And I just want to remind you of something that you may have forgotten: the reason Barack Obama was able to overtake Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. What was the issue that tripped her up and gave Obama the opening to look like the sensible, moderate person?
But it was a question about driver's licenses for “undocumented workers'' – the politically neutral terminology for “illegal aliens'' which she prefers – that created the most trouble for Clinton during last night's two-hour debate of the Democrats staged in Philadelphia....We know all about Spitzer trying to "fill the vacuum," but let's not digress into the subject of prostitution in this post.
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, NBC moderator Tim Russert reminded Clinton. “You told the Nashua, N.H., editorial board it makes a lot of sense,'' he said. “Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license? ''
“ Well, what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,'' she said. “We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers.
“They are driving on our roads,'' she said. “The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Gov. Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.Ahem. I'm trying not to get distracted!
“I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap,'' Clinton continued. “There needs to be federal action on immigration reform. ''Damn! I miss Tim Russert! Here's video. I love the point — at 2:53 — when she complains that "everybody" — i.e. Tim — is playing "gotcha." Because he got her. And that's the moment when she loses.
“Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?'' Russert asked the other six Democrats assembled on stage.
After that point, it looks as though they are moving on to the next topic: protecting children — children! — from — horrors! — the Internet. We got a laugh watching the now-disgraced John Edwards scramble to: Children? Protect children? I would. But he shifts back to the immigration topic, not to take an actual position himself, but to attack Hillary for taking more than one position, and after all the years of "double-talk from Bush and from Cheney... America deserves us to be straight.'' (Yeah, be straight, John. Tell it to the jury.)
And then Barack Obama gets his chance. At 4:10, the moderator (Brian Williams) calls on him: "Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?"
“Well, I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer,'' Obama said. “I can't tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important.That's obviously total mush, but he sounds calm saying it. He's pushed to take a position and — caught — he says that Spitzer has "the right idea... because there is a public safety concern":
“You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face,'' Obama said. “Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country, and that's what I intend to do as president.''
"We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer. That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.''So he agrees with Hillary's first position. I had forgotten that. I can't remember how this issue played out and why it hurt Hillary so much and helped Obama. Maybe it was simply that she lost her cool and sounded dishonest, and he lucked into an opportunity to seem solid and competent.
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
What was the issue that tripped her up and gave Obama the opening to look like the sensible, moderate person?
That he's half black?
Oh, wait...sorry...you said "sensible" and "moderate" person. I really gotta read the whole sentence before I fire off a comment.
The best position is:
Americans have the right, like every other country in the world, to decide who comes into our country.
It should not be decided de facto by people illegally sneaking into our country.
The simple solution is to actively prevent people from sneaking into the country. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has utterly failed to do this.
Arizona is correct in attempting to enforce existing federal immigration law in the face of a federal beauracracy which refuses to do so.
Obama has good leadership skills and those were on display in that exchange.
What is crucial is that Obama is not the leader who wants the USA protected and prosperous but he is the leader who wants the USA destroyed any which way he can arrange it.
His current leadership is taking us around the stalemated Congress and the deferential SCOTUS to submit our lives to an international EPA regime that has the crucifiction of Americans as its mission statement.
Obama has good leadership skills and those were on display in that exchange.
What, pray tell, is the evidence that Obama has good leadership skills? How can good leadership be on display in a structured political debate in which one has no subordinates?
The Obama administration owns the point of view that, in GM terms, is about to experience epic butt hurt at the hands of the SCOTUS. The obvious political position to take is the other side, aligning the candidate that does so not only with the SCOTUS, but with the overwhelming majority of the population.
So he agrees with Hillary's first position. I had forgotten that. I can't remember how this issue played out and why it hurt Hillary so much and helped Obama.
He always repeated what she said, throughout the primary, stealing her ideas and policies and the media lauded as if he originated it. You can't remember why it hurt Hillary? Because the Russerts and the big media of this world had their daggers out for her by then and the fix for Obama was already in place. They distorted what she said and propped up what he said, even though (as in your own admission here) he said what she said most of the times. The fix was in. It is not that hard to see. And here we are today with a nincompoop in the WH that you would not vote for again by your own admission. You should have paid more attention then. The real election of 2008 was the Democratic primary.
If the majority of the electorate feels special immigration policy is needed for those south of the border then the prudent position is to push for a relaxed immigration policy for Mexicans.
That debate you link was the turning point in 2008 primary when the big media overtly rose to hurt Hillary and prop up this guy. The fix was in.
"And Chuck Schumer's saying that if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona's law, the Democrats in Congress will rise up and kill it."
Chuckie, who're you crappin'? You won't even get all the Democrats.
Ssctt...Good leadership skills are like pornography. You know it when you see it.
Do WWF "wrestlers" have good wrestling skills...well no, they have none at all. But they lead an audience through a group participation fantasy for which people will pay their money. The skilled ones lead the audience better than others.
Don't sell Obama short because he is leading the opposition.
I can't remember how this issue played out and why it hurt Hillary so much and helped Obama.
It hurt Hillary because at this point Obama's strategy was to run to the right of Hillary, secure in the knowledge that his melanin content would shield him from ever being called a nasty nasty racist who hated brown people and wanted to deny them drivers licenses in that burning cross and lynchy manner..
Hillary did not have that option, since the the "old racist white bitch" drumbeat had already started on the left. Heck, calling the man "inexperienced" led to howls of "racist dogwhistle" outrage from her own party leaders.
Supporting Obama was so much fun, because one could take any position under the sun, right or left, or even different positions from day to day, and have that position summarily blessed as right and true and good by the beatitude of his blackness.
She wasn't going to win no matter how reasonable she was on any issue. Because running against him at all was a racist act intent on destroying The Dream.
Zero fought the law and the law won?
That could be a cool song!
The only position is for it. The Demos are riding another loser fighting this one.
Especially since so many illegals are going home because of the lousy economy the Demos have created.
(trolls in 5, 4, 3...)
Scott M said...
Obama has good leadership skills and those were on display in that exchange.
What, pray tell, is the evidence that Obama has good leadership skills?
Have to agree with Scott.
All Dictator (should I call him Comandante?) Zero did was belch up a lot of blah, blah, as Ann notes, without really saying anything.
Like Willie, the Hildabeast tried to triangulate on the issue. It's a politician's trick and he caught her at it. She was an incompetent candidate and she proved it there.
Ssctt...Good leadership skills are like pornography. You know it when you see it.
Nothing that can be said or done in a structured political debate can be construed at good leadership. It's posturing, pure and simple, words without results. It's funny that you brought up professional wrestling. That's EXACTLY what political debates are.
Good leadership rests on good results. Political debates have nothing to do with results, ESPECIALLY when there's no incumbent involved.
I used to be of the mind that regardless of media narratives on the opposing side, there's simply no way an incompetent person could be elected POTUS. I've since changed my mind on that score.
Obama has good leadership skills and those were on display in that exchange.
Obama Disclaimer (like those on commercials): I'm not a leader in real life, but I play one well at this podium.
As the unemployment numbers go higher and higher the "moderate" position on illegal aliens taking jobs and working under the table for less and less money, thereby driving wages down and down, will morph into a less tolerant view of illegal aliens.
The real unemployment rate is hovering around 15% and in some areas of California it is well over 20%.
A politician who supports the Arizona law will not be UNpopular. The American people are not stupid and can see the issue from our position at the grass roots level. Unlike the ivory tower politicians and fake leaders, like Obama, who have no connection with everyday reality.....WE do and WE don't like it.
Support reasonable enforcement of the existing immigration laws and support voter ID to be able to enforce legitimate elections and a politician will be taking a position that the majority of the population approves of.
I don't understand people who are surprised that a large number of Hispanics support the AZ law, and support more border enforcement in general.
Hispanics are not, after all, stupid. The crime and drugs and flood of social problems that accompany an uncontrolled flood of immigration over the southern border affect their community the most. Their children are the ones made unsafe in their own neighborhoods by the cartel thugs and petty criminals drifting north and moving in. They pay the price, perhaps more so than anyone else.
I think the best position for the candidates is to support the law. As you said, "about half of Hispanic-Americans — support what Arizona has done". I'll go out on a limb and suggest that more than half of Hispanic-American citizens ( you know, that ones that can legally vote) support it.
The Dems know they have a loser issue on immigration if the core of the question is either the economy or security. So they keep wanting to make immigration issue a question of racism.
But the only way they can make that work is by conflating illegal aliens with "immigrants", as if there was no legitimate difference between an illegal alien, a resident alien and a naturalized citizen. The first step was to make the term "illegal alien" politically incorrect. Once you call them "undocumented immigrants" and make them sound like some guy who drove to the corner but left his license on his bureau at home then you are well on your way to making someone trying to keep our borders secure and protect blue collar workers from undue competition as "racist".
As Democratic blogger Mickey Kaus points out today:
“When the Narrative becomes Fact, Print the Narrative! Washington Post‘s Rosalind S. Helderman tells her readers that Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, S.B. 1070, is ‘deeply unpopular with Latino voters.’ Really? A very recent Quinnipiac poll found that 49% of Hispanics oppose the law, but 47% approve of it. If thats ‘deeply unpopular’ I wouldn’t want to be President Obama. … A similarly slim majority of Hispanics actually wants the Supreme Court to uphold S.B. 1070. …
“In general, the Arizona law has actually been getting more popular in recent months. A 68-27 majority of all the nation’s voters now approves it, according to Quinnipiac. How much more lopsided does public opinion have to get before the national Dems quietly drop the S.B. 1070 issue? Not much more lopsided, you’d think. …
“P.S.: Don’t blame Helderman. It’s often hard to recognize facts that disrupt an ingrained narrative (i.e. what was formerly known as ‘news’). …”
@FormerlyUnknown:She [Hillary] wasn't going to win no matter how reasonable she was on any issue. Because running against him at all was a racist act intent on destroying The Dream.
4/27/12 10:18 AM
-------------------
Exactly. Let us not forget the role of the media in beating this drum. Althouse thinks it was a fair and legitimate fight in Primary 2008 between Hillary and Obama. It was not.
the Democrats+MSM The indisputable leftwing propaganda machine.
I haven't read the Arizona law, so maybe I've got this wrong, but my understanding is that it instructs Arizonia law enforcement to check on the status of people detained and report to the feds those who appear to be illegal. Is it illegal for the Arizona officials to check on status? What legal leg does the Obama Administration have to stand on?
Original Mike, the only real legal issue at stake here is whether by checking status the state is usurping and infringing on a role reserved for the federal govt. It's a weak argument.
What the Dems and the media are trying to make it about is profiling and racism. And none of the talking heads are going to point out or question one very simple fact: The AZ law is almost exactly modeled on the federal statute.
So if it is not "racist profiling" for a federal agent to check the status of someone detained, if there is suspicion of them having violated immigration law, why does it become racist if a state or county cop does the very same thing?
If the AZ law is fundamentally racist, so are the federal statutes. How does "racism" depend on who is doing the enforcing, rather than the manner of enforcement itself?
The administration's argument really boils down to this: We do not want to enforce federal immigration law and Arizona is usurping our power by making us to enforce the law.
Thanks, guys. I thought there might be something more there. I feel sorry for Verrilli.
Obama is spinning the same leftist drivel that Dem.s have been spouting for decades. There is no difference between what he says, or what Hillary says, or what Carter says, etc. The Dem. leadership is in full moonbat leftist mode. The only reason Bill finished with such high approval numbers is he had a republican congress to reel him in.
And nice example of the "new tone" in Washington" by Chuckie you aren't smart enough to own a gun to defend yourself with Schumer
“They are driving on our roads,'' she said. “The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds.
I certainly learned a lesson when I was in traffic court a few years ago in Joliet, IL
About half the defendents in court were charged with driving without a valid drivers license. All of these received a court interpreter.
In every case, the judge asked them, "Can you afford to pay the fine of [$$$] for driving without a license?"
In every case, defendents answered "No."
In every case, the judge then announced that the case was continued for six months, and the defendents walked out of the courtroom. I can't say for sure that they drove away from the courthouse, just as I can't say whether any returned in six months. But I didn't see anyone ask the defendents for any sort of identification, or hear anyone ask whether they intended to drive away.
SO, he's quite right: You really don't need a license to drive on American roads, at least in some states. So someone injures you and has no valid identification and law enforcement and courts just don't wish to be involved- well, good luck recovering damages.
I thought this case was in the Supreme Court because it is a constitutional question, and the Constitution is not subject to unilateral changes by Chuck Shumer, so what is he talking about?
The best position for a candidate to take on the Arizona approach to immigration enforcement is to enforce the laws currently on the books both federal and state. If that were done there wouldn't be a problem.
4/27/12 10:18 AM
FormerlyUnknown said...
I can't remember how this issue played out and why it hurt Hillary so much and helped Obama.
It hurt Hillary because at this point Obama's strategy was to run to the right of Hillary, secure in the knowledge that his melanin content would shield him from ever being called a nasty nasty racist who hated brown people and wanted to deny them drivers licenses in that burning cross and lynchy manner..
Hillary did not have that option, since the the "old racist white bitch" drumbeat had already started on the left. Heck, calling the man "inexperienced" led to howls of "racist dogwhistle" outrage from her own party leaders.
Supporting Obama was so much fun, because one could take any position under the sun, right or left, or even different positions from day to day, and have that position summarily blessed as right and true and good by the beatitude of his blackness.
She wasn't going to win no matter how reasonable she was on any issue. Because running against him at all was a racist act intent on destroying The Dream.
4/27/12 10:18 AM
Exactly, ever hear of the PUMA's? :)
Illegal immigration is unmeasured immigration. It serves to displace American citizens and legal immigrants at work, school, and throughout society. It is a contributor to overpopulation and represents a progressive burden on our infrastructure including social services. It necessarily increases the incidence of crime and especially violent crime in our nation. Condoning or protecting the subversion of our law is a contributor to progressive corruption. With the high rate of unemployment, a large prison population, etc., it is unconscionable to permit its continuance.
There is also the matter of addressing the circumstances in the illegal aliens' home nations, which would motivate them to leave and make the trek to another nation. This is not being done. There is nothing virtuous about "reforming" immigration without accountability.
Oh, yes, what a statesman! Obama's entire answer was mush, just like Hillary's. They both supported a politically unpopular position (DLs for illegals). Hillary just had the misfortune to make her position clear prior to the debate. Hillary gave an equivocating response in support of her position. Obama calls her out for giving an equivocating response, then himself gives an equivocating response (we need to lure illegals out of the shadows and track and train them) Doesn't actually answer the question or say they should have DLs but that's implicit in tracking and training. Wink, wink, nod, nod. I guess progressive bonus points must be awarded for creating the potential for a new bureaucratic fungus involved in luring, tracking, and training illegals. But not deporting them, of course.
"What is the best position......?"
Well, I expect Romney to go with the
always safe missionary position, while Obama will obviously favor doggy style.
If I were running for federal office my position would be very easy:
The Arizona law simply mirrors the federal law. If elected President of the United States, I will enforce federal laws.
The people of Arizona are free to pass laws at the state level reflect the values and culture of the population of Arizona without interference from the federal government.
"They are driving on our roads,'' she said. “The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds."
Which is true. But what follows from that truth is that the problem is "they are driving on our roads".
Rather than punish them for their law-breaking, the Democrats want to reward them.
It will be interesting to see if the Administration changes its position on illegal immigration and law enforcement because the majority of Americans want that. They are probably hoping that the SCOTUS finds for AZ. and then the Administration will be "forced to change their position," without having to admit they are flip flopping before the fall election.
It is interesting to see that in the primary campaign Obama forcefully argued for the need for immigration reform in terms of national security by knowing who is in the country, yet his administration has sued AZ for trying to do what is necessary to protect national security.
Once again the media gives his contradictions a pass.
"Illegal" is illegal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTiEPHexGs
Best approach is to ignore it as much as possible, and to repeat "this election is about the economy" again and again, to every one of these proposed distractions.
Now, I just came back from Arizona, and if you are running there, or probably in Texas, though maybe less in New Mexico and California, the smart move is to come out in favor of the legislation.
You just don't get a feeling for how enormous this problem is in Arizona until you listen to the local news for awhile, or, spend part of a morning in Downtown Justice Court, as I did this week. The Justice of the Peace running the court is Hispanic, and can apparently is fluent enough in Spanish that he can converse if necessary with those in front of him. Saw several times people before him who didn't have a driver's license or insurance, but were involved in an accident (typically ticketed as "driving at an unsafe speed"). All had problems with English. Probably half the people in the court that day were first generation Hispanic immigrants, and more likely illegal.
And, you still routinely see entire families in a pickup truck, most in the back, (illegally) driving by DHS (highway patrol) on the freeways with impunity. The state is under siege, and the feds are only making it worse. Also, talked to CPS a couple of months ago, and they too are overwhelmed by the immigration problem.
Saw this last night on Fox, I think on O'Reilly: MoveOn.org video: Saying 'illegal' immigrants fits definition of a hate crime. Apparently, they want to ban the use of the "I" word to describe illegal aliens. I think there, the spokesman suggested something like "future citizens", but I also liked the "NAFTA refuge" in the article.
I think though that this is going to be unsuccessful. I, for one, will continue to use "illegals" and "illegal aliens". Those of you who are more politically correct may prefer using the newer terminology, but don't be surprised when the rest of us go "huh?" and don't understand what you are talking about.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा