$50 for picking lettuce per McCain

[CARLHAYDEN]

Recently John McCain (property of the liberal media) lectured labor leaders, among other things telling them that native born Americans would not be willing to pick lettuce in Arizona for $50 per hour and that only illegal aliens would do that, which is why he supports amnesty for illegal aliens and is opposed to efforts to stop illegal immigration.

Now, aside from being a lackey for the liberal media, John McCain is a serial liar.

First, there is very little lettuce grown in Arizona.

Second, many people have contacted McCain about those $50 an hour jobs (which, don't exist) and he has refused to admit that this was just another of his lies.

The matter of immigration is a very complex one, and requires a balanced, multifacted approach, not the arrogant lies of a sick little weasel.

I hope the liberals here will recognize what a vile creature McVain is and will stop defending the slimebag.

[Moooooo]

I respect McCain for his service to this country, but Ive never understood why so many people are obsessed with him.

And its nice to see you back, Carl

[Alcon]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

[MODU]

McCain was sooo nice to send me his form letter on behalf of CAGW yesterday.  Never knew he was a board member.

[Gabu]

I wish I could get $50 an hour for picking lettuce.

[??????????]

I wish I could get $50 an hour for picking lettuce.

You'd be amazed how much Mexicans are making picking vegetables as it stands now. I work with one Mexican who made 31,000 dollars in one season of picking. Sure, you have to be pretty quick, but if you've done it a while you get pretty good at it.

[Platypus]

sounds to me he was exaggerating about a real problem.

He could've just as easily said !15 and apricots or whatever.

The point stands, the exaggeration is revealed, and no lies were told. Certainly not in comparson to the lies Senators usually tell their constituents about representing them and not taking kickbacks, etc.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

Hmm... I dunno.. maybe its because he's one of the best Senators ever and put his life on the line for his country.  Maybe its because he's a hero.  Just a thought.

[??????????]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

Hmm... I dunno.. maybe its because he's one of the best Senators ever and put his life on the line for his country.  Maybe its because he's a hero.  Just a thought.

He absolutely was a war hero, but he still is a disgusting individual who needs to be ignored.

[Jake]

Hmm... I dunno.. maybe its because he's one of the best Senators ever and put his life on the line for his country.  Maybe its because he's a hero.  Just a thought.

Why is he "one of the best ever"?

[Alcon]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

Hmm... I dunno.. maybe its because he's one of the best Senators ever and put his life on the line for his country.  Maybe its because he's a hero.  Just a thought.

I respect him for putting his life on the line, and for that he is indeed a hero.  That does not have anything to do with the Senate, though.

[David S]

I wish I could get $50 an hour for picking lettuce.

You and me both! I might come out of retirement for that.

[MODU]

I wish I could get $50 an hour for picking lettuce.

You and me both! I might come out of retirement for that.

It will also help you to keep our weight down, considering all the Trans Fats we eat.    hahaha

[CARLHAYDEN]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

he isn't!

[Alcon]

I cannot comprehend why John McCain is so popular in Arizona.

he isn't!

Then every poll out of Arizona about McCain has been wrong?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

There are two major categories of polls:

1.) Media financed
2.) Campaign financed

Now, as I have noted before, organizations polling for the media recognize that they are more likely to keep their contracts if they exaggerate the numbers for the candidate prefered by the media paying for their poll.

Polls conducted by campaigns are generally closely held as they form a data base for campaign activities and when done in series a benchmark for the effectiveness of capaign tactics.

McCain is a flunky for the liberal media, so guess what the polls paid for by the media show?

[Citizen James]

Actually, Arizona is the second largest (second page) producer of lettuce in the US.

Interesting that a search turns up the DU boards  giving the same rants except replacing 'liberal' for 'conservative'.

I recognize that what he has stated is hyperbole.  However, though I don't doubt that Americans would be willing to do the job; I think that it is  also notible that it is hard, back-breaking labor, and the people who do that work deserve to be paid equitably for their effort rather than exploited at sub minimum wages under the table under threat of being turned into the INS.

I doubt many of the spoiled suburbanites who have the spare time to rant on about this at DU or at their  conservative counterparts  could survive a summer working under the sort of typical field condidtions  doing manual labor day in and out regardless of the pay rate.  Blisters and heat stroke are not fun.

But I find the implied racism in his statements (the Mexicans are  good as low paid beasts of burden which are beneath us) offensive.  Of course, it's an abuse we've repeated many times throughout our history (the Irish, the Chinese, blacks and slavery, etc). 

[Gabu]

Alcon,

There are two major categories of polls:

1.) Media financed
2.) Campaign financed

Now, as I have noted before, organizations polling for the media recognize that they are more likely to keep their contracts if they exaggerate the numbers for the candidate prefered by the media paying for their poll.

Polls conducted by campaigns are generally closely held as they form a data base for campaign activities and when done in series a benchmark for the effectiveness of capaign tactics.

McCain is a flunky for the liberal media, so guess what the polls paid for by the media show?

The following are Arizona Senate elections which John McCain won:

2004

John McCain (R) 77%
Stuart Starky (D) 21%
Ernest Hancock (L) 3%

1998

John McCain (R) 68%
Ed Ranger (D) 28%

1992

John McCain (R) 56%
Claire Sargent (D) 32%
Evan Mecham (I) 11%

1986

John McCain (R) 61%
Richard Kimball (D) 39%

In only one of four elections did John McCain get less than 60% of the vote, and in 2004, the most recent election, he won with nearly 80% of the vote.

Is the media forging election results, as well?  If McCain is unpopular in Arizona, then surely even a weak Democratic opponent could have achieved 30% to 35% of the vote purely through the Democratic base and through resentment for McCain, rather than barely even topping 20% of the vote.  In 2004, 52% of Democrats voted for McCain.

If you hold a thought in your mind and absolutely refuse to consider the notion that it is incorrect (in this case, that McCain is unpopular in Arizona) when it is actually incorrect, it will require you to come up with an awful lot of weird justifications for evidence against it.

[opebo]

I certainly wouldn't consider picking lettuce for $50/hour - the skin cancer would not be worth it.

Unless perhaps one would be allowed to pick it at night under artificial light, or under a tent.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

There are two major categories of polls:

1.) Media financed
2.) Campaign financed

Now, as I have noted before, organizations polling for the media recognize that they are more likely to keep their contracts if they exaggerate the numbers for the candidate prefered by the media paying for their poll.

Polls conducted by campaigns are generally closely held as they form a data base for campaign activities and when done in series a benchmark for the effectiveness of capaign tactics.

McCain is a flunky for the liberal media, so guess what the polls paid for by the media show?

The following are Arizona Senate elections which John McCain won:

2004

John McCain (R) 77%
Stuart Starky (D) 21%
Ernest Hancock (L) 3%

1998

John McCain (R) 68%
Ed Ranger (D) 28%

1992

John McCain (R) 56%
Claire Sargent (D) 32%
Evan Mecham (I) 11%

1986

John McCain (R) 61%
Richard Kimball (D) 39%

In only one of four elections did John McCain get less than 60% of the vote, and in 2004, the most recent election, he won with nearly 80% of the vote.

Is the media forging election results, as well?  If McCain is unpopular in Arizona, then surely even a weak Democratic opponent could have achieved 30% to 35% of the vote purely through the Democratic base and through resentment for McCain, rather than barely even topping 20% of the vote.  In 2004, 52% of Democrats voted for McCain.

If you hold a thought in your mind and absolutely refuse to consider the notion that it is incorrect (in this case, that McCain is unpopular in Arizona) when it is actually incorrect, it will require you to come up with an awful lot of weird justifications for evidence against it.

Well, lets take a closer look

Why, if McCain is disliked, does he win relection?

The answer if pretty simple, abeit not a simple minded as your assertions.

McCain has positioned himself minimally to the right of the Democrat party nominee (some of those you cited were really nuts) but well to the left of marjority of the Arizona electorate.

Now, he would never have receivied the Republican party nomination the last two times if he were not the incumbent.

Also, he would never have been initially nominated for office (he started as a member of the House) if he had been the lickspitle for the liberal media he is today.

[Gabu]

Well, lets take a closer look

Why, if McCain is disliked, does he win relection?

The answer if pretty simple, abeit not a simple minded as your assertions.

McCain has positioned himself minimally to the right of the Democrat party nominee (some of those you cited were really nuts) but well to the left of marjority of the Arizona electorate.

Now, he would never have receivied the Republican party nomination the last two times if he were not the incumbent.

Also, he would never have been initially nominated for office (he started as a member of the House) if he had been the lickspitle for the liberal media he is today.

How can someone who is apparently so disliked receive 77% of the vote?  That's an incredibly high percentage.

What evidence do you have to support the idea that McCain is disliked?  Every single poll and election that has ever come out supports the idea that McCain is popular in Arizona.  Are you honestly asserting that McCain's entire political career has been one giant conspiracy and that Arizonans have consistently voted against their interests for 18 years?

[Nym90]

Alcon,

There are two major categories of polls:

1.) Media financed
2.) Campaign financed

Now, as I have noted before, organizations polling for the media recognize that they are more likely to keep their contracts if they exaggerate the numbers for the candidate prefered by the media paying for their poll.

Polls conducted by campaigns are generally closely held as they form a data base for campaign activities and when done in series a benchmark for the effectiveness of capaign tactics.

McCain is a flunky for the liberal media, so guess what the polls paid for by the media show?

The following are Arizona Senate elections which John McCain won:

2004

John McCain (R) 77%
Stuart Starky (D) 21%
Ernest Hancock (L) 3%

1998

John McCain (R) 68%
Ed Ranger (D) 28%

1992

John McCain (R) 56%
Claire Sargent (D) 32%
Evan Mecham (I) 11%

1986

John McCain (R) 61%
Richard Kimball (D) 39%

In only one of four elections did John McCain get less than 60% of the vote, and in 2004, the most recent election, he won with nearly 80% of the vote.

Is the media forging election results, as well?  If McCain is unpopular in Arizona, then surely even a weak Democratic opponent could have achieved 30% to 35% of the vote purely through the Democratic base and through resentment for McCain, rather than barely even topping 20% of the vote.  In 2004, 52% of Democrats voted for McCain.

If you hold a thought in your mind and absolutely refuse to consider the notion that it is incorrect (in this case, that McCain is unpopular in Arizona) when it is actually incorrect, it will require you to come up with an awful lot of weird justifications for evidence against it.

Well, lets take a closer look

Why, if McCain is disliked, does he win relection?

The answer if pretty simple, abeit not a simple minded as your assertions.

McCain has positioned himself minimally to the right of the Democrat party nominee (some of those you cited were really nuts) but well to the left of marjority of the Arizona electorate.

Now, he would never have receivied the Republican party nomination the last two times if he were not the incumbent.

Also, he would never have been initially nominated for office (he started as a member of the House) if he had been the lickspitle for the liberal media he is today.

Granted, McCain's supposed liberal positions would explain the Democrats not getting a very high percentage of the vote. But then how would you explain the lack of a conservative independent challenging him from the right?

The fact of the matter is that he got 77 percent of the vote. Surely if Republicans in Arizona were that upset with him, he would have either lost a Republican primary (yes, his incumbency does give him an advantage here, but if he was unpopular enough, someone would mount a serious challenge and have a good chance of winning) or have had an independent or Constitution or Libertarian party candidate get a reasonable percentage of the vote in the general election.

[Alcon]

CARLHAYDEN,

In that case, what is your proof that McCain is not popular?  How is SurveyUSA manipulating their raw numbers?

I also agree with Nym.  If McCain was unpopular, it wouldn't be the big secret it appears to be.  There isn't a giant conspiracy to hide this over the past 18 years.  That's ridiculous.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apparently my previous explanation was insufficently clear, so I will elaborate on it.

First, incumbency is a major advantage.  This is especially true for Republicans (remember the eleventh commandment).

Second, McCain is rich due his marriage to a wealthy druggie.  McCain dumped his first wife to get a rich one.

Third, as I previously noted, the more a rational, reasonable, ethical person knows about McCain, the more they come to dislike him.   Hence, his number are worse among long time Arizonans than among those who just moved here.

Fourth, over the past few years there has been growing opposition to McCain in Arizona.

When the tax cuts were passed five years ago, McCain was the only nominal Republican in the Arizona delegation to oppose cutting taxes.

Today, with the exception of Kolbe (who is retiring before he gets defeated in the primary) McCain is the only nominal Republican in the Arizona delegation who supports amnesty for illegal aliens!

If McCain does seek reelection (doubtful) he is likely to face an opponent in the primary.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, Arizona is the second largest (second page) producer of lettuce in the US.

Interesting that a search turns up the DU boards  giving the same rants except replacing 'liberal' for 'conservative'.

I recognize that what he has stated is hyperbole.  However, though I don't doubt that Americans would be willing to do the job; I think that it is  also notible that it is hard, back-breaking labor, and the people who do that work deserve to be paid equitably for their effort rather than exploited at sub minimum wages under the table under threat of being turned into the INS.

We keep having the same debate regarding the picking of asparagus and grapes... backbreaking work that is difficult to mechanize (most grapes in Germany are grown on steep slopes).