November 28, 2006
Post-Thanksgiving Turkey

UPDATED: This thread was originally posted in the depths of last week's Thanksgiving break. It includes an interesting discussion, especially in the comments, on immigration and related issues. Of note, Rep. Tom Tancredo chims in yestereday at comment #32. And yes, it does appear to be him; I confirmed it via email with his spokesperson. Take a read at the original post, and the comments if you desire. As always, more debate welcome...just try to keep it clean.

****

I need some input. A recent exchange at NRO's The Corner raised some interesting points worth digging into a bit on topics related to national sovereignty and such.

Those familiar with the Corner's layout know it's not easy to link to multiple postings in a way convienient for you the reader, so I'll reproduce them here, and bear with me, the exchange doesn't take more than a few minutes to read. For reference, it's between Andy McCarthy, a bright legal mind on national security matters, and John Podhoretz, one of the few people bearing the over-used title, "neoconservative," who actually deserves the label.

With that, please read below, including my brief commentary, and then share your thoughts.

Post #1, from John Podhoretz:

Tom "LaRouche" Tancredo [John Podhoretz]

The foremost voice of immigration restriction in the Congress, Tom Tancredo, is accusing George W. Bush of wanting to eliminate the United States of America and replace it with something he calls the 'North American Union': "I know this is dramatic - or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic - but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it."

I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe.

Post #2, from Andy McCarthy:

Re: Tom "LaRouche" Tancredo [Andy McCarthy]

John, the LaRouche comparison is out of line. In 2005, none less than the Council on Foreign Relations recommended the establishment of a "North American Community." It relied on a March 2005 joint statement by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary."

This is not a fringe. It's a wave. It's fine to disagree with Rep. Trancredo; it's wrong to treat him like a lunatic when he is anything but.

Post #3, from Podhoretz:

What's Out of Line? [John Podhoretz]

Andy, it's not out of line at all. Tancredo says he believes George W. Bush wants, basically, to end American sovereignty. And that's out of line, and I can't believe you're defending such a remark, no matter what you might think of some proposal emanating from the Council on Foreign Relations. As Michelle Malkin, a serious immigration restrictionist, Allahpundit puts it: "I'd hoped never to have to serenade TT with our official conspiracy-theory theme song. But I fear the hour has arrived." Are we now to assume that to believe in free trade is to believe in the end of sovereignty? UPDATE: Here's a strong post by Captain Ed on the subject.

Post #4, from McCarthy:

Re: Out of Line [Andy McCarthy]

John, I don't want to mar Thanksgiving morning, but I can't let that pass. I didn't defend Trancredo's comment -- in fact, I said it would be reasonable to disagree with it. What I criticized was your hyperbolic description of it.

With due respect to you and Ed Morrissey, it is not a fringe position to fear that lots of serious people in this country would like to see a North American political integration that resembles Europe's political integration. I cited the Council on Foreign Relations task force to demonstrate this point. Your comment about free trade suggests unfamiliarity with how far along this project is. In it, free trade is already taken as a given; what internationalists are talking about is common policy on a range of issues that transcends trade (e.g., immigration, economic development, energy and security). (It is probably worth noting, for example, that we already have a bilateral aerospace defense arrangement with Canada, known as NORAD.)

Personally, I don't think President Bush shares the internationalist agenda -- at least, not all of it. I also happen to believe, for what little that may be worth, that some of the agenda is desirable -- a joint air defense arrangement with trusted allies, for example, is a good idea in the modern threat environment ... as long as the allies don't have a veto over security measures the president may believe are necessary to protect Americans. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable for people to look at Bush's immigration policies and worry that he is insufficiently alert to the internationalist pressures (what John Fonte calls "transnational progressivism") vigorously challenging the traditional understanding of sovereignty on many fronts.

With that, I wish you and everyone who stops at the Corner a very happy Thanksgiving.

Post #5, from Podhoretz:

RE RE: OUT OF LIne [John Podhoretz]

Andy, what I objected to in Tancredo's statement was his assertion that Bush himself was seeking the end of American sovereignty. You said my likening of him to LaRouche was out of line. But this is the key element of LaRouche's worldview -- that a conspiracy of elitists led by the president and the Queen (and, according to the Scottish dad in So I Married an Axe Murderer, Col. Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken) is seeking to create a one-world government order. Tancredo wasn't talking about the Council on Foreign Relations or those transnational progressives who preach political union. He was talking about Bush, and claiming that Bush is conspiring with the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada in the destruction of America as we know it. If you choose not to see that as out of line, that's your prerogative. It is also your prerogative to have a wonderful Thanksgiving and a joyous holiday weekend in the greatest nation in the world.

McCarthy has a point about Podhoretz being glib, and about giving fair scrutiny to the increasing cross-border cooperation the modern era requires. Yet, Podhoretz's main point about Tancredo, supported by Captain's Quarters as he links to as well, seems quite valid.

Concern about our globalized world and related inter-government activity is one thing, believing that George W. Bush essentially wants to do away with the sovereignty of the United States makes Tancredo seem like a kook. In doing so, he makes himself look less like a serious, potential participant in a crowded Presidential field, and more like someone who is about to start ranting about the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and George W. Bush's membership in Skull & Bones...all part of an "internationalist" conspiracy to create a New World Order.

Part of the reason I ask is that sometimes Sound Politics commenters Doug Parris and Michelle McIntyre have expressed support for Tancredo at times, particularly as a Presidential hopeful. As such, this seems worth discussing.

Your thoughts, please.

UPDATE: After giving this issue some further thought and reading the comments, two thoughts come to mind. One, the irony of Doug Parris complaining about name calling in political arguments is high comedy. Second, on a more substantive note, it seems fair to presume that the Pat Buchanan wing of the conservative movement has to go somewhere in a wide-open Presidential primary; Tancredo might as well be their guy.

Posted by Eric Earling at November 28, 2006 08:15 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Determining the end goal of either party in a fight where the scrimmage line is the product of opposed struggle is often difficult. In football, it's a near certainty that each team wants to move the ball as far as they can, and into the end zone if possible. In politics, though? Do Dems want to raise taxes just another couple of points, or all the way to 100% in the achievement of a perfect Marxist society? Hard to tell, since their proposals are far more often driven by tactics than by their true vision. Does Dubya really want some sort of official union with Mexico and Canada, or just something more in that general direction?

I think Tancredo was being a bit hyperbolic, but in his statement, I sense a bit of a rhetorical, "Where does it end? If anyone sees a backstop, please show it to me." And in that respect, he's right: Dubya isn't putting any brakes on international integration any more than the Seahawks ever deliberately tried to limit their own yardage gains.

It was probably an ill-considered statement on Tancredo's part, but I would not write off Tancredo as whole for one hyperbolic statement any more than I would write off Dubya as a whole for his free-spending ways or The Gipper for the 1986 amnesty act or misadventures in Beirut.

LaRouche is a nutcase; Tancredo is not. Podhoretz's comparison is off the mark.

Posted by: TB on November 24, 2006 07:25 AM
2. You ask this question after I just got done listening to a podcast of Hugh Hewitt concerning Bush looking for ways to 'cut and run' in Iraq by using Israel as a sacraficial lamb to Syria and Iran?

All this is extemely weighty in light of my still being in 'post-partum' depression after the last election.

On topic, Bush is a lame-duck. Nothing is going to happen along these lines regarding our borders. When Bush first started talking open borders with Mexico and comparing it to the open borders we share with Canada, I thought it made a lot of sense and a good argument. The only argument against I heard was the sheer volume of Mexicans compared to Canadians taking advantage of the policy.

This Mideast situation and Israel has me the mostly concerned.

Tancredo will eliminate himself from consideration as time goes on. Sorr, Tancredo supporters, but that is what will happen.

Posted by: swatter on November 24, 2006 07:39 AM
3. People who think that this is an R vs D issue are fooling themselves.

This is a long term plan that is supported by both both parties. Being in the transportation business I see the globalist move happening.

There is a project that started in the 70's to create a free trade route that runs from mexico to canada right through the middle of the country. Freight wont even be inspected until it reaches Kansas City.

With the handover of the Panama Canal to the Chinese by Bill Clinton we have effectivly lost control of all shipping in/out of this country. About 80% of freight moving on the west coast is Chinese owned. On the East cost it is Arab controled.

Bush is just another in a long line.

Posted by: Vince on November 24, 2006 09:29 AM
4. Tancredo lays out a list of events leading to a bad end for the US. He also claims that Bush, who has influence in those events, has a plan of action that indicates "a conspiracy. As those events unfold, generally in order of the list, what can we determine from the actions of Bush who is influencing them?

1. It could be that Bush is foolish and is unaware of the long term consequences of his actions.
2. It could be that Bush believes that his actions are good for the US.
3. It could be that Bush knows it is not in the best interest of the US as a nation. (Internationalist)

In order to determine which, one has to look at the words and actions of Bush.

Virtually everyone realizes that it is not in the best interest of to have a massive number of people in the US who are not here to assimilate. They want their own language, customs, flag, etc. Even a fool can recognize that is not in our best long term interest. That eliminates (1.) above.

There is no historical basis for believing such an invasion will ever work for the benefit of a nation. In fact history teaches exactly the opposite. Bush wants to reward them, with citizenship, for violating our laws. That eliminates (2) above.

Bill Clinton, in his 1992 Democrat Convention acceptance speech, mentioned Dr. Carroll Quigley, his mentor. In 1966, Dr. Quigley wrote a book titled, Tragedy and Hope. Anyone who has not read this book will have a hard time understanding why Bush would be working against the best interest of the US. That book, of 1300 pages, makes it clear that (3) above is the only possible answer.

To me, the actions of Bush, although not in the interest of the US, are perfectly predictable and abhorrent. Incidentally, those actions are virtually identical to what Kerry would have done.


Posted by: Bull Maxon on November 24, 2006 10:11 AM
5. George H. W. Bush virtually coined the phrase "A New World Order". Tom Tancredo has zero chance of being elected POTUS, but he's no whackjob.

Tancredo is a realist, a visionary, and a patriotic student of history - which sadly are three topics which most politicians are loathe to engage. He's also one to speak frankly and powerfully to the masses who insist on keeping their heads buried in the sand and other dark places - hence no chance at the Presidency.

Tancredo's a modern day Paul Revere - the only question is whether anyone will eventually listen up before it's too late. George Washington, and his other compatriots, were VERY fringe for their time, but as we know, they weren't whackjobs after all.

George Bush is a leviathan-government, proselytizing globalist who deep-down believes that Amercian Sovereignty is some out-moded concept which should be liquidated over time, and sprinkled upon the peoples of the earth, from the goodness of his heart - as some twisted form of charity in order to "keep us safe" - all a sellout coming at the expense of the American Patriot.

This is the essence of the "Neo-con" soul, to which NRO's JPod and Eric subscribe, but which is in actuality a virulent and phony knock-off of genuine Conservatism.

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on November 24, 2006 10:31 AM
6. Tancredo destroyed his political career by suggesting that the US might consider bombing Muslim holy sites in the event of nuclear war. Though I agree with him on many issues, he's toast as a potential presidential candidate. The scariest part of this whole discussion is the idea that he might run in '08 on a third party ticket. We might as well just hand the front door key of the White House to Hillary in that event.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 24, 2006 10:42 AM
7. Podhoretz begins by invoking a hallmark of the unprincipled Republican Left, that is, derisive NAME-CALLING instead of reason, proceeds to deceptive misquotations and then erects a straw man upon which he hangs a sign with the hand-scrawled label "Tancredo," and proceeds to kick it.

Propaganda works with the willing, but sheep will follow anyone. As soon as a louder voice emerges Podhoretz will see them wandering off, again.

The name calling is the association of conservative Tancredo with non-conservative, crackpot LaRouche between whom it would be difficult to find any agreement at all. Name calling.

The deception is in re-defining what Tancredo said about Bush. Clearly, and beyond debate, Bush, by ignoring immigration law, by refusing to enforce America's Sovereignty over our borders, and by engaging in a multi-lateral negotiation to erect anti-sovereignty international agreements that displace American sovereign decision-making authority, has worked to erode American Sovereignty. Podhoretz actually likes that. But to erode American Sovereignty, as evil as that is, is not to call for its complete eradication. Podhoretz knows this well. To pretend that Tancredo doesn't is without excuse.

Has England lost her sovereignty? Are Euros the end of Europe? Neither. But the erosion of national sovereignty there, and here (by the creation of CAFTA and the North American Union), are directly related to, and the result of, multi-lateral international agreements. If an international organization makes US monetary policy for us have we, thus, forfeited our Sovereignty? Not all of it. Tancredo's analysis is absolutely accurate. The beginning of the erosion of US Sovereignty is not the end of the process, but every step of the process is a loss. Misquotes and deception.

Podhoretz desperately wants people to believe that conservatives in general, and Tancredo in particular are "beyond the political fringe." To accomplish that, however, he finds it necessary to construct an imaginary Tancredo out of whole straw and take pot-shots at it.
That is the methodology with which his ilk attempted to handle the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. "Extreme!" "Fringe!"
Perhaps Mr. Podhoretz would like to demonstrate his point with his own candidacy? That would be delicious. Until then, I submit that the impending utter humiliation of John McCain's hopes in '08 will be an adequate demonstration of which side, in the war for the heart and soul of the Party, is on "the fringe" of the American People. As if 2006 were not enough.

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 24, 2006 12:47 PM
8. Virtually everyone realizes that it is not in the best interest of to have a massive number of people in the US who are not here to assimilate.


What you say is probably true depending on how you define 'assimilate'. Your underline assertion, that Mexican immigrants don't want to 'assimilate' is highly questionable, however, depending on how you define 'assimilate'.


There is no historical basis for believing such an invasion will ever work for the benefit of a nation. In fact history teaches exactly the opposite. Bush wants to reward them, with citizenship, for violating our laws. That eliminates (2) above.


Absolute, total, unadulterated nonsense. We wouldn't be a world power now if it wern't for the mass immigrations of the late 1800's and early 1900's. If we hadn't allowed massive amounts of Italian & Irish immigrants then, we would be a ghost town now, and Europe would most likely run the world.

Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 02:13 PM
9. Cliff at 8 says:
Absolute, total, unadulterated nonsense. We wouldn't be a world power now if it wern't for the mass immigrations of the late 1800's and early 1900's. If we hadn't allowed massive amounts of Italian & Irish immigrants then, we would be a ghost town now, and Europe would most likely run the world.

Cliff, you have an interesting opinion, but you do do not offer any facts or analysis to support your opinion. The immigrant populations brought many problems with them, along with their industry and creativity, and desire to assimilate. My gut tells me America is better off because it has welcomed so many foreigners over the years, but I do not blindly accept that to be true. And I do not blindly accept that what worked a hundred years ago is working today.

You have not convinced me of anything.

Posted by: huckleberry on November 24, 2006 03:38 PM
10. I generally agree with TB @ 1:

Tancredo's statement was a bit hyperbolic, but largely IMO and as TB said a bit rhetorical. And even if it could have been phrased better, don't write off Tancredo on the basis of just that one statement. LaRouche went into unstable deep-space orbit years ago; Tancredo is a serious and thoughtful politician and public servant who deserves much credit for keeping the illegal immigration issue and its serious ramifications on the front burner, regardless of what or how he does in 2008.

But as pre my prior on another thread:
Odds are high it will be either McCain, Giuliani, or Romney for the (R)s in 2008. If Romney doesn't win either Iowa or NH, he's toast (SURELY nobody thinks Romney is going to win in SC (Eric ????) ).

And I can't leave without noting the obvious flaw by Cliff @ 8, where he said:
''We wouldn't be a world power now if it wern't for the mass immigrations of the late 1800's and early 1900's.''

What Cliff totally ignores is of course the fact that those earlier waves were overwhelmingly (near 100 percent, I would expect) people who entered this county LEGALLY. And even if that had not been the case, nobody was going to bring in a biological weapon, a dirty bomb, or a crude nuke a 100+ years ago.

I stand by my earlier statements on one blog or the other:
A nation that effectively loses control of its borders is no longer a soverign nation. In many historical cases nations were helpless to prevent military breeches of their borders, and were overwhelmned by organized armies. As a nation we are willingly LETTING this country be flooded with 14-to-20 million ILLEGAL aliens so far (and still counting up fast). If this slide is not arrested (and soon), there is no way we can avoid fundamental, far-reaching, and multiple negative outcomes.

Posted by: Methow Ken on November 24, 2006 03:57 PM
11. What Cliff totally ignores is of course the fact that those earlier waves were overwhelmingly (near 100 percent, I would expect) people who entered this county LEGALLY.


I didn't overlook it at all. Tancredo isn't against illegal immigration. He's against immigration PERIOD. He doesn't even bother to deny it. Read his book. He not only wants all illegal immigration stopped (most people do, including Bush and myself), and wants no earned-citizenship (controversial), but also opposes all increases in LEGAL immigration, calling it 'Amnesty' (what crime they need to be forgiven for, nobody really knows) as well as calls for cuts in amounts of legal immigrants.

What the Tancredo crowd fails to understand, but Tancredo himself understands all too well, is the only way they get any traction is by calling all proposals that aren't anti-immigrant 'Amnesty', because they know it polls poorly, and 'Guest Workers' and 'Earned Citizenship' poll well. Most people disagree with blanket 'Amnesty', but they don't favor a closed borders that don't allow for increased legal immigration.


None of Tancredo's arguements work once the conversation is changed from illegal immigration to legal immigration, which is what folks like Bush and Brownback and the CATO institute favor. They cannot talk about this because they will lose. They will yell and scream 'Amnesty' at the top of their lungs, the Buchannans by their side, till they go horse, because they will never convince most Americans that honest Mexicans who want to come here to work legally should be stopped from doing so.

Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 04:28 PM
12. The immigrant populations brought many problems with them, along with their industry and creativity, and desire to assimilate.


Yes, they brought problems with them. Everybody has problems.


Again, you fail to define assimilate, and why you think they are less willing to assimilate then previous immigrants. I'm guessing you won't be able to make a credible case as to why they are different.


Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 04:33 PM
13. My gut tells me America is better off because it has welcomed so many foreigners over the years,


From an economic standpoint, it is impossible to argue otherwise. I dare you to find a single economist who says so.


but I do not blindly accept that to be true. And I do not blindly accept that what worked a hundred years ago is working today.


That's reasonable, but I wasn't making the case that it is good today. The statement I was replying to argued that there is no 'historical basis' for beliving increased immigration would be a good thing. Which is, and continues to be, total and complete nonsense.


That said, I WOULD argue that it is necessary today, and the reasons are self-evident:


For whatever problems they have, Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic and have a history of Democracy (regardless of how much corruption their has been).


This is not true of the Muslim population in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is also not true of China. And they are the fastest growing populations on the planet. The only one even close other then that is India, and while India is an ally now, it has it's own problems, and we cannot be 100% assured of their friendship.


If we want to be a country of rapidly declining importance and power, we can go the European path and allow for falling birthrates and smaller populations. That's a vaccume that will be filled eventually, but at that point, it won't be on our terms, but on the terms of our enemies. Then, they won't necessarily be Catholic farmers, and could be much, much worse.


Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 04:46 PM
14. Cliff (at 12): "Again, you fail to define assimilate, and why you think they are less willing to assimilate then previous immigrants. I'm guessing you won't be able to make a credible case as to why they are different."

Illegals are different because they are criminals, every one. Examine this metaphor: Companies that have, in the past, always been better off because they hired employees, will find that if they simply hire the product of a recent jail break they are likely to have a different experience.

Advocates of the amnesty and open borders represented by the "Guest worker" loophole adamantly refuse to consider the difference between the words "legal" and "illegal." It's like a religion. It's like a mental disease. It's like a manipulative technique.

We do not need to "guess" the results of the Bush intransigence. It is already on full display in California.
Link: If This Doesn't Open Your Eyes... Nothing Will!

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 24, 2006 05:11 PM
15. Advocates of the amnesty and open borders represented by the "Guest worker" loophole adamantly refuse to consider the difference between the words "legal" and "illegal." It's like a religion.


Quite the contrary. It is your side the debate who insists that allowing legal guest workers into the country represents "Amnesty," and refuse to see them as anything but criminals. That is their religion. But what is their crime? It's not coming here illegally, because they would be coming here legally. The only way you can call it "Amnesty" is if you believe that anybody who comes to this country, legally or illegaly, needs to be "Forgiven," because immigration is a de-facto bad thing.


Of course, this is exactly what Tancredo believes. Read his book. He isn't shy about it. He calls all increases in legal immigration "Amnesty" and calls for cuts in legal immigration as well. He won't lay it out in those words publically, he'll try to spin. But his proposals say exactly that.


If pro-immigration forces blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, (which they sometimes do, mostly when discussing the economic side of the arguement, which doesn't know the difference between the two, a field doesn't know if a legal or illegal immigrant is picking it's crops) they are aided by their foes on the anti-immigration side, who do the exact same thing on a daily basis by calling all increased legal immigration proposals "Amnesty".


"Guest Worker" programs needen't involve illegal aliens at all, and wouldn't be under several different immigration proposals, including the one put forth by Congressman Mike Pence, a plan Tom Tancredo has dismissed as 'hidden Amnesty'.


Under some proposals, illegal aliens could apply to be guest workers, but that's a separate issue entirely.


As to that separate issue, I think it's rather hard to argue that illegal aliens who have paid a fine, paid back taxes, learned english, and then have to get in line to be granted citizneship, is the same thing as "Amnesty." I think it's also rather hard to argue that most of the Mexicans who come here illegally are the kind of "Criminals" that we should be most interested in punishing severely. Yes, they broke the law. So did every person who bought a bottle of rum during prohibition. I didn't want them deported, however. I'm guessing my Grandparents wouldn't be here.


Yet the Tancredo crowd insists there is only one form of punishment for breaking this particular law, and that is deportation. Anything less, he deems "Amnesty." Frankly, asking me to accept that is insulting to my intelligence.


To me, that would be like going out of your way to punish people who drank during prohibition. Punish Al Capone, sure. Punish everybody who bought one of his bottles? Give me a freaking break.


It's also virtually impossible to find a viable way to deport all 12 million of them, but in this particular case, a lot of so-called "conservatives" seem to think that reality and human nature need not apply, even as they scold liberals for similar tendencies on so many other issues.


That said, they have something of a point. The Rule of Law is important. I wouldn't favor something that let illegal aliens off scott free. I think it would be wiser to impose a higher fine then most proposals currently in the loop. I'd also make them do a lot of community service, which would not only be good for the community, but would be an aid to help them 'assimilate'.


But the issue of what to do with those already here is another debate then the one we were having.


The real issue, what this is all about in it's heart, the one the Tancredo crowd absolutely cannot confront because they will lose, is if we should allow for more Mexicans to come here legally in order to work, or not. They cannot ask that question honestly, because they feel threatened by immigration, but most of America does not, and they cannot win by admitting what they are really for, protectionism. They can call it whatever they want, but it boils down to nothing more then classic isolationism and protectionism. It's not a weird coincidence that Bay Buchannan runs Tancredo's pac.


I didn't click your link. The so-called "Reagan Wing" is the biggest joke in Washington State Republican politics, and I have absolutely no trust and place absolutely no value in anything they have to say.


They don't represent Ronald Reagan, his values, or his tactics. They repeatedly shatter the 11th Commandment publically and loudly. They do not pay attention to his example of pragmatism, on immigration or any other issue for that matter (Don't give me that "We got Amnesty but not enforcement, Reagan was fooled," crap. For one thing, we DID get the enforcement, it just didn't work, like all laws that ignore supply and demand (see: prohibition), for another thing, Reagan cannot be a lot smarter then the liberals give him credit for on one hand and a stupid dupe on the other. He's the first, and he knew what he was doing). I have grown to dislike them and their destructive tactics a long time ago.

Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 08:08 PM
16. But the erosion of national sovereignty there, and here (by the creation of CAFTA and the North American Union

Oh good grief! I should have looked over this thread more. Had I known you were an Buchannanite isolationist, I wouldn't have even bothered responding to you.

The fact that you claim the "Reagan Wing" as part of your side, and completely ignore Reagan's dedication to free trade, is pathetic and sad.

Posted by: Cliff on November 24, 2006 08:17 PM
17. Public Service Announcement: Do not try exchanging opinions with Cliffy - because his opinions are pure fact. Even when they're not factual, they are in fact, still facts - not mere opinion like you poor misguided dunderheads.

Got that? (P.S. Cliffy just might be a Neo-Con - shhhhhh...)

Posted by: Jefferson Paine on November 24, 2006 10:26 PM
18. I checked back this evening to see if there was any further discussion of (or attempts to deceptively spin) the Tancredo/Soverignty/Immigration issue. And I found the long post by Cliff.

I am truly impressed.

There is hardly a sentence there that isn't both philosophically and factually fallacious. Rich rows of tall tales grow thick and strong behind cute little fib-lets, their petals glowing by the pools of somnambulent sham.

But to dismiss Cliff as a simple liar or propagandist would be to do him a disservice. Those baser stations are well beneath him. He is a gifted landscaper of vast fraudulent acres.

Cliff makes towering logical fallacies seem routine. Most everything he culls from the comments of those with whom he disagrees involves misquotations ranging the entire gamut from distortion to creative fiction and he seems to toss them out as effortlessly as if he were some sort of omnisexual sea plant and they were a limitless supply of dark spores from his own fronds. The sheer volume of these spurious seedlings shed serious shadows that threaten to smother our lights, and, should some slight semblance of accuracy of attribution fall, like a rarified celestial body through the network of his fabrications into the dark crater of one of Cliff's phrases, it is quickly encrusted with crafted misconstructions.

And then he shakes both reason and fact from his hair like a great spirit escaping the bonds of earth to soar, with ever increasing accelleration into the Void. Each of his sentences seems more impossible; more divorced from the furthest shores of known space than the last.

"Out here on the perimeter there are no stars...
out here we is stone, immaculate"

One of the ways of contending with a fool is to refute every possible interpretation of his argument. A sort of rhetorical shock and awe. It is a tactic that can be used to good effect with those for whom foolishness is a kind of hobby or incompetence. As I began reading Cliff's convoluted diatribe I was (there, at the beginning) inclined to think that would be how I would respond. It is the sort of thing one does with sloppy, abusive, foul-mouted liberal Griswold (Full Contact Politics) or the like. But, I must say, Cliff is not a good candidate for that kind of response. He cannot, I feel certain, be simply slapped back to his senses. No. Not Cliff. His madness is professional grade. A vocation. Seemingly a life sentence. That with which he will contend, in agony, on his death bed.

No syntactical surgeon, either, will be able to slice with such skill into the body politic of his psyche that he might emerge, triumphant with some pulsing, blood-engorged tumorous parasite and proclaim Cliff cured.

With Cliff it is not a habit of mind, nor the depleted impact rings of some personal philosophical vendetta.

This one goes deeper.
The Dark Side is strong with this one.

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 25, 2006 01:49 AM
19. Doug:

Ah, I see. I'm so stupid that you can't even respond to me. My arguements are so bad, you can't even tell me why.

Excuse me if I remain unimpressed with your response. Matter of fact, excuse me if I laugh at your obvious inability to actually have your dogma challenged.

Posted by: Cliff on November 25, 2006 08:23 AM
20. (P.S. Cliffy just might be a Neo-Con - shhhhhh...)

Yah, I might. I admit it. Freely. I'm very much in line with people such as Bill Kristol.

That is to say, I believe:

Isolationism is folly, impossible in a real sense and impractical in terms of how isolationist policies are carried out.

Free Trade is good, and should be encouraged. Free Markets are not only good for America.

America is, and must be, a global power that seeks to win friends and weaken enemies.

Countries that are democratic and free tend to be more peaceful and prosperous then ones that are not.

If America is to remain great, it must remain strong, and it must maintain it's position in the world.

Disagree with people such as Kristol and myself all you want, but if you want to be taken seriously, you could at least have a reason. Merely labling us and hoping people draw inane conclusions is worthless.

Posted by: Cliff on November 25, 2006 08:33 AM
21. Do not try exchanging opinions with Cliffy - because his opinions are pure fact.

BTW, I don't ever remember talking with you on these boards. Just so you know, there is more then one person who posts here under the name 'Cliff'. If you are basing your opinion on more then my last post, keep in mind I have no idea who you are, and you may well have been talking to another poster named 'Cliff'.

If it is based only on my last post, if I misstated a fact, tell me what I misstated and why it is wrong. If I am trying to sell my own opinion as fact, show me where and tell me how I am doing so.

Don't just name-call and make accusations you refuse to back up. Let's be adults.

Posted by: Cliff on November 25, 2006 08:42 AM
22. No worries Cliff. As anyone can see from Mr. Parris's post at #18 he's got some issues that go way beyond the scope of discussion here.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 25, 2006 10:28 AM
23. No worries Cliff. As anyone can see from Mr. Parris's post at #18 he's got some issues that go way beyond the scope of discussion here.


I'm aware. However, it wasn't till just now that I realized how far gone he is. And I have the unfortunate habit of trying to talk sense into crazies. It'll get me killed one of these days.

Posted by: Cliff on November 25, 2006 11:22 AM
24. I have the same unfortunate habit Cliff. One rule I try to live by on this blog is to never say anything that I wouldn't say if I was sitting next to someone at a bar or over coffee. People say all kinds of goofy things sitting in their bathrobes at a keyboard that they'd never say in person.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 25, 2006 11:54 AM
25. Okay, Cliff, since you challenged me to do so, I will refute your fraudulent comments (at 15), as tedious as the task may be

' Advocates of the amnesty and open borders represented by the "Guest worker" loophole adamantly refuse to consider the difference between the words "legal" and "illegal." It's like a religion.'

"Quite the contrary. It is your side the debate who insists that allowing legal guest workers into the country represents "Amnesty," and refuse to see them as anything but criminals. "
This is entirely false. The description "Amnesty" only accrues to a "guest worker" program that by issuing a "guest worker" permit protects an alien criminal from prosecution for previous crimes, or allows him to stay in the country, thus profiting from the crime of illegal entry. They are not criminals because they are from another country, but because they broke the law. In addition to illegal entry, if they've paid taxes they've done so by employment fraud. If they haven't they're tax evaders. Illegal entry is NEVER the only crime.

That is their religion. But what is their crime? It's not coming here illegally, because they would be coming here legally. The only way you can call it "Amnesty" is if you believe that anybody who comes to this country, legally or illegaly, needs to be "Forgiven," because immigration is a de-facto bad thing.
No this is completely false as well. No one thinks this. Amnesty is giving criminals a pass on previous law-breaking. The Bush plan does that. The Senate McCain/McGavick/McAmnesty plan does that. Your typifications of your opponents are all lies.

Of course, this is exactly what Tancredo believes. Read his book. He isn't shy about it. He calls all increases in legal immigration "Amnesty" and calls for cuts in legal immigration as well. He won't lay it out in those words publically, he'll try to spin. But his proposals say exactly that.

Once again, you are spinning complete lies. I own his book. It says nothing of the kind. But it is easily discernable, from your own words, for a person who doesn't have the time to read the book, that you are lying. You say "He won't lay it out in those words..." No, because HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT AND NEVER SAID IT. You are lying. You can't expect to say "this is what he means" about someone, thus contradict what they actually do mean and say, and expect to get away with it. But you, Cliff, clearly do mean to get away with it. How? By creating a huge and never-ending volume of supporting lies that become so large it is not worth the time to contend with.

If pro-immigration forces blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, (which they sometimes do, mostly when discussing the economic side of the arguement, which doesn't know the difference between the two, a field doesn't know if a legal or illegal immigrant is picking it's crops) This is absurd. The whole advantage to the big business wing of the Party whose interests you represent is the lower cost to them of illegal CASH labor. The wages are lower to begin with, and there is no employer contribution to non-existant withholding. The economic side is not just the enormous skewing of the labor supply/demand curve and not just the blowout transferal of tax dollars from working class Americans to non-working Mexican criminals, but the the transferal of vast American resources to the tower of Mexican political corruption. All these are direct economic impacts of your advocacy for crime. You would know this if you read more. they are aided by their foes on the anti-immigration side, who do the exact same thing on a daily basis by calling all increased legal immigration proposals "Amnesty". No, Cliff, this is, again, a complete lie. Read my Immigration proposal for the 2006 king county Platform committee and then come back and admit you were lying. If you have any integrity at all.

"Guest Worker" programs needen't involve illegal aliens at all, and wouldn't be under several different immigration proposals, including the one put forth by Congressman Mike Pence, a plan Tom Tancredo has dismissed as 'hidden Amnesty'.
Only the "Guest Worker" programs that involve hidden amnesty are amnesty. But that's most of them. Why is that? Why can't we just increase legal immigration instead of creating a "guest worker" program? Because the advocates of amnesty are trying to protect the current invading criminals so they can stay here. Any program that gives a 'guest worker" permit to someone who is already here, illegally, is amnesty. THIS IS OBVIOUS.

Under some proposals, illegal aliens could apply to be guest workers, but that's a separate issue entirely.

As to that separate issue, I think it's rather hard to argue that illegal aliens who have paid a fine, paid back taxes, learned english, and then have to get in line to be granted citizneship, is the same thing as "Amnesty."
Let's apply the same logic to Heroin dealers. "It's rather hard to argue that drug pushers who have to pay a fine, pay taxes on whatever they are willing to declare from the past, and, although they are then allowed to sell heroin on the streets legally, will still have to get in line to get their drug officially approved by the FDA, just like other pharmaceutical companies, are being let off easily or given 'Amnesty'." RIDICULOUS!
I think it's also rather hard to argue that most of the Mexicans who come here illegally are the kind of "Criminals" that we should be most interested in punishing severely. Yes, they broke the law. So did every person who bought a bottle of rum during prohibition. I didn't want them deported, however.
The idea of "deporting" people who drank prohibited alcohol is an intentionally deceptive analogy. A better one would be whether or not people caught manufacturing illegal alcohol should be allowed to keep it, even if it remained illegal, by paying a nominal fee. No, the gangs were not "deported" but the kegs were broken. And the crime rings were broken up, with their automatic weapons and murder. We need to do the same on the border.

Yet the Tancredo crowd insists there is only one form of punishment for breaking this particular law, and that is deportation.
This is, again, a fabrication. Are you incapable of telling the truth? I, and many others, believe there should be significant punishment IN ADDITION TO being deported. They're doing it in Arizona. Illegals who do not declare themselves and leave voluntarily should forfeit their fraudulently-obtained American assets.
Anything less, he deems "Amnesty." Anything less IS OBVIOUSLY amnesty. If someone steals your car, is it enough for them to pay a fine? Or should they have to give your car back? HMMMM? And is giving your car back enough punishment? HMMMMM?
Frankly, asking me to accept that is insulting to my intelligence. Your posts are the only insult to your intelligence.

To me, that would be like going out of your way to punish people who drank during prohibition. Punish Al Capone, sure. Punish everybody who bought one of his bottles? Give me a freaking break.
The proper application of this analogy would be to compare illegal aliens (the suppliers) to Capone; and their American employers (the users) would be properly compared to the people who drank during prohibition. There's your break.

It's also virtually impossible to find a viable way to deport all 12 million of them, but in this particular case, a lot of so-called "conservatives" seem to think that reality and human nature need not apply, even as they scold liberals for similar tendencies on so many other issues.
This is one of the biggest and oft-repeated lies about this entire controversy. "You can't deport 12 million people." No one who repeats this particular stupidity ever reports how the calculation was made. How many methods of enforcement were considered? How many deportations could each scenario handle? No. They didn't do any figuring at all. It's just mindless propaganda. How many people are arrested every day in America? How many people stopped for traffic offenses? "We can't stop the millions of speeders! There's MILLIONS of them!" Absurd.
All we have to do is announce prison sentences, total asset forfeiture for non-voluntary departures, and a six-month window for a voluntary declaration of intent to depart. and watch the illegals hot-foot it back to Mexico. It would only require the routine prosecution of those who were caught in the course of ordinary police business. It would be self-enforcing. Easy.

That said, they have something of a point. The Rule of Law is important. I wouldn't favor something that let illegal aliens off scott free. I think it would be wiser to impose a higher fine then most proposals currently in the loop. I'd also make them do a lot of community service, which would not only be good for the community, but would be an aid to help them 'assimilate'.
"Community service" would do nothing for the community. That's established. But you still are letting them keep the car they stole. It makes crime pay.
But the issue of what to do with those already here is another debate then the one we were having. No, Cliff, the reverse is true. "Amnesty" is letting them stay. "Amnesty" is central to the debate we're having. Acquire a clue.

The real issue, what this is all about in it's heart, the one the Tancredo crowd absolutely cannot confront because they will lose, is if we should allow for more Mexicans to come here legally in order to work, or not.
Another lie. I already answered that question in "my" (I'm not the sole author) 2006 Platform Plank. The only problem, now, with legal immigration is American Socialism. Cut off all government socialism and crank up the immigration quotas! People are not the problem. Enslaving the American Taxpayer is the problem. But with non-legal immigration inviting drug pushers, thieves and sexual predators is the problem. Legal Immigration, where there is a screening process, solves the latent crime problem and ending all forms of welfare solves the other.
They cannot ask that question honestly, [We've demonstrated that it is YOU who are dishonest.] because they feel threatened by immigration, but most of America does not, and they cannot win by admitting what they are really for, protectionism. [This is another outright lie.] They can call it whatever they want, but it boils down to nothing more then classic isolationism and protectionism. That is a lie followed by a prevarication. It's not a weird coincidence that Bay Buchannan runs Tancredo's pac. Are they part of a conspiracy, Cliff?

I didn't click your link. The so-called "Reagan Wing" is the biggest joke in Washington State Republican politics, and I have absolutely no trust and place absolutely no value in anything they have to say.
The article you refuse to read is a compliation of facts from the Los Angeles Times. But if you wish to denigrate the Reagan Wing it might be helpful to at least know something they've said to, sort of, bolster your argument. I know name-calling is the stock-in-trade of the GOP left, but still.

They don't represent Ronald Reagan, his values, or his tactics. That is a lie. All our core principles were core Reagan "values." We are continuing Reagan's mission. That doesn't mean following Reagan. Reagan was not following Reagan. He was following the same course of morality as Lincoln. But he was not following Lincoln. Lincoln was not following Lincoln. He was following the same course of morality as Washington. But Washington was not following Washington. Purchase an indicator.
They repeatedly shatter the 11th Commandment publically and loudly. That is a lie. Your version of the 11th Commandment is, doubtless, from the Candidate Censorship Agreement that falsely bore that name. It had nothing to do with what Reagan said and neither do you.
They do not pay attention to his example of pragmatism, on immigration or any other issue for that matter (Don't give me that "We got Amnesty but not enforcement, Reagan was fooled," crap. Complete fabrication. Reagan was wrong on amnesty. He was trying to be pragmatic. It was an aberration. That is beyond rational debate.
Now, Cliff, I've taken up way too much time refuting you, but I have done so. Please don't expect to post more fabrications and expect me to respond. It's much easier to make up lies than to do the work to show the truth and, I'm quite certain, there is no number of facts that will change your mind, particularly since you refuse to read them. I do not have the time to continually beat back your created claims any more than there were enough real votes for Dino Rossi to overcome the fraudulent ones fabricated by the Democrats.

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 26, 2006 05:41 AM
26. "I know name-calling is the stock-in-trade of the GOP left, but still."

Doug, it appears from your long-winded post that name calling is evidently the stock-in-trade of the far right fringe as well. How many times did you call Cliff a liar? Shame on you for your inability to have a civilized discussion with those that don't agree with you. Is it any wonder very few people take you seriously?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2006 10:37 AM
27. Bill Cruchon says:

Is it any wonder very few people take you [Doug Parris] seriously?

But does that mean that Doug is wrong?

Posted by: huckleberry on November 26, 2006 11:39 AM
28. No, huckleberry, in fact I agree with Doug on a lot of issues.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2006 12:14 PM
29. This is entirely false. The description "Amnesty" only accrues to a "guest worker" program that by issuing a "guest worker" permit protects an alien criminal from prosecution for previous crimes, or allows him to stay in the country, thus profiting from the crime of illegal entry.


That would be interesting if it weren't patently false. Tancredo opposes all guest worker programs, regardless of if they apply to people already here, or people that come from Mexico the first time, and calls both "Amnesty". As I've already brought up, Mike Pence's bill, and that indisputably calls for guest workers, but does not allow for illegal immigrants to apply for it, and he calls it "Hidden Amnesty".


They are not criminals because they are from another country, but because they broke the law. In addition to illegal entry, if they've paid taxes they've done so by employment fraud. If they haven't they're tax evaders. Illegal entry is NEVER the only crime.


Even if you are right, (never is too strong of a word) by that definition, every kid who mows his neighbors lawn and fails to pay taxes on it is a criminal. I don't think you want to go there.


No this is completely false as well. No one thinks this. Amnesty is giving criminals a pass on previous law-breaking. The Bush plan does that. The Senate McCain/McGavick/McAmnesty plan does that. Your typifications of your opponents are all lies.


No one thinks this? Tancredo seems to, if not, why does he call Mike Pence's plan 'Amnesty'?


Even if you discount the Pence plan, which, again, he calls 'Amnesty' in spite of all logic, you are still wrong. Even under the Senate bill, you cannot apply for the 'guest worker' program until you are legal. Thus, not until you have been granted 'Amnesty' can you apply. So even at that, they are separate issues, and your side refuses to acknowledge this.


Now, if I were you, I would start calling you a "Liar" here. But I won't, it isn't productive.


Once again, you are spinning complete lies. I own his book. It says nothing of the kind. But it is easily discernable, from your own words, for a person who doesn't have the time to read the book, that you are lying. You say "He won't lay it out in those words..." No, because HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT AND NEVER SAID IT.


I don't own the book, so I don't have it in front of me, but I have read several sections of it, and best I can remember, he phrases it something like this, "I'm not saying I'm against all immigration, but I think we need to have a serious look at how many immigrants we allow in and discuss if we really want more immigrants coming here," or something to that effect.


And Tancredo isn't shy about opposing increases in legal immigration, not shy at all. He doesn't even dance around that one. Sorry, illegal immigration clearly isn't his only issue.


You are lying. You can't expect to say "this is what he means" about someone, thus contradict what they actually do mean and say, and expect to get away with it. But you, Cliff, clearly do mean to get away with it. How? By creating a huge and never-ending volume of supporting lies that become so large it is not worth the time to contend with.


You can repeat "You are a liar," as many times as you wish. Your broken logic and half-truths won't make it so.


This is absurd. The whole advantage to the big business wing of the Party whose interests you represent is the lower cost to them of illegal CASH labor. The wages are lower to begin with, and there is no employer contribution to non-existant withholding. The economic side is not just the enormous skewing of the labor supply/demand curve and not just the blowout transferal of tax dollars from working class Americans to non-working Mexican criminals, but the the transferal of vast American resources to the tower of Mexican political corruption.


This is hardly worth responding to. You are taking pages straight out of Sharrod Brown's playbook, and advocating for economic protectionism.


It's true, that this labor as it now exists is illegal. It's also true that it's much closer to a free market then it would be if it weren't. The laborers are actually paid what the job is worth, not the artificial government imposed wages.


The fact that you rant about the 'Big Business' wing of the party shows you really don't understand economics all that well, or at least take a very different (i.e. more government control, anti-free-trade) view then the traditional conservative, University of Chicago, Milton Freedman school. There is virtually no dispute among economist that cheap labor from Mexico is good for the overall economy, both America and Mexico. It does hurt local government revenues, true, because of some things that have already been mentioned. (it's not true that all do not pay taxes, that's false, most do, actually, even if it's with a fake SSN) Those problems would be solved if we allowed them to come here legally.


Yet AGAIN, you refuse to acknowledge that they could come here legally. You continue to look at the world as static, if they come here illegally now, they must always come here illegally. You refuse to see a future where they could come here legally. It's typical, because you can't win the arguement without using the word 'criminal' every other sentence.


No, Cliff, this is, again, a complete lie. Read my Immigration proposal for the 2006 king county Platform committee and then come back and admit you were lying. If you have any integrity at all.


No offence, but I don't really give a crap about your proposal. I'm talking about the ones that are going through Congress and the debate as it stands in congress, i.e. the one that actually matters.


Only the "Guest Worker" programs that involve hidden amnesty are amnesty. But that's most of them. Why is that? Why can't we just increase legal immigration instead of creating a "guest worker" program? Because the advocates of amnesty are trying to protect the current invading criminals so they can stay here. Any program that gives a 'guest worker" permit to someone who is already here, illegally, is amnesty. THIS IS OBVIOUS.


No, actually, we can't have it because Tancredo has done everything he can to submarine it, because he doesn't want increased legal immigration You clearly don't know what the Pence plan is, and you don't seem to care. The Pence plan does just what you are trying to say the Tancredo crowd really wants, yet Tancredo calls it "Hidden Amnesty".


Again, I could call you a 'liar' here, but it's not productive.


We'll have the debate about allowing someone to come here illegally always equals "Amnesty," later.


Let's apply the same logic to Heroin dealers. "It's rather hard to argue that drug pushers who have to pay a fine, pay taxes on whatever they are willing to declare from the past, and, although they are then allowed to sell heroin on the streets legally, will still have to get in line to get their drug officially approved by the FDA, just like other pharmaceutical companies, are being let off easily or given 'Amnesty'." RIDICULOUS!


This is another typical tactic of the anti-immigration crowd. Say that one crime is exactly the same as another, which is false. There is a huge difference between someone who comes here illegally in order to make a better future for his family, and in doing so, directly harms no one, and would harm no one period if they were allowed to be here legally, and actually helps the economy, and a drug pusher.


Immigration is an economic net positive. If you disagree, don't argue with me. Argue with Alan Greenspan.


The idea of "deporting" people who drank prohibited alcohol is an intentionally deceptive analogy. A better one would be whether or not people caught manufacturing illegal alcohol should be allowed to keep it, even if it remained illegal, by paying a nominal fee. No, the gangs were not "deported" but the kegs were broken. And the crime rings were broken up, with their automatic weapons and murder. We need to do the same on the border.


Yah, I agree, we should stop the Cayotes and other people who profit off of folks who's crime is wanting a job. The answer to that is simple: Let them come here legally.


You are right that the analogy isn't perfect, i've got a better one: According to the "Amnesty is anything shot of sending them back" crowd, if someone parks illegally, the only way to not give them "Amnesty" is to tow their car. A parking ticket, regardless of how large, wouldn't be enough. After all, they get to keep their parking spot! That's "Amnesty!" Please. That, I would say, is rediculous (although I don't feel the need to put it in all caps).


This is, again, a fabrication. Are you incapable of telling the truth? I, and many others, believe there should be significant punishment IN ADDITION TO being deported. They're doing it in Arizona. Illegals who do not declare themselves and leave voluntarily should forfeit their fraudulently-obtained American assets.


Wow, even Tancredo isn't this harsh. Congrats, you are even less reasonable and less forviving of people who helped the economy, who's crime is wanting a better future for their family.


Anything less IS OBVIOUSLY amnesty.


No it's not, and my car parking example already explains why.


If someone steals your car, is it enough for them to pay a fine? Or should they have to give your car back? HMMMM?


What have they stole from us? Nothing, they've contributed to the economy. Economically, it's no different from free trade, which all economist admit is more economically efficient (not all AGREE with it for other reasons, but you cannot find a respectable economist who actually thinks free trade is inefficent)


And is giving your car back enough punishment? HMMMMM?


Do you think adding HMMMMMMM to your arguements makes them stronger? Anyhow, I've already answered this.


This is one of the biggest and oft-repeated lies about this entire controversy. "You can't deport 12 million people." No one who repeats this particular stupidity ever reports how the calculation was made. How many methods of enforcement were considered? How many deportations could each scenario handle? No. They didn't do any figuring at all. It's just mindless propaganda. How many people are arrested every day in America? How many people stopped for traffic offenses? "We can't stop the millions of speeders! There's MILLIONS of them!" Absurd.
All we have to do is announce prison sentences, total asset forfeiture for non-voluntary departures, and a six-month window for a voluntary declaration of intent to depart. and watch the illegals hot-foot it back to Mexico. It would only require the routine prosecution of those who were caught in the course of ordinary police business. It would be self-enforcing. Easy.


Technically, you can cure a headache by shooting yourself in the head too. The problem is, the option just isn't viable in the real world, the cure is worse then the disease.


Personally, I don't want to see our GDP drop 10% overnight, uproot a bunch of families, cause an economic depression, and destroy the economies of both the U.S. and Mexico. I also don't want to spend billions punishing people who's crime is working as opposed to rapists, murderers, etc.



"Community service" would do nothing for the community. That's established.


It is? Facinating. I'm glad you are here to tell us these things. Such a great authority like you. You are clearly right, I mean, how could anyone ever dispute this logic?


But you still are letting them keep the car they stole. It makes crime pay.


No, but I am letting them keep their parking space after paying a stiff fine.


No, Cliff, the reverse is true. "Amnesty" is letting them stay. "Amnesty" is central to the debate we're having. Acquire a clue.


If I were you, I'd call you a 'liar' again here, but I'm not going to.


I've already demonstrated why this isn't so.


Another lie. I already answered that question in "my" (I'm not the sole author) 2006 Platform Plank. The only problem, now, with legal immigration is American Socialism. Cut off all government socialism and crank up the immigration quotas!


Sounds like a good idea to me. Why doesn't Tancredo support the Pence plan then?


Make no mistake, you as an individual might be willing to allow for more legal immigrants. The company you keep isn't. Buchannan isn't. Tancredo isn't. etc.


People are not the problem. Enslaving the American Taxpayer is the problem. But with non-legal immigration inviting drug pushers, thieves and sexual predators is the problem. Legal Immigration, where there is a screening process, solves the latent crime problem and ending all forms of welfare solves the other.


I totally agree. I ask again, why doesn't Tancredo support the Pence plan then?


Again, you are making my point that the debate between "Amnesty" and guest workers are separate debates. We seem to agree on the "guest workers", depending on how they are defined, and depending on what you mean by "ending all forms of welfare", but on the basics, we agree. We disagree on what you call "Amnesty" and what I call earned citizenship, but that just proves how separate the issues are, and how much people in the company you keep refuses to acknowledge that fact.


Are they part of a conspiracy, Cliff?


No conspiracy, it's out in the open. Some people are just too blind to see it.


I know name-calling is the stock-in-trade of the GOP left,


No offence, I don't think you have much room to criticize people for name calling.


Complete fabrication. Reagan was wrong on amnesty. He was trying to be pragmatic. It was an aberration.


Classic. We worship Ronald Reagan, if you disagree with us, you are wrong because you disagree with Reagan. Except, of course, when Reagan was wrong.


That is beyond rational debate.


No, it's not. The enforcement got the funding. It didn't work. It ignored supply and demand. Period.


It seems we agree on one thing: increased legal immigration is necessary. Why is it that you keep company with a crowd that completely opposes it?

Posted by: Cliff on November 26, 2006 01:48 PM
30. I do not call you a "liar" to refute your ideas, but to point out when you are lying. It is a specific charge, not a generalization to take the place of reason. If I called you a "wing nut" or said, "no one listens to you" I would be guilty of name-calling, because those are ambiguous or obviously frivolous charges, and only intended to smear. But my charges of lying can be proved or disproved. Allow me to make one more and then, somehow escape the quicksand of your ever-increasing distortions.
This is, in fact Classic Cliff, to put words in my mouth and then ridicule your own fabrication:

"We worship Ronald Reagan, if you disagree with us, you are wrong because you disagree with Reagan. Except, of course, when Reagan was wrong." I have never said anything of the sort. 1. I went out of my way in the last post to POINT OUT WE DON'T WORSHIP REAGAN. 2. In all my life I have never told anyone they are wrong because they disagree with Reagan. 3. in the last post I pointed out where Reagan was wrong and YOU said I was wrong becaue I didn't agreee with Reagan. You have, therefore, accused me of a logical error (and a ridiculous one, at that) of which only YOU are guilty.
My earlier post pointed out that argument with you is hopeless because you cover old lies with new and there will never be an end.
May God save you from the windmills of your mind.

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 27, 2006 03:28 AM
31. Doug:

Yet again, you respond by declaring your own superiority, calling me a liar (there is no difference between saying someone is lying and calling someone a liar, that's the biggest spin I've ever heard in my life), and completely failing to address the substantive points of my arguements.

Typical. The only thing I can't believe is you have the unmittigated gall to claim moral and intellectual superiority.

Posted by: Cliff on November 27, 2006 11:06 AM
32. Devil is in the Details

When the President continually repeats his defense of open borders and relentlessly spells out his desire to "match every willing worker with every willing employer" - he does so without the qualifying adjective "legal." Of course if borders lose their significance, the words "legal worker" also begins to lose their relevance.

President's Bush and Fox have spoken openly and frequently about their desire to remove the obstacle of borders in order to increase the free flow of goods, services AND people.

Take for example when the two president's spoke to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce recently, they were unequivocal about their desire to remove anything that separates Mexico and the United States.

Let me reiterate the fact that this is no grand conspiracy. I know of no plan to formalize a political union, which would certainly require a constitutional change, or plans to create a supranational organization like the European Parliament. I simply point out that by word and by deed, the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States have consistently espoused the view that was expressed by Juan Hernandez, former head of the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States, when he told me and two other visiting Congressman that what we now call the U.S. and Mexico are "not two countries, but just a region."

The creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership is not a figment of anyone's imagination. It's recommendations and agenda is real. I encourage everyone to check out the project on the Department of Commerce?s web site and the communications we have had with the agency on ours. (www.spp.gov, and www.house.gov/tancredo, respectively).

Posted by: Tom Tancredo on November 27, 2006 01:12 PM
33. When the President continually repeats his defense of open borders and relentlessly spells out his desire to "match every willing worker with every willing employer" - he does so without the qualifying adjective "legal." Of course if borders lose their significance, the words "legal worker" also begins to lose their relevance.


I don't know if this guy is really Tancredo or one of his staffers, probably not, but he's making my point perfectly. In the same paragraph, they accuse Bush of not knowing the difference between legal and illegal workers, and then say that, if there is increased legal immigration, is essentially no different then the free flow of illegal workers. They want a closed border, no more may apply. They see immigration, legal or not, as a threat to American sovereignty, and thus oppose it.


I think that shoots down a lot of your arguements, Doug.

Posted by: Cliff on November 27, 2006 01:43 PM
34. Your lips are moving.

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 27, 2006 03:17 PM
35. The comment from "Tom Tancredo" came from an IP address with the US House of Rep. The return email address was for Carlos Espinosa, Tancredo's spokesperson. I've emailed Carlos asking if it was him posting on Rep. Tancredo's behalf or if it was Rep. Tancredo using his staffer's email address.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 27, 2006 06:23 PM
36. some people say skeptics of the SPP are paranoid. I disagree. while im not a conspiracy theorist, i know in practical terms that Mexico has a long history of corruption high up due to its crime-tolerating culture & drugs. sharing sensitive law enforcement info/secrets with them is pure folly.

listen to Fox & his minions' statements in the past, as well as LaRaza. based on the whole picture & push, assimilation is not the goal. just look at the plethora of multi-lingual packaging, ballots, driver ed books and govt web sites. we DONT encourage assimilation by that--we promote pockets of multi-culti kingdoms.

the more we accept everyone & their elderly without limits, the more we bankrupt ourselves--no amount of "workers" can make up for the future social drain on systems. especially by those who paid in nothing. guest workers are ok IF they return at some point--anyone thinking they will is foolish. they will drop babies here for an anchor. and everyone steam rolls past those who wait in line legally--they are forgotten in the discussions with accusations of bigotry and hate.

i see diluton of our standard of living if illegal immigration is unchecked. why should we be dragged down to a lower common denominator? what is enlightened about that? knowingly & purposely REDUCING your country's standards?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 28, 2006 08:44 AM
37. Whether it was Tom or not, Cliff's amazing comment still stands!

Cliff, Tancredo did not say that legal immigrants are just as bad as illegal ones. That is what, in the deep recesses of your mind, you wish he had said. Your hate would be more justifiable that way. What he said was that those whose job it is to provide security to this country are failing to distinguish between legal and illegal. You are an amazing person, Cliff.

Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 08:58 AM
38. To have an out-of-state Member of Congress take the time to post is a testament to all the good work Stefan and friends have done on SP.com, and to the growing recognition of same.
A suggestion given that event: Send an email with Rep. Tancredo's comment attached to all WA members of Congress, and ask them if a Rep. from Colorado can comment on SP.com, how about hearing from them once in a while.

Rep. Tancredo's comment @ 32 is an excellent and thoughtful summary of the core problem; he is right on the mark.

Jimmie-howya-doin @ 36 also said some good stuff; with the caveat that I would make one change to one thing he said:

''the more we accept every ILLEGAL ALIEN and their elderly without limits, the more we bankrupt ourselves''

The question of how many LEGAL immigrants or guest workers and what KIND of guest workers we should let in every year are completely different issue (and we definitely DO need some categories of guest workers).

And regardless of other issues (of which there are many), surely there is one specific change that is long overdue:
Children born in the United States to people who are in the county illegally do NOT automatically become citizens. This is not 1800 anymore; or even 1900. The current situation sez:

''If you are successful in breaking the law, we will give you a tremendous reward, and bump you to the front of the long line that prospective legal immigrants are waiting in''.

I've been to El Paso, and the situation with anchor babies is just nuts.

Posted by: Methow Ken on November 28, 2006 09:55 AM
39. Polls show a significant majority of Americans want our southern border closed. The Bush administration and a Republican-controlled Congress did nothing about illegal immigration until it became evident they were going to lose big in the '06 election.

Republicans like the cheap labor base (agribusiness, construction, low-skill manufacturing) provided by illegals. What's ironic is that the new Democrat Congressional majority is just as fond of illegals....as illegals provide a new underclass of government dependents who (the Dems hope) will gain voting rights.

Does anyone in Congress actually listen to the people?

Posted by: Saltherring on November 28, 2006 10:03 AM
40. Saltthering... have you ever read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk? He points out how troublesome it is when politicians start thinking they are representing "the will of the people" as if "the people" was a monolithic entity whose desires were actually understood. In this case, I agree with you... it would appear that the majority of people want more attention focused on security along our southern border, and I am not sure the President or the Congress acted effectively in implementing the will of the majority. But in general it is still a dangerous thing to overreach your ability to understand, or even measure, that will.

Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 10:24 AM
41. huck,

And...."the will of the people" is not always in the best interest of the nation and its people. In the case of closing our borders and kicking the illegals out, it IS in this nation's best interest to do so.

Posted by: Saltherring on November 28, 2006 10:37 AM
42. Salt... agreed. This is another reason that trying to devine the will of the people is not always the best answer. Sometimes Congress needs to play Dad and just say No, depending on how mature the electorate seems to be acting at the time. Many of us conservatives have little respect for politicians who spend more time putting their wetted finger in the wind than they do defining sound principles that they will stand behind whether they get elected or not. The task of a declining party is to re-examine it's principles, develop a plain and simple message that honestly conveys that message to the people, and to wait for the votes. To change the message or the principles to suit "the people" is a mistake.

Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 10:47 AM
43. Please, close the borders to illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Once we seal the borders to illegal immigrants and smugglers we can address the issue of increasing legal quotas for legal immigrants. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because too many folks believe we can not thrive economically without an exploitable underclass of workers willing to do any job for minimal pay. Once immigrants become legal, they may no longer be willing to pick lettuce, wash dishes or clean hotel rooms. On top of that, Liberals want the votes illegal immigrants cast. Bush had a chance to display some true leadership by closing our borders to illegals and smugglers. I feel this past election could have been a victorious one for Republicans had he followed public opinion and sealed the borders to illegals and smugglers. This would have sent a powerful message to America that he was serious about national security and about taking control of our own borders. Instead, he choked when faced with the possibility of crossing the business lobbies that employ illegals, and the conservatives who just can't live without their central american nanny.

Posted by: Attila on November 28, 2006 02:07 PM
44. AND regarding the 12 million illegals already here, shouldn't our priority be closing the borders to future illegal immigration and smuggling? Do we REALLY want the world watching our U.S. police drag women and children to the border to toss them out?
I propose that we deport those illegals who commit felonies and serious misdemeanors while in the U.S. (and not launch a nationwide manhunt to track down every man, woman and child so we can deport them). We need to stop illegal immigration. We also need to suck it up and face the responsibility that comes with allowing a problem to fester until it grows to unmanagable proportions and face the reality that 12 million people are not going to meekly volunteer to leave this country. We need to give those folks with clean records a mechanism for becoming legal, deport those who are committing crimes, and prevent future illegal immigration from taking place.

Posted by: Attila on November 28, 2006 02:28 PM
45. Attila, I disagree with you. If you start deporting illegals, many more will leave voluntarily. I agree that will not be a pretty site, but it is a horror we must tolerate in order to preserve our sovereignty, and to play fairly with those who have been waiting patiently to immigrate legally.

Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 03:20 PM
46. pardon my ignorance, but why can't the illegals from south of the border enter and stay like the illegals from Europe and Russia do, on tourist visas?
(does one even need a visa to enter across the Mexican border?)

Anyone here have any knowledge of current law?

Appreciate the discussion, tedious as it may be from time to time.

Posted by: mark on November 28, 2006 04:30 PM
47. Cliff, Tancredo did not say that legal immigrants are just as bad as illegal ones. That is what, in the deep recesses of your mind, you wish he had said.


Then what exactly did he mean when he said, and I quote, AGAIN:


Of course if borders lose their significance, the words "legal worker" also begins to lose their relevance.


There is no other reasonable way to interpret this statement that I can think of, other then just what it says: If we don't have the kind of 'closed border' policies Rep. Tancredo favors, the words "legal worker" lose their significance.


His very next paragraph is also important in interpretation:


President's Bush and Fox have spoken openly and frequently about their desire to remove the obstacle of borders in order to increase the free flow of goods, services AND people.


In other words, the free flow of people, even when legal, is not desirable. This is clear since it is lumped in with goods and services, which is a pretty clear reference to such trade deals as NAFTA.


If you have a reasonable alternate interpretation, please let me know.


Your hate would be more justifiable that way.


I don't hate him, I just think he's an idiot. Big difference.


What he said was that those whose job it is to provide security to this country are failing to distinguish between legal and illegal.


That's a faith based interpretation if I've ever heard one. He's not discussing security at all in his post, but commerce. Even if he were discussing security, security and a more open immigration policy, which he obviously opposes re: paragraph 2, are hardly inconsistent.


You are an amazing person, Cliff.


Not nearly as amazing as your ability and desire to engage in wishful thinking and interpretation.

Posted by: Cliff on November 28, 2006 04:52 PM
48. Your lips are moving.


Your brain, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be functioning at all, if you cannot even offer a reasoned response beyond a childish insult.

Posted by: Cliff on November 28, 2006 04:56 PM
49. Please, close the borders to illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Once we seal the borders to illegal immigrants and smugglers we can address the issue of increasing legal quotas for legal immigrants.

This is one of those policies that sounds nice, but doesn't work in real life.

In real life, things are driven by supply and demand. As long as their is a huge demand for workers from Mexico, they will provide the supply one way or another. We simply cannot stop the supply until the demand down to the point that it does not attract near the supply. Once the demand is met, it is infinitely easier to stop excess supply.

Think of it this way: We can restrict a certain amount of water behind a dam, but you cannot stop the river from flowing. If you attempt to stop the river from flowing at all, you will get a broken, or overrun, dam. Instead, you must allow enough water to go through so that the dam does not overflow.

Unfortunately, our current immigration quota is nowhere near the amount to stop the dam from flowing.

We will never truly get control of the border, a concept of which I wholeheartedly agree with, unless we allow for a larger flow of legal immigrants.

Posted by: Cliff on November 28, 2006 05:04 PM
50. Mark, no one here that I know of is complaining about foreigners who obtain work visas moving in to this country to work. (Some of us might complain about that, but it is a different topic altogether.) The entire debate is about illegal aliens, that is, people who enter the country illegally in the first place, or who overstay the time limit built into their visa. Mexicans and Candians do not need a visa to enter this country, tourist or otherwise. But it is illegal for them to take up permanent residence or obtaining employment without first acquiring a visa or citizenship. Does that help?

Posted by: huckleberry on November 28, 2006 05:53 PM
51. I don't doubt that Tancredo knows some about what he speaks. However, the North American Union seems like a loosely organized organization. Bush clearly has offered resistance to securing our borders and sides with the liberal Democrats on illegal immigration. Podhoretz is out of line about his criticism of Tancredo.

One of the big reasons that the Republicans lost in these midterm elections was because of Bush's attitude about illegal immigration. Many voters were repulsed by this attitude, as any patriotic American should have been.

Posted by: KS on November 28, 2006 10:18 PM
52. I am not so sure. The polls indicate people do want immigration reform, but that they generally favor some form of Amnesty.

The issue to me hinges on enforcement of legal worker status in the workplace. As long as ICE does not enforce the laws we have I see no realistic chance they will enforce any new ones.

As long as employers have no accountabiliy to keep illegals off their payroll, they will not try.

And as Cliff said, the need based economy will drive the issue.

But the answer is not increasing the flow of workers, it starts with drying up the opportunities to work by forcing the empolyers to adhere to laws and making legal status be a require. You take away their ability to make a living here, and you remove much of the desire to come here.

The ugly truth is that no one wants to treat the illegals as second hand citizens in our PC culture gone amuck, but the reality is that they are not even entitled to that much.

Posted by: LSU on November 29, 2006 07:00 AM
53. it starts with drying up the opportunities to work by forcing the empolyers to adhere to laws and making legal status be a require.


I seriously doubt laws like this would work. New and better laws of this sort would most likely generate new and better ways to get around them, a'la McCain/Feingold.


You can only distort the free market so much before it slips between the cracks.


The ugly truth is that no one wants to treat the illegals as second hand citizens in our PC culture gone amuck, but the reality is that they are not even entitled to that much.


Nor should they be.

Posted by: Cliff on November 29, 2006 07:41 AM
54. Re: Eric's "Update" : "One, the irony of Doug Parris complaining about name calling in political arguments is high comedy."
Hate to break it to you, Eric, but by calling me a "name caller" you were engaged in unadulterated name calling.
There is a major and significant difference between "making accusations" and "name calling." I have made a LOT of accusations because there is widespread corruption in the Republican Party and it is destroying, not only us, but, because we are the defenders of Freedom, it is destroying America. I concluded, two years ago, that it could never be cleaned up without being exposed and made a decision to do so that I knew would subject me to vicious demonization. But I can back my accusations up. Some here at Sound Politics act as if all negative accusations are created equal, true or not.

When you throw unspecific aspersions at someone without any meaning that can be rationally refuted, it's name-calling. For example, if I say you are "a thief" it is name calling if I refuse to make a specific allegation of what or where you stole something. People can be shown, by evidence, or exonerated of accusations of theft. But if I call you a thief and refuse to make any specific allegation of stealing, I'm just name-calling, because it is impossible to disprove such a general accusation. Such a proof would require proving where you were and what you were doing every minute of your entire life.
If I say "Eric is a pragmatist," it necessitates showing that his positions on issues are dependent on factors other than his philosophical view of "truth;" things like "political viability," or "popularity." Because that is what a pragmatist is, someone whose "principles" are just abstractions of his needs. Like Diane Tebelius.
If I say a man is a liar I must demonstrate by HIS OWN WORDS that he says things he knows not to be true and does it repeatedly. That was easy, for instance, with Chris Vance. It is about to be done with Diane Tebelius.
But, and if, I call someone "liberal," for example, and refuse to back up the claim, I am, in fact, guilty of name-calling. If I have, and show, the evidence, however, I am not a name caller.

So, Eric, roll it out, big boy. Where did I call someone a "name" without evidence that his behavior fit the definition?? Or are YOU just name-calling??

Posted by: Doug Parris on November 29, 2006 02:15 PM
55. I'm not Eric, Doug, but I'll offer up your own words from post #18 --

"No syntactical surgeon, either, will be able to slice with such skill into the body politic of his psyche that he might emerge, triumphant with some pulsing, blood-engorged tumorous parasite and proclaim Cliff cured.

With Cliff it is not a habit of mind, nor the depleted impact rings of some personal philosophical vendetta.

This one goes deeper.
The Dark Side is strong with this one."

Funny, isn't it? I never heard Ronald Reagan talk like that.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 29, 2006 06:07 PM
56. Doug -

I have little interest in engaging in the usual semantic debates into which many of our arguements usually devolve. For clarity's sake, however, let me say this: your use of abrasive language, whether you think it is defendable or not, continues to weaken the impact of your commentary.

You claim your use of the term "liar" is fair because you claim you can defend the charge. Ok, that's your right. But your argument might be just as effective, with much less likelihood of turning off the reader, if you simply said your antagonist was "incorrect," "had their facts wrong," or was being "disingenous." All such word choices are more prudent for attempts at persuasion than your consistent use of inflammatory language, here and at your own site.

You can make your point without being offensive or insulting people. Such behavior might actual help convince people that otherwise disagree with you on the issues, as people often seem to do. Indeed, your efforts at revolution might even have more chance at some success if you did find a way to express yourself without leaving a bad taste in the mouths of a significant portion of the listening/reading audience. Bill at 55 has essentially made the same point.

Your record at this site and your own speaks for itself on your choice of words in debate. If you don't remember, I don't feel like taking the time to link back to examples.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 29, 2006 09:41 PM
57. Eric,

I was out of town when you started (and then left) this debate. It seems your only point in this very detailed post was that Tom Tancredo, Doug Parris and Michelle McIntyre represent the "kook fringe" (since you did not offer your opinion on the issue itself, but brought attention to the rhetoric taken out of context to make it sound "kooky"). And yet it appears that with the exception of Cliff and maybe one other, most of the commenters here agree with and support Tom Tancredo, including the ones that think he'll never be able to win election for President. Ditto for most of the commenters at Captain's Quarters.

I do want to congratulate you though, Eric, for achieving the response you did from the Honorable Tom Tancredo himself. No doubt, a result of sending a ping to "The Corner". And I want to thank you for being our "Post-Thanksgiving Turkey"!

Posted by: Michelle on November 29, 2006 10:22 PM
58. Michelle -

Sorry you missed the fun. When did I call Doug and you "kooky"? I said you two had made statements of support for Tancredo, and separately said that in this case his statements made him sound like a kook. The two points are not mutually inclusive unless you'd like them to be.

And for the record, I think lots of commenters agreed with Tancredo on immigration (which really wasn't the point of the post), not necessarily on the SPP and supposed efforts by President Bush to do away with the sovereignty of the United States that was the original issue.

Moreover, I did state my opinion briefly at the end of the collection of Corner posts, then solicited further thoughts from readers because I was curious. How did I then not offer my opinion as you claim?

Lastly, how is this issue taken out of context? I provided full coverage of the Corner debate on the matter, which itself includes a link to the article on Tancredo's comments in World Net Daily (a source which is hardly a Tancredo skeptic). Readers were able to view both sides accordingly.

You and I obviously disagree about Tancredo, but your accusations here don't match the reality of the post and read too much into my intent from the actual words. Thanks for reading, but I wish you wouldn't be so quick to assume I'm up to some nefarious plot. I'm just expressing an opinion and asking directly for feedback, as I do periodically on an assortment of issues here.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 30, 2006 06:55 AM
59. No. I didn't say you CALLED us "kooky". And yes, I mentioned that your post was very detailed...of the DEBATE about Tancredo's comments. But you didn't offer your opinion about the merits of his actual comments, only about which debater was "glib", but whose main point was "quite accurate". And the commenters here weren't only expressing their support for Tancredo's position on immigration, but for his actual comments that were supposedly so controversial and supposedly "made him sound like a kook". And your stated purpose (atleast partially) was to link these supposedly kooky comments to Doug and me, and our support for Tancredo. In calling Tancredo a "Post-Thanksgiving Turkey", you made yourself out to be one. I'm actually flattered to be included in such a post, Eric. So keep it up.

Posted by: Michelle on November 30, 2006 10:15 AM
60. Michelle - you say:

"And your stated purpose (atleast partially) was to link these supposedly kooky comments to Doug and me, and our support for Tancredo."

No, actually. I was simply trying to use decent blog etiqutte by linking to people I mention that have their own sites. In doing so, I simply linked to each of your main pages, not to any specific entry with supposedly "kooky" language.

Moreover, I simply thought it was worth mentioning since you two readers and commenters are stated Tancredo supporters. It wasn't some effort to make either of you look bad, it's simply a point of discussion. In this specific case, I had no way of knowing whether or not you agreed with Tancredo on the issue in question.

Lastly, I don't think you in specific are a kook, though I obviously disagree with you a lot. I wish you would just accept my statements accordingly at face value.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 30, 2006 06:57 PM
61. OK, Eric. I absolve you of my charge, since you seem to not even understand my point. After all, if you can't even comprehend the deed I'm accusing you of, you can't be fully culpable.

But since I prefer to be understood, and to inform you of the deed that you did, apparently unwittingly, let me clarify.

I did not accuse you of linking to a specific entry of mine "with supposedly 'kooky' language". I actually appreciate the link to my blog. "All press is good press", as they say. (Thank you) What I did accuse you of is pointing out Tancredo's comments, claiming that made him appear kooky, in order to 1) plant the seeds in your readers' minds, before Tancredo even announces that he's running, that he is too kooky to be president and 2) imply that we must be kooky for supporting him ("Part of the reason I ask is that..."), and after all, if we're not kooky, why would we enthusiastically support someone who is? (I still stand by part 1)

But since you didn't even comprehend part 2 of the charge, you must only be guilty of part 1 and sloppy blogging. But consider yourself informed now. But not to worry, I can't be too mad at you. After all, "all press is good press".

Posted by: Michelle on November 30, 2006 09:17 PM
62. Michelle -

I understand both charges you allege, and have done so since you brought them up in some form. The problem is neither part 1 or part 2 was part of my intent in composing the post. Neither action interests me frankly.

My complaint is you continue to make presumptions about what I was thinking and/or intending when I put the post together. I simply thought the exchange between Podhoretz and McCarthy was interesting and thought it worth sharing for the purposes of discussion. That's it.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 30, 2006 10:29 PM
63. OK, now I know you're full of it. The first time we discussed Tancredo, you brought up the "bomb Mecca" comment, and made exactly that point in part one. And here it is obvious you did it again:

...believing that George W. Bush essentially wants to do away with the sovereignty of the United States makes Tancredo seem like a kook. In doing so, he makes himself look less like a serious, potential participant in a crowded Presidential field, and more like someone who is about to start ranting about the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and George W. Bush's membership in Skull & Bones...all part of an "internationalist" conspiracy to create a New World Order.

Posted by: Michelle on November 30, 2006 11:12 PM
64. Michelle - did it ever occur to you I brought up the exchange from the Corner because I thought it was interesting? I simply made a follow-up observation about Tancredo's comments accordingly. I'm not trying to "plant a seed" in readers minds that he's a loon prior to any declaration for President as you might claim. I really have no interest in such activity. I can criticize public officials for their current actions without engaging in some sort of nefarious plot to muddy the waters for their future political ambitions, whatever those may be. Again, you ascribe more motives to me than actually exist.

Posted by: Eric Earling on December 1, 2006 06:39 AM
65. Michelle - Have you ever considered the possibility that accusing someone of a nafarious plot when they had the audacity to :gasp: discuss an interesting statement of a prominent elected official, makes you out to be the exact same sort of kook you insist that you are not?

It's called speech. Discussion. Debate. It's part of our democratic system. Get a clue. Sheesh.

Posted by: Cliff on December 1, 2006 08:57 AM
66. Funny, isn't it? I never heard Ronald Reagan talk like that.


Kind of reminds me of Gen. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, actually.


I wonder if Doug has anything interesting to say about precious bodily fluids?

Posted by: Cliff on December 1, 2006 09:00 AM
67. Thanks for the great laugh, Cliff.

It's been fun to read Doug and recently Michelle get all worked up over Tom Tancredo. He's not a viable candidate as I pointed out way back in #6. He's already shot himself in the foot. If there is anything to get worked up about it's the chance Tancredo or someone else will mount a far right third party candidate in '08 that will assure the Dems win the White House.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 1, 2006 11:02 AM
68. Thanks for the great laugh, Cliff.

It's been fun to read Doug and recently Michelle get all worked up over Tom Tancredo. He's not a viable candidate as I pointed out way back in #6. He's already shot himself in the foot. If there is anything to get worked up about it's the chance Tancredo or someone else will mount a far right third party candidate in '08 that will assure the Dems win the White House.

Did you hear his most recent statement? That Miami "Is like a third-world city?"

There goes Florida. Oops.

What's even funnier, is that people who worship the guy always criticize all of those who disagree as being a disagreement about his policy, so when they say he can't win, they are just saying that because they disagree with him. That's so clearly untrue, in light of his many, many stupid statements, it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

I personally do disagree with his policy, but there is a world of difference between Tom Tancredo and, say, Jeff Sessions from Alabama. Sessions has similar positions, but isn't nuts, doesn't think Miami is a 'third world city' etc.

Posted by: Cliff on December 1, 2006 01:39 PM
69. Bill, if you read my comments, you'd know that I think it is delightful irony that in implying that Tancredo is a "Post Thanksgiving Turkey" and that he sounds like a kook, it was Eric that shot himself in the foot and became the "Post Thanksgiving Turkey", but I stand corrected. We've got two of them, Eric and Cliff who are the minority in the above discussion in that point of view.

And Cliff, I never accused him of a "nafarious plot", that was Eric's expression. It's your statements that are kooky, including this one.

And you guys laugh off Doug for his "long winded" and "whacky(was it?)" posts?! Have you scrolled through this thread?

You on the other hand, are worked up over the possibility that Tancredo might launch a far right third party candidacy. The only one who has suggested that is Podhoretz who started this whole thing, who by the way has the agenda of tearing down Tancredo, to build up his candidate, Giuliani. And like Podhoretz, Eric has a similiar agenda of tearing down Tancredo, to build up his candidate, Romney. You did see his 2 part series on that, didn't you? Part one was to tear down every other candidate. As a supporter of Romney, that's par for the course, but for him to deny it here is disingenuous. As if we're supposed to ignore all the other posts while reading this one.

And by the way, coming from someone who once lived in Miami and other parts of S. Florida, I can tell you that Tancredo would find widespread agreement among the voters in S. Florida. Tancredo made the point on Tucker Carlson's show that those who are so outraged at the statement and accuse him of racism are racists themselves. He was referring to the stark poverty contrasted in close proximity to lavish wealth, and the failure to assimilate into American culture, all stemming, all stemming from corrupt government and the wealthy taking advantage of the poor.

Posted by: Michelle on December 1, 2006 03:01 PM
70. Michelle, I really don't think Eric was calling Tancredo a "turkey". If I'm wrong I'm sure he will correct me.

In my observation you and Doug take opposing points of view a bit too personally. As a result it's awfully easy to pull your chains.

I am curious however, Michelle, who do you support as the Republican nominee in '08? So far I'm leaning towards Romney.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 1, 2006 05:34 PM
71. Michelle - you're being too sensitive about your favored guy, and presumptuous that I would care enough to strategically kneecap presumptive Presidential candidates. The first part of my recent two part series on the Presidential race recently was simply handicapping the field for the benefit of readers who might not be following things as closely as some of us. With the exception of Hagel, I don't recall taking shots at anybody. I was simply giving some observation of where they stand, regardless of my preference. If I was trying to tear down the expected opposition I would have been a lot more serious about it, and would have taken serious shots at Pataki and Tancredo, as well as unloading some real digs on McCain.

Posted by: Eric Earling on December 1, 2006 06:05 PM
72. I assure you, I take no offense, nor do I take it personally. As I said, I'm FLATTERED. Well, maybe that's taking it personally, but in a good way. After all, my name was mentioned. And I am getting a kick out of it. Geesh! How many times and ways do I have to say it? If you could only see me, you'd see how much I have laughed.

Isn't it obvious who my presidential pick is? atleast for now? Do you read my comments? Did you read Eric's post? I'm beginning to wonder.

Posted by: Michelle on December 1, 2006 06:17 PM
73. Eric, I didn't see your comment before I posted #71. That was directed at Bill. This is comical. I keep telling you I'm laughing about it, and you essentially keep wondering why I'm crying about it. (Next you'll be asking me where you said I was "crying". Don't bother. I mean it rhetorically. I'm "too sensitive". Oh, this is so tedious.)

Let me get this straight...I am "presumptuous" that you "would care enough to strategically 'kneecap' presumptive presidential candidates", but your "recent two part series on the Presidential race was simply 'hadicapping' the field..." OK. Got it. This is hillarious!

Posted by: Michelle on December 1, 2006 06:51 PM
74. Michelle, are you saying that you would support Tancredo above the other potential candidates in '08?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 2, 2006 09:44 AM
75. Bill,

Are you saying you haven't figured that out yet?

Posted by: Michelle on December 3, 2006 11:32 AM
76. Sorry Michelle, I thought you were a McCain supporter.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 3, 2006 04:08 PM
77. You're hillarious too, Bill.

Posted by: Michelle on December 4, 2006 10:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?