April 28, 2010

"Imagine if Obama's gaffe about 'clinging to guns and religion' had been uttered by John McCain, about his own base."

It would look like this...

But, actually, to be fair, that is worse than the hypothetical McCain scenario. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was caught on tape insulting a particular individual — Gillian Duffy — calling her a "bigot" right after talking to her, and her reaction to hearing about it (and then listening to it) is caught on video.

More of Gillian Duffy's amazing real-time response here. (I like when she gets a cell phone call and the reporters can't believe she'd take a phone call while she's on live TV.) Brown has now given Duffy an in-personal apology, but as you can see in that video she says she doesn't want that. She wants to know why her comments were counted as bigotry.

IN THE COMMENTS: Class factotum said:
Josephine the Plumber has been born.
Hey! Wait a minute! Josephine the Plumber? Jane Withers!



When my mother saw those Comet ads, she's always exclaim about how mean Jane Withers was to Shirley Temple. She was the child actress who was most emphatically not Shirley Temple:



And the actor in the wheelchair is Charles Sellon — or as I insist on calling him, Mr. Muckle. Now, open the door for Mr. Muckle:

70 comments:

Jeff with one 'f' said...

All right, I'm holding my nose and clicking over to AS.

Moose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Britain is doomed....
Their choices are:
1) The Clapped-out follower of the reviled Tony Blair, offering Britain more of the same Nanny State Socialism, only served up by a Labour Party so exhausted of ideas and talent that all you’ll get will be Socialism with Incompetence; or
2) David Cameron, who sounds like Brown/Blair on Energy and the NHS, but promises to be more competent, I guess; or
3) The oleaginous Snake Oiler Purveyor Clegg, who promises to be “different” even though he’s been a member of the Euro-Federalist Elite and a highly paid lobbyist, plus a supporter of the moribund EU and the crashing Euro.
I guess you could vote UKIP or BNP but you’d be throwing your vote away. It’s like 2008 in the US only worse…you have Obama, in Clegg, and TWO loser competitors, rather than one, and no Sarah Palin in the offing.

Lastly, I read last week, that it is possible that Brown could come in THIRD in votes, but under the current districts and British voting system could be only 50 votes short of a majority in Parliament! Oh yeah, there’d be pitch forks and torches in the streets if that happened in the US, and rightfully so.

Britain, it’s like the Alabama of comparative politics, “Thank God for Alabama” is what most US governors say, because one can rely on Alabama to score far worse on most measures of social pathology than your state….so too Britain. It may be bad here, BUT at least we don’t have three hideous choices ahead of us….at least this year.

Montagne Montaigne said...

It's surprising how much it appears Brown dislikes the lady... that video is sad. she seems hurt. Brown is a clod.

While "guns and religion" was condescending, you can't really imagine Obama calling someone a bigot. He would try to explain their opinion based on socioeconomics... that detached, professorial thing (that critics think is bogus/arrogant).

The Crack Emcee said...

I've told you you can't win going down this road.

Just drop the who's a racist? who's a bigot? talk, take a position on something, and defend it.

That's what a normal person would do,...

Joe said...

While "guns and religion" was condescending, you can't really imagine Obama calling someone a bigot.
No he'd leave that to Olberman, Lewis and Pelosi, wouldn't he?

WV; "cheri" how odd, wasn't that Blair's wife's name?

The Crack Emcee said...

And, needless to say, I'm more inclined to think those who keep bringing this shit up are the real racists/bigots.

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

"How are you going to get out of this debt, darling?"

Brown:

Later he grips that "this was ridiculous" and "a disaster". Why? Because he was actually asked pointed questions and had no answers except the usual spend-spend-spend BS.

Gordon Brown is an amazingly incompetent politician. How he got to be Prime Minister is a mystery--I suppose everyone else figured they needed a doofus around and eventually he was the only one left standing.

danielle said...

wow. her comments didnt seem bigoted at all. i wouldnt mind seeing him explain why he said that, or better yet, why he was wrong.

danielle said...

speaking of McCain, he seems to have lost all of his political backbone.

Kensington said...

Ha ha, yes, I loved the part where they got bent out of shape because she answered her cell phone. It kind of shows how fragile their self-image is, and it's delicious!

Class factotum said...

Josephine the Plumber has been born.

LarsPorsena said...

"...speaking of McCain, he seems to have lost all of his political backbone."

It's on loan to Jan Brewer.

Jeremy said...

danielle said..."speaking of McCain, he seems to have lost all of his political backbone."

No, what's closer to the truth is this: he's lost most of his mind.

Between suddenly saying he was never really a "maverick" or that he's against immigration reform he's just doing what all politicians do; cater to the whims of who he hopes will buy the bullshit and vote for them.

Jeremy said...

LarsPorsena said..."It's on loan to Jan Brewer."

Speaking of racism.

Skyler said...

Oh, geez, how about a warning before we go that creep Sullivan's website.

Eric said...

It's a testament to the incompetence of the conservatives that Labour isn't being blown out this election.

Joe said...


Jeremy said...
LarsPorsena said..."It's on loan to Jan Brewer."

Speaking of racism.

We weren't YOU are...but if you speak badkly of a womon, a womon in power, I'm afraid I'll have to accuse you of SEXISM!

Slow Joe said...

The Welfare state is not compatible with rampant illegal immigration, or even just plain legal but completely open immigration.

I am pretty sure most conservatives would be less concerned with illegals coming here to work hard and feed their families if it didn't create more unsustainable burden for the state. Sure, a few democrat racists have joined the GOP for some reason and have a problem with mexicans because of race (I realize the democrats say hispanic isn't a race anymore).

But for the most part, the objection to illegal immigration is in context of how that affects big problems.

I hope we end all welfare, including social security (no one has paid social security taxes in decades..,. you were paying income tax to support government programs and let your congressman steal from the future, so it's welfare) and then let anyone in who is willing to abide by laws and learn to communicate in a common language (I think having a single language is a great force for good). Most of those immigrants would be Mexican, and I'm totally cool with that. Who cares?

Jenny said...

Britain, it’s like the Alabama of comparative politics, “Thank God for Alabama” is what most US governors say, because one can rely on Alabama to score far worse on most measures of social pathology than your state….so too Britain.

Joe,

As a Tennessean with no dog in the fight, it's Mississippi, not Alabama. "Thank God for Mississippi!"

Joe said...

Jenny, Mississippi, too....

Balfegor said...

As soon as he heard Duffy talk about foreigners, he probably had Rivers of Blood running through his head. The political class in Britain isn't exactly sympathetic to the views of their people on that question.

Balfegor said...

I am pretty sure most conservatives would be less concerned with illegals coming here to work hard and feed their families if it didn't create more unsustainable burden for the state.

I guess so. I mean, for me, personally, my big objection to illegal immigration is almost entirely as a matter of sovereignty, national pride, and national humiliation. That has nothing to do with how much it might cost to have illegal immigrants consuming public services in the US.

Public services, effects on lower-income Americans' wages, housing prices, social cohesion and so on are all affected more or less equally by legal immigration. Well, wages somewhat less so, since illegal immigrants can price below minimum wage, and evade health and safety regulations thereby pricing poor Americans out of the job market. But to the extent there are concerns on those fronts, the objection does not appear to be to illegal immigration per se, but rather, that there is a need to establish some sort of control over the volume of immigration (and possibly the human capital of immigrants coming in), which leads to a corresponding need to suppress illegal immigration.

I rather doubt that many people understand the illegal immigration in precisely the same terms of national humiliation as I do, but to the extent people are infuriated by illegal immigration, I think their anger stems from something like the same impulse.

Jeremy said...

Joe - The law is racist and will create more problems for Arizona than they'll be able to handle.

And it serves them right, too.

rcocean said...

I'm always shocked at how left-wing the UK is compared to the USA. The Liberals and Socialists get 60 percent - at least - every election and the Tories get around 30-40 percent. If it wasn't for first- past-the-post, the Tories would be a permanent minority party.

And of course, the Tories are by American Standards - liberals. Most of them are against the Death penalty, for abortion, socialized medicine, high taxes, hate crime legislation, etc.

rcocean said...

And if McCain had uttered the "clinging to guns and religion" the Republicans would have all voted for him any way.

'Cause Republicans love to "shut up and fall in line" almost as much as supporting their Commander-in-chief

Jeremy said...

Slow Joe said..."The Welfare state is not compatible with rampant illegal immigration, or even just plain legal but completely open immigration."

Well, that's only the opinion of someone who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

First of all, there are one hell of a lot more white Americans collecting all forms of welfare than Hispanics...it's not even close.

And if you ever bothered to read anything before blathering on, you might have read this;

January 07, 2010|By Anna Gorman

Even during the ongoing recession, immigration reform legislation that legalizes undocumented immigrants would boost the American economy, according to a new study out of UCLA.

The report said that legalization, along with a program that allows for future immigration based on the labor market, would create jobs, increase wages and generate more tax revenue. Comprehensive immigration reform would add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years, according to the report.

They pay taxes, provide all kinds of services to the Anglos who rely on them and it would be literally impossible and economically devastating to find and deport them.

If you send the bread winners back to Mexico...who will provide for the legal American family members left behind...Joe?

Want to take a wild guess?

LonewackoDotCom said...

Montagne Montaigne: Obama is much more subtle than to outright call someone a bigot. Obama just does things like lie and imply that Americans don't have a moral right to control who comes into their country.

(Teaparties can ignore that link, because you can't wave loopy signs at it).

Jeremy said...

Balfegor said..."I mean, for me, personally, my big objection to illegal immigration is almost entirely as a matter of sovereignty, national pride, and national humiliation."

Yeah, and I suppose you think all of the families currently enjoying American citizenship and the benefits afforded them are descendants of immigrants who ALL entered the country legally?

And of course, if you were living in Mexico and needed to support your family, but had no other choice but to enter the U.S. illegally so you could make enough money to do so...you and others here would opt for staying put?

Sure...

Lincolntf said...

If these people are so universally diligent, why aren't they building up their own country? Their very first act upon entering our country is a crime. Nice respect for our culture.

A Federal Government incapable of maintaining a border is probably not capable of much else, so lets start stripping them of more responsibilities.

Jeremy said...

"Leftist" critics of the new racist Arizona law:

Tom Ridge
Karl Rove
Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio
Lindsey Graham

Maguro said...

@Jeremy - It's all very well and good for you to sit there and blather on about how wonderful illegal immigration is, because you doesn't have to deal with the consequences. The people in Arizona do. They have to deal with overcrowded schools, hospitals and the tremendous increase in crime that illegals bring.

So kindly shut the fuck up for a change and let Arizona go about its business. If you don't like it there, don't visit.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Leftist" critics of the new racist Arizona law:

I guess we could get a bit snarky here, and point out that Hispanic is no longer considered a race. But then, what is so "racist" about enforcing the law? I guess it is racist because Barack (Obama) and Jeremy tell us it is.

Balfegor said...

Yeah, and I suppose you think all of the families currently enjoying American citizenship and the benefits afforded them are descendants of immigrants who ALL entered the country legally?

Of course not. This is relevant why? I'm not going to hold the sins of the fathers against the children.

And of course, if you were living in Mexico and needed to support your family, but had no other choice but to enter the U.S. illegally so you could make enough money to do so...you and others here would opt for staying put?

And if I were starving, sure, and I had "no other choice," I suppose I'd steal a loaf of bread. I'm not sure why that makes it okay to commit a crime.

And of course, once you assume there is "no other choice," you must see you're kind of stacking the deck. I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the situation in Mexico, given that Mexicans tend to be considerably richer than the people of neighbouring countries to the south. Yet even so, the estimated proportion of Mexican illegal immigration is more than twice the estimated proportion of illegal immigration from all other Latin American sources put together. It is not economic desperation that is driving illegal immigration -- from Mexico, at least. It is economic opportunity and the opportunity to exploit it.

Pogo said...

One sure sign that a decision was the correct one was that Jeremy despises it.

Balfegor said...

Of course not. This is relevant why? I'm not going to hold the sins of the fathers against the children.

Incidentally, building on this point -- this is why trying to make provision for amnesty seems to me an enormous waste of time. If we attain control over the border, the problem of illegal immigrants within our borders will work itself out over the next fifty or sixty years, as illegal immigrants die and their children and grandchildren are born and raised as Americans.

Maguro said...

By the way - Mexico has some pretty strict immigration laws itself. Guess they must be a bunch of racists, too.

Jeremy said...

Bruce Hayden - Enforcing laws isn't inherently "racist," but the manner in which the police are expected to decide who is or isn't illegal in Arizona will create big problems for everybody concerned.

Before, one would have to be "suspected" of something before being asked to provide identification. The new law says the police can ask without any suspicion whatsoever.

national police group condemned it as likely to lead to racial and ethnic profiling and to threaten public safety if immigrants did not report crime or did not cooperate with the authorities out of fear of being deported.

The police group joined a growing list of organizations and religious and political leaders far from the state’s borders urging Ms. Brewer to veto the bill. Her spokesman said that of the 15,011 calls and letters her office had received on the bill, more than 85 percent opposed it.

The law would require the police “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization. (Whatever "reasonably suspected" is supposed to mean.)

Do you think it would apply to a group of whites walking out of a convenience store?

It would also allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents.

So everybody will have to carry passports? Birth certificates, Social Security Cards?

And it allows residents to sue cities if they believe the law is not being enforced.

HELLO LAWSUITS...taxpayer goodbye money.

It also gives the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

HELLO money spent on arrests, detention and...lawsuits.

More "leftists":

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and several sheriffs have also come out against the bill, calling it burdensome and an intrusion into a federal matter.

A national police group condemned it as likely to lead to racial and ethnic profiling and to threaten public safety if immigrants did not report crime or did not cooperate with the authorities out of fear of being deported.

Ms. Brewer's spokesman said that of the 15,011 calls and letters her office had received on the bill, more than 85 percent opposed it.

So, as usual...the wing nuts here are on the wrong side of the fence.

Same 'ol, same 'ol.

Lem said...

That lady is an English Tea Partier.. she just doesn't know it yet.

Jeremy said...

Pogo - How do you type with testicles in your mouth?

Jeremy said...

Balfegor said..."I'm not going to hold the sins of the fathers against the children."

So, you're in favor of taxpayers supporting the American families left behind after the bread winner is deported?

That's nice.

Balfegor said...

Ms. Brewer's spokesman said that of the 15,011 calls and letters her office had received on the bill, more than 85 percent opposed it.

Maybe. But she apparently got a 16 point bounce out of signing the bill. That's kind of huge since it took her from considerably under the 50% mark to comfortably over. Of course, the bounce will probably fade over time, since people clearly weren't too happy with other aspects of her performance. But signing the bill seems to have been a big winner for her.

Pogo said...

Yeah, AZ, just put up with nonenforcement of the law!

In short, yer on yer own out there. Muder, theft, and rape are just part of the cost of doing business in AZ. Non-citizens can do whatever the hell they want, and you get to foot the bill.

If you object, yer a racist.
Shut up and give them yer money already.

This land is their land,
from California to the New York Island.

Jeremy said...

Maguro - I also live in an area with many Hispanics and I've been listening to the same bullshit about how the illegals are destroying America for years.

And that's exactly what it is...bullshit.

Hispanics contribute much more to our economy and way of life than they take and only the tea bagger wing nut crowd thinks otherwise.

Being a racist prick isn't that much fun is it, Maguro.

It must really limit your social life.

Pogo said...

Hey, jeremy, they're putting on Equus at yer community college. You should try for the lead.


NTTAWWT.
Just sayn'

Balfegor said...

So, you're in favor of taxpayers supporting the American families left behind after the bread winner is deported?

If they're actually Americans, well, they're Americans, and my countrymen. So yes, to the limited extent people should be allowed to collect welfare benefits at all, they are entitled to those too. How hard is that to understand?

Jeremy said...

Pogo - Once again, you're wrong (Nothing new there)

Arizona already enforces the law:

Police agencies or jails already check the immigration status of people charged with a crime, in consultation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the new law would expand that power and allows the police to stop people on the suspicion of being in the country without documents.

Pogo said...

"Arizona already enforces the law:"

Gee, the illegal alien problem was solved already?
Who knew?

Jeremy said...

Balfegor said..."If they're actually Americans, well, they're Americans, and my countrymen. So yes, to the limited extent people should be allowed to collect welfare benefits at all, they are entitled to those too. How hard is that to understand?"

It's not hard to understand at all, dumbfuck...but if we eliminate the bread winner...do you actually think this will somehow decrease our overall cost and expense via taxpayer money?

Where exactly will the families left behind get the support, money and shelter provided by the bread winner?

C'mon...take a wild guess.

And what do you suppose it will cost to hunt down, arrest, then handle the legalities of deportation for 12 million people?

Jeremy said...

Pogo - "Gee, the illegal alien problem was solved already? Who knew?"

I never said anything of the kind, numbnut.

The fact that our police are "enforcing" laws doesn't mean it all goes away.

We also enforce violent, drug and non-violent laws but there are always going to be those who continue to commit crimes.

Are you really this dense or are you sharing a bottle of booze and pills with crazy ol' Pete the ex-cop?

Pogo said...

"The fact that our police are "enforcing" laws doesn't mean it all goes away."

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
These illegal aliens are nothing to be concerned about.

Trooper York said...

A lot of people have been commenting on how bad Jill Zarin has come off on the “Real Housewives of New York” this season. You see the camera doesn’t lie. Your real self comes out only more so.

The reason why that happened can be illustrated by the recent episode where the Veterinarian and her “assistant” paid a house call. Her little yapping Chihuahua shit all over the couch, the floor and the “assistant.” There was more shit thrown around than at a Congressional hearing.

Jill was all embarrassed. She ran around with a paper towel and Lysol cleaning fluid and made a big deal of taking care of the mess. But through the whole thing she never called the “assistant” by his name. She just called him the “doggie nurse.” You see he was one of the little people. You know like a waitress or a doorman or the postman. You don’t need to know their name after all. They are just there to be shit on.

That’s what flummoxed good old Gordon. Like most big time politicians they can’t deal with regular people. Especially if they ask them a question that the lap dog press would never ask in a million years. Like how are we going to pay for all of this and why are you raising taxes so much. We have seen that before.

Politicians hate to talk to regular people.

Jeremy said...

Well, I'll let the local pack of xenophobes continue their daily tea bagger rants against all people of color.

And make sure the next time you have an Hispanic over to do the lawn work or clean your house or take care of your kids or cook your food in a restaurant...make sure you ask to see all of their documentation.

Just in case...

Balfegor said...

It's not hard to understand at all, dumbfuck...but if we eliminate the bread winner...do you actually think this will somehow decrease our overall cost and expense via taxpayer money?

A number of points to be made here:

(1) if the illegal immigrant is married to an American, he is eligible for a permanent resident card. If his spouse is a legal permanent resident, he is still eligible, but the process is time consuming (and the number of cards granted each year severely limited). The likelihood of there being many deportations of people with American families in either of these situations is pretty small.

(2) the most likely circumstance in which individuals with American families would get deported is when both the parents are already illegal immigrants. In that circumstance, while the children are American citizens, I don't think it's particularly likely that the parents would feel comfortable leaving the children alone in the US. I'm familiar with parachute children where exactly that happens, but that's usually rich people from rich countries (South Korea, Taiwan), not poor people without resources.

(3) I've already made clear that the expense to the taxpayer is not the thing I'm primarily concerned about. If we have to pay a little more to support American children who have been abandoned in the US by their scofflaw parents, well, so be it.

And what do you suppose it will cost to hunt down, arrest, then handle the legalities of deportation for 12 million people?

This is like objecting to any attempt to engage in financial regulation because hunting down every single instance of financial fraud would take immense resources and consume trillions of dollars. While true, it is an idiotic argument, and entirely beside the point.

The decision to immigrate illegally is made on an economic cost-benefit basis. I am less concerned with eliminating illegal immigrants within the United States than I am with deterring future illegal immigration -- as you can see above, the problem with illegal immigrants already in the US resolves itself in a few generations, so it's not of itself anything to worry about. But unfortunately, in order to deter future illegal immigration it is necessary to have enough enforcement to make the expected reward of illegal immigration inadequate to the risk. You don't need to get all 12 million in this case. Just enough to deter people from flagrant infringement of US sovereignty. Even a tiny number of cases, with sufficiently deranged and hysterical publicity (thanks for supplying that, by the way) would probably suffice.

Original Mike said...

Brown should be voted out for stupidity, if nothing else. This guy's a professional politician and he runs the risk of uttering that in public? Why? What purpose did he serve? He's a moron with no self-control.

Original Mike said...

Oh, and I agree with Skyler. A warning was in order, Ann. Now I have to go take a shower.

LonewackoDotCom said...

For a week now, I've been repeatedly pointing out how those at a higher level than "Jeremy" are lying about the law.

In case anyone wants to support the law, it's much, much smarter to link one of these posts from your site, using the person's name as the link text. Example:

Linda Greenhouse

That's how you solve problems the smart way.

Jeremy said...

Just thought I'd drop by to throw something out from someone who knows a tad more than the local xenophobes here...

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a policeman for over five decades:

Dupnik called the law "racist" and "disgusting" and "stupid" and, in his "nuanced judgment" could not be enforced without mandatory racial profiling.

Dupnik's reckoning of the legal issue is that he's just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he's standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

Jeremy said...

LonewackoDotCom - All you're doing is directing people to a blog site even more right wing than this one.

Maybe YOU should read the actual bill...

pm317 said...

Ha Ha! You think Obama did not utter those words about people in his own base? He was talking about the so called Reagan Democrats in WVa, VA (who would vote for Dems like Mark Warner, Jom Webb), and so on..They may have held their nose and voted for him in 08 but not again.

James said...

Thanks for the breathtaking insight on Clarence Dupnik, the ELECTED Democrat Sheriff of Pima County - spouting the party line regarding the new law.

Oh, and here's another quote on Dupnik's attitude toward the illegal immigrant issue:

A year ago, Dupnik said schools should be asking about the immigration status of students, saying it’s wrong for taxpayers “to spend the millions and millions and millions of dollars that we do catering to illegals.”

I guess he's a raving xenphobe too, dipshit?

Bruce Hayden said...

Before, one would have to be "suspected" of something before being asked to provide identification. The new law says the police can ask without any suspicion whatsoever.
...
The law would require the police “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization. (Whatever "reasonably suspected" is supposed to mean.
)

You start this by suggesting that all that is needed is a suspicion, then later, that the suspicion has to be reasonable. The former is a bit incendiary, while the later really is not overly worrisome to me. That isn't really different from what we have right now, and there is that pesky 4th Amendment that further limits what the cops can do.

I just don't see this as changing much, despite all the heated rhetoric.

Now, if they really wanted to do something about illegal immigration, they could legalize shooting trespassers (something like the CO "make my day" law, except that it would also apply outside the home). At least within the unincorporated areas of Arizona. Then, when people on the border start (legally) shooting at the illegals crossing their land, they won't have to worry about going to jail if they hit anyone.

Except that the coyotes are likely much better armed these days than the ranchers living along the border.

Palladian said...

Here's a hint: anytime you see a bunch of swearwords and drivel posted next to a picture of two black dogs sharing a double-ended dildo, don't read it! Just scroll on down to the next comment! Saves a lot of senseless bother.

DUH!

Bruce Hayden said...

Dupnik's reckoning of the legal issue is that he's just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he's standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

I missed the portion of the law that required the police/sheriff to question every potential illegal and send them back if they couldn't prove that they were legally here.

The only place where I can really see a problem is if one of his people did try to enforce the law, and got fired for it. Otherwise, I would guess BFD.

holdfast said...

Another thread successfully jacked by "Jeremy". Good job all.

A nation state that will not or cannot control its own borders will not be a nation state for long.

Instead of boycotting Arizona, how about a boycott of Mexico until they change their own "racist" immigration laws? (not really, they have the right to admit or exclude whomever they want, I just wish their pissant president would STFU when it comes to the laws of others).

edutcher said...

One of the most interesting points about the AZ situation is that Rasmussen is saying most Mexicans living legally in the state approve of the new law. Make of that what you will.

As for McCain's backbone, it slips out of alignment every time he's up for re-election. This time, however, the chiropractor may be on vacation until it's too late.

On the subject raised by Jeremy,

"Leftist" critics of the new racist Arizona law:

Tom Ridge
Karl Rove
Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio
Lindsey Graham


Of the five, Rove's deepest political affinities may or may not be akin to his former employer and Rubio may well be trying to keep his street cred as an Hispanic (in other words, an astute political maneuver). The other three are far more left that right; the rightmost being Dubya's brother. Anyone who thinks Lindsey Grahamnesty is anywhere near center, much less right, hasn't been paying attention.

Finally, Gordon Brown's little revelation made news because so many people can't stand him and the British media isn't as invested in him as ours is in The Zero. Last time, the bitter-clinger thing almost went under the radar and, when it did get out, a lot of people gave him the benefit of the doubt. Given the state of things these days, next time (and you know there will be one) he won't be so lucky.

paul a'barge said...

Please, please, please don't ever link to Andrew Sullivan.

Just asking.

Fen said...

and for cryning out loud, when is Blogger going to get an "ignore" function so I can just squelch the pottymouth libtard trolls here.

Bruce Hayden said...

I should add that there is a provision in the law that possession of a valid AZ driver's license creates a presumption of lawful presence. And pretty much most everyone whom the AZ police are going to be dealing with here will either have such a license, have a license from another state, or be here illegally. Sure, if they go through the nursing homes and maybe K-10 classes, they could find people who are here legally without drivers' licenses.

So, for most interactions with the police, the police will ask for an ID, when they are presented with an AZ driver's license, they are on notice that the person they are dealing with is presumably here legally, and therefore have a high evidentiary burden if they wish to bring them in on a potential immigration violation.

For me, that just isn't that much of a civil right violation.