Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 43 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
McCain missing the mark with Hispanics
Published Friday, October 10, 2008
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Cindy Florez can’t always remember the name of the man who will get her vote for president, but she knows his party and that’s enough.
‘‘I will vote Democrat,’’ the 23-year-old hotel housekeeper said, in broken English, moments after registering to vote at a John McCain campaign booth in a Latino neighborhood market.
It’s an insult-to-injury moment for the Republican presidential candidate. And when it comes to McCain’s relationship with Hispanic voters, it’s not the first.
The man who once took a big political risk by joining with Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to propose a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was embraced by Hispanics is now struggling to win these same voters, and falling perilously below the level of support that helped lift President Bush to the White House.
The candidate who won nearly 70 percent of Hispanic voters in his last bid for Senate in border-state Arizona is watching a first-term Illinois senator run away with those voters.
The pro-military, anti-abortion candidate is seeing Hispanics with similar views turn away en masse.
McCain’s campaign is pushing back on each of these fronts in Spanish-language radio and television ads and on-the-ground contact in the markets, Hispanic neighborhoods, military bases and churches across the southwest.
But polls show the candidate isn’t finding it easy to shake his biggest liability with these voters: the R after his name.
‘‘The Republican Party pretty much alienated that voting bloc with the debate over immigration,’’ said Clarisa Arellano, a GOP activist in Colorado Springs, Colo., and a co-chair of McCain’s Hispanic coalition in the state. ‘‘There’s constant repetition that Sen. McCain is just another Republican, and negative campaigning works.’’
McCain’s trouble is most evident in his own backyard — the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Hispanics in these states are a growing and critical segment of the electorate. They are largely of Mexican descent and trend Democratic, but in recent elections Republicans have successfully carved out just enough of their support to win.
Bush won 44 percent of Hispanic voters in New Mexico in 2004, when he eked out a win in the state by 6,000 votes, according to exit polling.
In a poll conducted last week, McCain was winning just 17 percent of Hispanic voters in the state. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had 62 percent, and 21 percent were undecided, according to the survey conducted by Research & Polling Inc. for the Albuquerque Journal.
McCain is faring somewhat better in national polls. A Gallup poll conducted last week showed 26 percent of Hispanics favoring McCain, while 64 percent preferred Obama.
McCain’s advocates on the ground say there’s no mistaking 2000 for 2008.
‘‘I think Bush identified himself,’’ said Larry Trujillo, a former Colorado state legislator who is now pouring hours into McCain’s campaign in the state. ‘‘I don’t think (McCain’s) story is getting out, I don’t think it has resonated as loudly as I wish it would, as it should.’’
Trujillo and other McCain backers said they find Hispanics know little of the senator’s record and lump him in with Republicans they have turned against.
‘‘The problem we have, many people, instead of being with Obama, they’re anti-Bush. They want to vote against anything that represents Bush,’’ said Xavier Rivas, a Republican activist working on McCain’s Hispanic coalition in Las Vegas.
In conversation with voters, Rivas tries to highlight McCain’s ties to the community. He notes McCain was born on a military base in Panama, has traveled to Latin America and advocates free trade. He doesn’t see the campaign pushing these connections aggressively.
McCain’s campaign has been drawn into an television and radio advertising volley on immigration, an emotionally charged issue that isn’t playing in his favor.
While embraced by the largely pro-immigration population of Hispanics, McCain’s 2006 reform bill was pilloried by many conservatives. The debate left the senator caught between the right wing in his own party and the Hispanic voters he’s trying to court.
McCain tacked to the right during the primary, saying he would not reintroduce his own reform bill until the borders are more secure.
He’s finding it difficult to tack back.
‘‘I do have to say that the primary departure from highlighting his positives on immigration, it lost some people,’’ Arellano said. ‘‘It is muddled. There isn’t enough time to go out there and talk to them about immigration with all these other issues to talk about.’’
Even before the economic crisis, polls showed Hispanics prioritizing pocketbook concerns and looking to Democrats as stronger leaders on those issues.
The crisis is crowding out social issues that in 2004 moved some Hispanics, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, toward the Republican ticket. A Pew Hispanic Center survey from July showed only a third of Hispanics who attend church weekly were supporting McCain.
Still, his foot soldiers labor on.
As he makes the rounds of small businesses, Rivas hands out a small card designed to look like a prayer card. It bears an image of the candidate in front of the Mexican icon Our Lady of Guadalupe.
‘‘What is most important is the person who supports our Hispanic community. John McCain has been with us yesterday, today and always,’’ it reads.
On a recent Saturday, volunteers manned a booth at the market, calling out in Spanish to shoppers like Florez over the din of Mexican pop music.
Their message was well received by Jesus Rosales, a 65-year-old retiree from Las Vegas.
Rosales said he believes ‘‘Republicans are stronger, they work harder.’’ He’s believed this since the 1980s, when he became a citizen under an amnesty program enacted by President Reagan.
Comments
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a great example of the liberal media acting to affect the outcome of the election. The headlines say it all.
Posted by mudzillaefi (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can anyone "hit the mark" with 12 million illegal aliens who can't vote anyway.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The GOP has confused Hispanics.
GWB wanted to be friendly politically to them.
Half the GOP congress wanted to put them in cattle cars and take them home to work their yard.
The other half of the GOP congress wanted to put them in cattle cars and take them back to Mexico.
Lou Dobbs is going to have a stroke about them.
If you believe in free enterprise you would want to put them into the system, use their labor and tax them to pay their way -- oh no taxes are bad -- you would want to make them get insurance -- no, mandatory health coverage is bad.
If you believe in free enterprise you would talk bad about Democrats and blame them for the illegal aliens.
If you're Bill Clinton you're saying, "now why was it I jumped on the bandwagon and let the congress push NAFTA down our throat?"
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iconoclast...liberal bias in the media has been observed, statistically analyzed and known for years...it is a fact. If the AP reported that most African-Americans prefer Obama over McCain it would be expected, but if they failed to mention that most were supporting him simply because he is black it would be biased.
Similarly, when the AP puts out two reports, this one and the one headlined, "McCain losing ground with working-class whites" in the same news cycle with no counterbalancing reports, and the ND picks them both up without counterbalance, it is obvious bias.
BTW, I have a life and enjoy every minute of it. That's why I'm so concerned that Obama will turn it upside down. You should be too.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's the AP site:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RAW?...
It is very easy to look at their headlines every day and notice how the negative titles are more often applied to the Republicans and the positive titles go to the Democrats. Quite often you will read an article about Republicans that had a negative tilted title and yet the content of the article was not negative at all. It becomes obvious what editors are up to. Except, of course, from those that do not want to face the truth.
The same goes for most other news services and also in how other issues are reported. If a Democrat in any elected position is in trouble for any crime or ethics problem, "Democrat" will not be in the title. Not so for the Republican dog-catcher or any other position.
Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have "observed, statistically analyzed and known for years" that knowledge, understanding and mastery of facts and history have often been mistaken as a liberal bias.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, concerning...
"Half the GOP congress wanted to put them in cattle cars and take them home to work their yard.
The other half of the GOP congress wanted to put them in cattle cars and take them back to Mexico."
Do you truly believe that the Democrats have been innocent bystanders on illegal immigration all all these years? Do you truly believe it is all the fault of Republicans?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OGD...why do you talk to gnats?...gnats don't think and have nothing of value to say...they just buzz...find your can of Bengal and let him have it...LOL.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is what the liberals want. They are counting on the Hispanic vote. They want to give voting rights to the illegals.
Hell...in California they already give them driver's licenses and free schooling.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are correct they have a right to come here, but there is a process. Crossing a fence or a river ILLEGALLY is not the way to do it.
And for the record, I didn't equate all Hispanics with Illegals. What I said was the Democrats are counting on the Hispanic vote.
The sentence about illegals getting voting rights in California is a fact.
The two thoughts are independent of each other.
The bottom line is that foreigners who want to become citizens of the US are entitled and welcome to, but they have to follow the process that is in place.
Posted by onesideortheother (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY BLACKS, MUSLIMS & MEXICANS THEY WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA. FOR ONE REASON & ONE REASON ONLY, BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR.
the other day, my neice went thru mcdonald's drive thru. the YOUNG BLACK girl was wearing a large vote for obama pin !!!!!!!!!!!!
why would mcdonalds allow something like this?? wear, do, say what you want in your personal time. DO NOT use your place of work to deliver your political opinion.
heck, your lucky if mcdonalds delivers your order correctly!!! but they allow employees to wear political pins!
absolutely unacceptable! my neice called mcdonalds corporate office and expressed zero tolerance for this.
i suggest keep your eye on employees, places of business that may be displaying their vote choice. if you see this, call the head person of that company and COMPLAIN !!
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Repubs: Imploding from within.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
iconoclast, you are correct in what you said. My personal comments were directed towards illegal immigration. However, I still do not believe that racism is a proper word to use for people discriminating against "Hispanics" since I don't believe them to have been classified as a race.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes Teach they are imploding.
What amazes me is their obsession with black racist voting. If black folks were 40% of the population it would make more sense, but for a 15% minority to strike such fear in the hearts of conservative he-men is silly.
Now above, it is blacks, Mexicans and Muslims -- who cannot see an issue but race -- are there any other non-whites who feel so terrified as white folks? Are there any other non-whites period?
I frankly think that most southern white folks since I was born and long before see the world too much as a battleground between themselves and blacks, and reduce all national politics to that fight.
Thomas Sowell the darling black writer and columnist who will call a spade a spade in the way conservatives like -- has said that "authentic" black culture is spawned by the "highly dysfunctional" white redneck culture. That's very interesting. I have often thought that proud rednecks were more obnoxious than proud blacks -- and rednecks choose to enslave themselves to a rivalry with black culture far more than blacks squared off against rednecks.
It's a miracle Obama has gotten the recognition he has, and it speaks well of this country's efforts to give blacks their due place. But some folks linger in an insecure past.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Teach...as a teacher you should know that the very word "implode" means to burst or collapse inward...your statement is redundant, not to mention erroneous.
iconoclast...my outhouse is just as fictitious as the chupacabras you wish infested it...I have indoor plumbing thank you very much. Hispanic immigrants do have a right to come here, but only through legal means...just like your ancestors or did your ancestors climb a fence?
Where is the news article from AP saying "Obama Missing The Mark With Orientals and Jews"? There is an obvious liberal bias in the article above. Hispanics should love McCain because he is for a lenient immigration policy.
Gotta run...more gnats to swat elsewhere.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OGD--Why don't you classify Hispanics as a race?
That's a curious statement.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahuhuh, I know Mexicans and Muslims that are whiter than many of the white folks that I know. And the term "hispanic" was used (above) which, as far as I remember, includes Spain, Argentina and Venezuela among other places and much of their populations are not particularly dark skinned. On the other hand I also see people from parts of India who are darker skinned than most "Black" folks and yet their medical records list them as "caucasion". Go figure.
My point, I simply think "racism" is quite the wrong term for folks biggoted towards either Mexicans or "Hispanics". There's obviously a cultural prejudice but it ain't based on race or skin color.
And being anti illegal immigration is only confused with "racism" or its ilk when someone is trying to stretch a political point far beyond logic. :)
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
notfromnatchez, The term is based on language as far as I know. Thats different from what is considered to be "race".
But shucks, I'm no anthropologist and I'm will to be corrected.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Icono,
Open your eyes man...they are liberal...
Illegals are illegal, they are criminals when they cross the border without going through the proper procedure. SEND THEM ALL HOME AND KEEP THEM THERE!!!!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's so cute to hear conservatives talking about the fine points of racism.
Hardly anyone is just a "racist". It is always about culture, if you believe the concept of "nurture over nature". Nurture over nature insists we are nurtured into who we are instead of being born with the certainty already programmed into us by virtue of genes.
If you don't believe the concept of nurture over nature -- in other words that who you are depends on your upbringing and not your genes, then you are certainly racist.
If you feel that the bad traits that in some merit prejudice are outgrowths that would sprout no matter what environment you put folks in, then there is no need to wonder about folks, no reason to give them a helping hand, no reason to expect them to change or respond. That can be like a free pass to discrimination.
Most people who are culturally prejudiced have the traits of a racist in how they label or presuppose people's traits by virtue of culture -- race is a correlate often, but imperfectly.
That means that cultural prejudice is often just as reprehensible as racial prejudice, and depends on exactly the same mindset. But these people often excuse themselves as if they were superior to racists because if someone acts enough like their culture they will give them a tacit pass. Racial prohibitions for intimacy and association often still sway these peoples circles of friends and lovers, so there is almost always still a racial component present even if not stated.
So Grandpa you may be technically right about racist not being the proper term to use against prejudice against Hispanics. But their physical traits are the flag, the assumption of cultural inferiority or proximity and sympathy for illegals is the link and the feelings of loathing or superiority is the equivalent of racism used on them. So most of us just call it racism.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Racism does not apply to hispanics? What? You think it's just a black thing?
The definition of race per Merriam-Webster:
race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1: a breeding stock of animals
2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species ; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b: breed c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.
rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Does this make it any clearer?
Consider yourself corrected OGD.
I think it's a bit telling that date origin of racism as a word is 1933.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bobaloo
Wikipedia has a very good article you and others should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_grou...
OGD, in my opinion, wasn't being racist as you and some gnats might claim...he was simply making the point that the word "racism" was inappropriate to the conversation contained in the topic because taxonomically, Hispanics have traditionally been classified as caucasian, but even for taxonomic purposes the term "race" has fallen out of both use and favor with physical and cultural anthropologists, the arbiters of the terminology. The argument that whites are being racist against Hispanics is moot because you can't be racist to someone in your own racial group.
Iconoclast first used the word "racism" in this blog: "To equate Hispanics with illegals is nothing more than racism and bigotry." No one but liberals have used the words "race" or "racism" in the article or the blog with the exception of OGD in an attempt to clarify proper terminology. He wasn't being racist he was just being erudite.
You and certain irritating small insect species should take your knee-jerk reactions elsewhere. Swat!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That was such a nice-out-of-touch pontification, Dark Prince.
Perhaps you misunderstood when we stated the nature of racism as used in our society is more cultural than genetic, and that the people most often called racists excuse themselves for being racist because they cite cultural factors for their prejudice.
Whether OldGrandad was being racist I would not say. He seems like a nice enough fella to me. I offered my assessment to address what the term was actually used for and how the distinction is used by many as a smokescreen to obscure their prejudice.
Why don't we use the term "bigot" to describe those people that would like to excuse their tendency to group people into a convenient holding pen and condemn them all with the same nickel. As in , "Yes, sammoron is an insulting bigot who fears Obama will change his fragile lifestyle."
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammymoron, i hope i never run into your narrowminded, name calling butt.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
go design an archaic energy wasting building or something, putz.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It has absolutely nothing to do with the hispanic vote, the white eyes and ACORN are helping obama, so we really do not have to vote. You see its about the electoral college, go view the map on political dashboard people and you will see your new President Barack Hussein Obama ( not carrying Miss, )or any of lower south, but Fla. The white eyes are voting. Blacks carry about 15% vote, hispanics less, but white eyes are higher. If you liked the 60s then you are going to love your new President Barack Hussein Obama. Enjoy, cause I lived the 60s, no jobs, wages so low, a loaf of bread was hard to come by. Now we will have ONE party controlling House, Senate and the big house. You are not so dumb, not to figure out, here comes the big D and I do not mean Dallas Cowboys....depression. Pray, thats what we need now.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As anyone can see, from the definition that Babaloo so graciously posted for us and my past posts here and elsewhere, I clearly don't fit the definition. I'm simply, with abundant logic and common sense, showing liberals and Democrats how they are fitting the definition like a glove...after all who is hurling personal threats and using terms like "Putz"...apparently they don't like the truth.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bobaloo, sorry but reading that I do not see where someone could apply the word "race" to every spanish speaking person around the world.
But I'm kind enough to allow folks to group and categorize other peoples to their hearts delight. I pointed out my opinion. Tis all.
And nope. Wasn't being racist. Unless, as seems to have been put forth, being "conservative" makes me racist. All I did was point out the misuse of the word. But again, to score political points, there will always be those who claim that, in itself, is racist also. I really don't care since no person here knows what "race" I am.
:)
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OGD...well said!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You conservatives, as much as I love you and as fine and good as you are as people, really tick me off on this "illegal" immigration issue. How can a person be illegal?
Aside from that though, all these Mexicans and others are tearing down our union structure and that is hurting working class liberal whites and blacks forcing our community organizations like ACORN to waste time fighting for fair wages. Your policies are confusing our organizations: should La Raza firebomb ACORN or join with them? Please, as Yh points out, make up your minds whether you want illegals or not.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 5:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EnKiKur, No we do not want the ones who come illegally while others have to wait in line for a visa or a green card or whatever else is now required. I get asked all the time but I haven't got a clue since I come in and out with only a passport. I think the border crossings were tolerated for years by both parties but hopefully we've learned in this modern age that illegals can only stay here and work by stealing the identity of the citizens. When they raided that plant in Colorado and rounded up the illegals all the bleeding hearts were complaining about their arrests and deportation. But the local Sheriff complained about the folks not caring about all the good law-abiding citizens whose financial histories had been raped by the thefts of these people.
Posted by Kaintuck (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Old Grand Dad is spot-on; 2008 will be viewed by historians as a political tsunami that swamped the 20th Century Republican Party, principally due to the efforts of, ironically, two Republican politicians completely out-of-touch with their constituents: George Bush and John McCain. The former created a new Homeland Security Department that turned a blind-eye to millions of illegal aliens swarming into the United States after 9/11, and the later drafted legislation to provide amnesty for them. Similarly, the U.S. economy appears to be undergoing tremendous duress under Bush, and McCain seems to be parroting the same economic principles espoused by Bush. Win, lose or draw, the Republican Party will be fundamentally revamped, unless it is out-and-out replaced by a nationalistic party. If our economy really does tank, i.e., another Great Depression, the party that fills the right-wing niche vacated by the old Republican Party may make them look like a bunch of sophomoric pansies. Germany experienced a period like this following the Weimar Republic... As Scoobie says - Ruh, Roh!
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IIlegals have no fear ! You can vote because you will have obama & one of his favorite backers in your corner . ACORN ! You don't need to even vote in English or know anything about this wonderful country you risk your lives to be in . Just form a single line and the democrats will probably hand out free cheese if you vote for them .
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget it is Hispanic History Month.
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just for YOUR little information Sammohon, when I read it after I posted it, I realized what I had done. Nonetheless, I made my point.
Repubs: Imploding. Is that good enough? I don't care if it isn't quite honestly.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK I know I am known on here as an Obama man -- actually I just sincerely believe Republicans are too corrupt and dishonest to rule, and they actually encourage stupidity in the electorate so they can continue to lie their way into office. Really I plan one day on a libertarian government when you crybabies figure out how to live without dependence on the government.
I personally am not afraid of "illegal" immigrants. I think you folks that are should get off your butts and work a bit harder and smarter. Hire you some Mexicans -- they work harder than we do.
If you like free enterprise what is the matter with cheaper labor coming in? You wouldn't want the government to prop up a loser in a job that could be done better -- even if it was you, right?
Drugs they bring satisfy a booming market -- whether that is reimported pharmaceuticals or whatever -- more pot sold than sorghum in this country. Let the market speak! Don't let George Bush tell you what drugs should be imported -- he just wants the good stuff for himself and his Pfizer stock to go up from protectionist laws! (This is not an encouragement to do drugs irresponsibly)
Patent laws are stupid. Intellectual property indeed. If someone wants to invent something they should not use government paper to stop enterprise -- beside, they will make that product in other countries -- no prototype like a commercial example!
I swear you people sound like a bunch of communists. Conservatives have become more dependent on government than liberals.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you really saying that illegals should be allowed to come to this country and work...illegally?
Really?
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to come into this country and become citizens. But there are ways to do it legally.
I don't think the people who are here illegally should have the same rights as citizens. When they become citizens, then they will have the same right...but only when they become citizens.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ACORN FOR ILLEGALS!!! It will mean more obama votes . I wonder if obama will give them government jobs since they work hard for less money . That's a form of slavery as I see it. It's taking advantage of people less fortunate than you . Isn't there still slavery in Africa ?
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am really saying that an open border for people who supposedly love free enterprise is a reasonable goal. That need not grant citizenship or all the rights citizens have.
I don't think we are ready for that yet. We have propped up our neighboring governments too wrongly to allow that right now as things would change too quickly. Americans themselves despite the stupid free-enterprise rhetoric would HATE living by their own means.
I am expressing ideals. It is easy to see that nobody with any sense can approach an ideal without due consideration -- like conservative politicians pretend we can do. For that reason, the people that can't get past free enterprise but would not get it if they elected their choice should not vote on that basis.
That's a little logicalism we liberals consider to be the truth. There we go thinking again!
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Open borders are a bad idea. Do you recall terrorists trying to cross into the US through Canada?
It is only a matter of time before they try crossing over from Mexico.
So this turns into a National Security issue.
There needs to be some a way of keeping people from crossing into our country illegally.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Close the borders now!!! I want a wall that will make the Great Wall of China look like a beginners toy. I want one with 4 lanes across the top and guard towers every 200 yards so we can have M-60's mounted on them for illegals.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Short term -- yes we have to watch our borders. But we have something else that will affect border security among terrorists more than anything.
Actually the terror problems we have are also a byproduct of our dependence on the government.
Terrorism is largely a reprisal phenomenon. When we use the power of this nation to uproot, displace, harm or manipulate foreigners, some of them inevitably get irritated at us. Terror is an outgrowth of that by and large -- terrorists did not start striking us internationally before we have been messing around in their lands a long time.
The things we did in the creation of Israel and Iran's and Iraq's history are the primary cause of reprisal attacks -- unlike ourselves, our enemies actually just try to make a statement they have no hope of destroying us -- that includes Alqaida. When we work in their lands we usually wish to change governments away from the liking of the foreigners that live there too often. Installing leaders favorable to us that have unsettling consequences -- that sort of thing-- bad business for the locals -- we need to stop doing that.
After having a better grip on those activities and having a president that does not need the military so much we should have a significant decrease in security problems. Not using the government to ensure international oil rights would go a long way to stabilizing the world and letting the air out of terrorist's tires. Holding Israel to a standard of international behavior confined to their former boundaries would help, too. Those two special interests we have create nearly all of our terror threat.
Stopping of funding for despots fighting ideological battles will ensure no further reprisals and at little cost. This may mean the way we fight communism, radical Islam and unrest is economically instead of militarily. We had better start because economic interplay is the threat of the future. India and China will roll over us if we try to stick to old methods of international manipulation started during Eisenhower.
After we clean up the messes that have been created largely by the Bush family and Reagan we might be able to be civilized one day.
Near isolationist posture is the true conservative way. Aggressive advancement of US power is the neoconservative way -- it has broken us and gotten us into a war that will be permananent if the nature of it is not changed.
Forget whether we "look like" we won or not. When we are fighting reasonable wars we will have allies for peace first then allies we need if that doesn't work.
All that is how it will be. Right now we will work our way there stuck with cleaning up the existing messes.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)