn't a satisfactory solution, then severe critics of it, it think, at least owe us their solution that can get to the Congress of the United States with the support of the President of the United States. With that, I would like to turn it over to questions and thank you for joining me again.

PAT HYNES: Thank you Senator. At this time we will begin the question and answer portion of the call. If you would like to ask a question please press *1 on your telephone touch pad. If you are using speaker equipment, you may need to lift the handset prior to pressing *1. Should you wish to cancel your question or if your question has already been answered, simply press *2. Once again, that's *1 to ask your question, and *2 to cancel. Please allow a moment for questions to register. And as a reminder, please record your name slowly and clearly for pronunciation purposes. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our first question comes from.

ANN ALTHOUSE: Ann Althouse, Independent Blogger Blog Althouse Thank you for taking my call Senator. I wanted to ask about the exchange with Senator Cornyn and particularly about how a person who is trying to be an effective Senator can run for president and whether puts you at a disadvantage in relation to your competitors who are not trying to be effective Senators right now. I mean, isn't there some truth to the idea that you were parachuting in and so forth as was reported. I'd like for you to talk about that.

SEN. MCCAIN: I thought I had already talked about it. I have been on daily contact with the negotiators, I have been back and forth on conference calls meetings with Republicans and Democrats and I've been involved for many years. Look, as I've said before, when we are in intense negotiations a lot of things are said and my friend John and I had a difference in opinion and that's all there is to it. To think that this is anything else is totally exaggerated and the fact is this isn't the first issue that I have been a leader in the Senate on. I have a long record of leadership in all the major issues that have come before the Senate just about and I am proud of that record and I would match it up against anybody else who is running, and most anybody who isn't. Again, I wish it had been seen on YouTube, it probably would have been in the context, but this is something my friend and John and I had an exchange, it's over with and we've moved on. Anything else?

ANN ALTHOUSE: I guess I could just say that I actually defended you on my blog and I totally accept that people engage in rough talk like that and that's not my problem. Although I think it may hurt you, or that people are trying to hurt you with that and I wonder if you have any thoughts of who reported that you had said that and what their motivations were? But I'm also interested in this idea of the difficulty of being a competitor as we go forward to the primaries when you are competing with people who don't have to interact with people in the Senate, who are free to campaign full time.

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I agree. It is a bit difficult but we did fairly well in 2000, although not good enough. I think the point here is I will maintain my involvement in major issues of the day. This is a classic example of it. Under the leadership of the President of the United States, he's the head of my party with hard negotiations and difficult issues; we have come up with a proposal. I said before, what is the counter proposal? What is their idea as to how we can get a bill through the Congress of the United States? I've worked on so many issues: 9/11 commission, many other issues across the aisle and I think Americans at the end of the day want to get results and they want somebody to take on the hard things and not the easy ones and that's what I'm all about. It's certainly too late to change. Thanks.

ANN ALTHOUSE: Thank you very much and I really do respect that and I think that's important. I'm not trying to be critical or disrespectful, I just worry about this difficulty that you have when others are not in the same position with the people you have to compete with on different things and issues.

SEN. MCCAIN: I think you've got a very valid point and it makes things tougher but I wouldn't really have it any other way because I enjoy the legislative process and I enjoy enormously being in the arena as our old friend T.R. would say. Thank you for the question I appreciate it.

ANN ALTHOUSE: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from…

JENNIFER RUBIN: Jennifer RubIn, Thank you Senator.

SEN. MCCAIN: Hi.

JENNIFER RUBIN: Hi, Two questions on immigration if I might, first, in the White House fact sheets that they have put out and in statements by Senator Graham. They have indicated that there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation that the critics are putting out there about the plan. If that that is the case doesn't it make sense, and would you be supportive of slowing down the process and having some hearings so that people really understand what is in the bill? And, my follow-up question for that would be were you surprised at the reaction from the conservative base and from the audiences that greeted Sen. Saxby and Sen. Graham this weekend?

SEN. MCCAIN: Well of course, I was a bit disappointed in their reaction because I was hoping they would have evaluated it rather than listen to some people's interpretation of it. I think that this is a proposal on an issue that is very well known, I think it's fairly easy to comprehend it. I think that we should vote for cloture and then relevant amendments, not irrelevant amendments will be allowed. I would like to get it done this week. Five days of intense debate and amendments. If we can't, we can't. But I want to point out again that this is a product of leadership of our president, the leader of our party, and Chertoff and Gutierrez. This is, heavy negotiations have been going on for, literally for years and it's something that I think that we ought to at least give a chance to be scrutinized and debated and explained before it is roundly condemned. I understand how emotional this issue is with our base and I understand and sympathize with how upset they are. Nobody is more upset than those of us in Arizona who get more than fifty percent of the illegal crossings. But I hope that, I hope that over time this issue can be examined on this proposal we can maybe get more agreement. Finally, it also would have to go to the House of Representatives as you know which would take time as well. So it's not that the issue isn't well understood by the American people and I don't think that this proposal for fixing it is that complicated. Thanks, Jennifer.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from…

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Michael from Weekly Standard. Sen.

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: How are you doing sir?

SEN. MCCAIN: Fine thanks.

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: My question is about the AMRAB program. From I don't know 2 billion in January to something I that I don't know I would estimate might be as large as 25 billion dollars now and I'm just wondering whether you think that the AMRAB program is in the place it ought to be whether it's been given the priority it ought to be given or whether its maybe it's getting a little ahead of itself a little too much money anything you can speak to about the AMRAB program?

SEN. MCCAIN: Everything I've heard and seen of its demonstrated capabilities are that it saves lives so money shouldn't obviously be the major object here. I've been briefed by many people who say look this can save a lot of American lives an important program and we ought to pump as much money as possible into it. I think we ought to have hearings. I'm sure we will to whether there is too much money and they're moving too rapidly but you know this is kind of a reversal from the usual DOD procedure where they get a good idea and it takes them an inordinate length of time to get it into practice so and into operational capabilities. So far I'm happy with the reaction that we've gotten from DOD particularly given the increased validity of some of these IED's that are coming out of Iran which I know your familiar with

MICHAEL GOLDFARB: Yes sir, thank you very much sir

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from…

PAT CURLEY: Sen. McCain Congressman Ron Paul indicated at the debate last week that 9/11 was blow back for Americas bombing of Iraq in the 90's. Some saw this as Paul engaging in 9/11 trutherism and while I think that's a little unfair in this particular instance Ron Paul did appear on the Alex Jones show in January of this year and stated he's for a new investigation of 9/11 and that the prior investigation was nothing more than a cover up. We've also seen a recent poll that indicates up to 35% of Democrats now believe that President Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. You've been forceful in combating these 9/11 conspiracy theories including writing a forward to the popular mechanics book debunking the 9/11 myths could you talk for a moment about how damaging to the U.S. prestige both at home and abroad these myths are and is there anything more we can be doing to combat the truth or virus?

SEN. MCCAIN: I think that it's that it's something that happens in America and probably a sign of a healthy America these theories are given visibility. You know the Jack Kennedy we just heard another theory just these last few days how his assassination occurred but at the same time it does hurt us to particularly in this war. Public opinion which we are not doing as well as we should be to say the least have some credible people from members of congress questioning the whole rationale for our response and our and our highest priority to combating radical Islamic extremism. He's entitled to his views. I don't believe. That number disturbing of the 30% of the democrats but I think that has more to do with the dislike the irrational dislike in my view personal dislike of President Bush than it does most anything else. So it disturbs me if things like that get too much currency but at the same time at the end of the day I rely on the good sense of the American people. By the way the 9/11 commission was composed of some of the most credible people and highly respected people in America

PAT CURLEY: And they did a terrific job

SEN. MCCAIN: I think so

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from…

SOREN DAYTON: Thank you senator my question is about Iraq. Today Fred Kagan had an opinion piece in the New York Daily News and one of the things that I find really striking about it is that he. The way he characterizes success isn't about the parliament or anything that happens in Baghdad, it is really about getting the Sheikhs on our side in Anbar province and things like that, and he can point to good numbers about reduced violence there. Is that the set of metrics you'd use, what ones would you use with respect to Baghdad?

SEN. MCCAIN: I do think that it's worthwhile mentioning Anbar because there has been such a dramatic turnaround but we also know that's only part of the equation. I worry a great deal about the Maliki government, this news this morning that the Vice President is now against the oil revenue sharing idea. Look, they should be able to sit down, if they are an inclusive government, they should be able to sit down and pass this law and get it done on oil revenue sharing and then the debathification law, they've got to act inclusively and it disturbs all of us when we hear they're thinking about taking two months off. I think also though that a lot of the problems in Diala Province are bred by the part that Baghdad is more secure and less of a free operating area for Al-Qaeda and others. But we still haven't got the fifth brigade over there. I counsel patience, I try at every speech I give to say it's long and hard and tough, long and hard and tough. But I understand what's happening with the American people and these suicide bombings have very little military effect but have horrendous P.R. effect and so I think that we are going to know more, particularly about the Maliki government, in the next couple of months. I hope that we can see some signs of success which would be encouraging to us, but long and hard and tough Soren, long and hard and tough. Again I keep hearing from these young people who are fighting and giving me emails saying that things are a lot better in the areas that they are operating in and so patience and time, patience and time, and I am afraid that time is not on our side but I still believe this is the best strategy and I still believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic. Thanks.

SOREN DAYTON: Thanks.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from… John Hinderaker, Powerline

JOHN HINDERAKER: Senator back to immigration for a moment. You, in your initial comments said that with a $5,000 dollar fine and return to home country and so on, you don't think it's fair to call it amnesty. But I wish you, I wonder if you would just explain a little bit a part of the program that I would like to understand better. As I understand, an illegal currently in this country can, under this plan, immediately come forward and get a card that enables him to stay, and I think maybe that he has to pay a thousand dollars or something for that, I'm not sure, but that, having done that, in effect, as these other things spin out years down the road, he has now been legalized. Is that right, that understanding? And if so, why isn't that amnesty?

SEN. MCCAIN: I would describe it as a probationary status, you've either got the choice of putting them on probationary status or rounding up 12 million people and deporting them or having them washing around America in an illegal status. I believe it's a probationary status. They're going to have to go through background checks, they're going to have to pay fines, they have to go back to the country if they want to have any kind of real legal status that they came from. Then the green card backlog has to be cleared up which is at least about 8 years and some say more than that before they can get in line behind everybody else to have a truly legal status. The purpose of this coming forward immediately is so we can identify them, where they are, who they are and what they are doing. And those that don't come forward: pursue them with every bit of legal capability and law enforcement capability we can because they are going to be people who are doing bad things and get them out of the country as quickly as possible. I don't view that as amnesty and I don't see unless you give them some kind of probationary status, the other choice is to deport everyone of them or leave them in some kind of illegal status which obviously is not a good status quo. Do you see my point Johnny?

JOHN HINDERAKER: I guess my question is, once an illegal has put in, got this card, let's just say he's not interested in being a citizen. He just wants to keep doing what he's been doing which is working here. Can he just do that indefinitely with this card, or at some point does he get sent home?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, no, then if he's not going to go through that process we just described, then he's going to have to apply for a temporary worker visa. If he's non-seasonal, as you know that's Y1, if he's seasonal that Y2,etc. So you'd either have to try to get on the path of probationary, remaining on probationary status until you do the things you're required, or you'd have to then apply for the temporary worker program. And you couldn't be eligible for that until it was identified that a job that American citizens won't do. And that would take obviously a period of time while we set that up, and also a period of 18 months before the Department of Homeland Security certifies that we've done enough about, about ensuring the security of our borders. I hope you see my point John.

JOHN HINDERAKER: Yes, thank you very much.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our Next Question Comes from…

RYAN SAGER: Ryan Sager, New York Sun. Hi Sir, thanks again for doing this.

SEN. MCCAIN: Hi Ryan.

RYAN SAGER: Hey, so some of your opponents, particularly Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seem to see this immigration compromise as a real good opportunity to attack you and try to open up a divide there, and use it against you. Do you have any thoughts on kind of what they're up to, or a response to what they've been doing?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, I was a little disappointed in Fred cause again, he had a very different position not that long ago, but since he's not a declared candidate, I think that Fred will be able to articulate his position, I think, in the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position before, and maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn, I don't know. But, it's just, it's a little frustrating in that I would hope that all of these people who are condemning this very quickly, they say, well what is your solution? Because clearly the status quo is a totally unacceptable situation. And having said that, I have quickly add: I understand that frustration and anger that people feel after a generation of a broken system, where we have these incredible hardships imposed on us as a result of illegal immigrants, and now, since 9/11, it is a national security issue first and foremost. I thank you Ryan.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from

JAMES JOYNER: James Joyner, Outside the Beltway.

SEN. MCCAIN: Hi James.

JAMES JOYNER: Hi Sir. I guess, staying on the immigration question. I think I basically agree with you in your position, in terms of having to do what's practical and not pursuing a sort of ideal vision, but it seems to me this is, at least from what I'm reading in other blogs and comments and so forth, it seems to be the most divisive issue with the base right now. And I'm just wondering how do we sort of, put that together, how do you get those people back on board, get them turning out on election day and that sort of thing.

SEN. MCCAIN: That's an excellent question. As you know the town hall meeting is the base of the way I campaign. And I find at a town hall meeting, when I first mention immigration, there are stone faces in anger, and then I go through the argument, basically as we did, probably in a little more detail. And after a while, I see people nodding and saying, well that makes some sense, we gotta do something about it, the borders are broken. But the problem is it takes me five minutes. Whereas, the opposition, it's a 10, 15, 20 at most a 30 second sound byte, so it is a huge problem, I'm glad the president is playing the role that he is. He's going to be very active on this issue, as you know, not only is he committed to it and understands it, but it's kind of a legacy issue for him. So I'm hoping that we can, you know, maybe some of the emotion will die down and cool off a little bit so that we can have more of a dialogue and a discussion. Am I surprised that the reaction is as ferocious as it is? A little bit, because I had hoped that because the President is leading on this, that some of our Republican base would at least give him more of a chance to make his case. But having said that, there's no more purely emotional issue amongst our base that I know of, maybe abortion, that I know of since I've been involved in the Republican Party. Thanks James

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

ED MORRISSEY: Senator McCain, thanks for doing the conference call today. I really appreciate it. I have two quick questions for you regarding your immigration bill.

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes sir.

ED MORRISSEY: First off, the Boston Globe reported that President Bush asked to remove back tax liability from those pursuing z-visas. Wonder if you could address that and talk about why that's necessary, because that apparently is creating quite a bit of criticism. The second thing is about the fence. There is a provision in your bill, I believe it is 370 miles of border fence. Is that in addition to what was passed last year, or is that absorbing what was passed last year.

SEN. MCCAIN: It's surely absorbing what was passed last year. One of the things that I think is important to remember that particularly in parts of Arizona on the trackless areas, it's far more effective to have sensors and UAVs and those kinds of things, because if you have a wall you always have to man it. And each trackless area, if you can survey them, if you have mobile teams, it's a far more effective way of doing it, but having said that, you got to have fences in urban areas. There's no other way to do it. On the back taxes thing, I'd not heard that proposal on the part of the President I would resist that, just because I think it would then, frankly, first of all they should be able to pay their back taxes and make an agreement with the IRS as many Americans are able to do, and second of all it would just throw a little more fuel on the fire. If they're going to be law abiding citizens, they should correct anything that they've done wrong, and if they haven't paid their back taxes they've broken our laws.

PAT HYNES: Operator we have time for one last call, one last question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall.

SEN. MCCAIN: Go ahead Mary Katharine.

PAT: She withdrew her question. The next one comes from David Brody, CBN.

DAVID BRODY: Sen. McCain, David Brody here, how are you?

SEN. MCCAIN: Fine David

DAVID BRODY: Listen, real quick, you know you guys are getting it on the immigration issue, you're getting it on the left and on the right, you've been, for a while, and I know you obviously talk with Ted Kennedy and others there, and I know you don't run in Democratic circles necessarily, but what is your sense, you've been around the block a while, as to where ultimately the resistance is going to be, where will there be more pressure, from the left or from the right. What is your sense of this right now because you obviously, Ted Kennedy's probably talking to you as well about what he's hearing on his side of the aisle too?

SEN. MCCAIN: Well thanks David, it's interesting because there's increasing pressure from both sides. This whole doing away of the nuclear family is an afferent to many of them. The issue of the quote, ‘competitive wage, ' as you know they want Davis Bacon, the many of the older line unions are dead set against this, my friend Byron Dorgan, I understand is going to have an amendment to do away with the temporary worker program completely. So, I think there's mounting pressures from both ends of the spectrum that many of the Hispanic organizations, and I understand, they just want a quick path to citizenship, and that's it, you know? Obviously, that's not acceptable. I just want to make two additional real quick points. A $5,000 fine is a lot of money to somebody that makes about $15,000 a year. So this is a significant fine, and by the way there's going to be push back on that from the left, and the other thing I want to, and I probably shouldn't inject this, but for Republicans we have to be cogniscent of the fact that we need to appear to be, and actually be humane in this issue. The Hispanic vote is turning against us in very large numbers. I have a very close relationship with the Hispanic leadership in my home state. You know, it's just something we have to do as a nation. But as a Republican, I think it's important that we get this issue resolved because I happen to believe the Hispanic voters, by all other measures are republicans: small business, less taxes, pro-life…etc, etc. That's another reason for us to get this issue resolved, but I think the pressure's going to increase from both sides; from unions, from Hispanic organizations on one end, and very conservative Republicans, and understand that both sides anger. I would point out that there are some in the evangelical community, like Dr. Richard Land, and some of the others, who see this as a humanitarian issue as well. So it's going to be a fascinating time, and again could I just conclude by saying I'll do this every week if you want to, if there's a need for it. And number two is I really hope that the opponents of this proposal would at least feel some obligation to come up with their proposal that would be supported by the leader of our party, the President, and get enough votes in congress to get passage. And I'll be glad to consider it if they have that kind of proposal because I think the one thing that any objective observer will agree is that the status quo is totally unacceptable. You know, I have to do what's right for the country, and I understand the potential damage that this may have for me politically, and the next closed door meeting that we have in negotiations, I'll try to get YouTube in there, so that we can have an exact and accurate description of any fireworks that may ensue. It's a lot of fun sometimes, you might find it very interesting and entertaining, and enlightening. Thanks a lot.

Related Topics: GOP Primary, Immigration

Latest Politics Homepage