Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Racism is a real problem in this country.  I know a lot of people want to think that we've moved beyond race, but what does it say when Hillary Clinton's campaign Chair, Terry McAuliffe, has the following exchange on NPR about immigration.

CALLER: I'm one of those Republicans who helped change the political arrangement by sitting on the sidelines, and if you want to get 10 percent of the Republicans, right now, to vote for Hillary Clinton -- and I would be one of them, and I've been a Republican for 40 years -- you do the following things. You eliminate your support for NAFTA, that was Bill Clinton. Eliminate your support for amnesty and wide-open borders -- Bill Clinton, I've heard him say it many times, and I believe I've heard Hillary say it also -- and you start getting self-deportation of the 20 million illegal aliens here that are taking the jobs, the wages, and the working conditions, and destroying them for working Americans, which I always thought Democrats supported.

TERRY MCAULIFFE: I couldn't agree more. We've got to shut these borders down. These people shouldn't be coming in this country. We need to enforce our border protections. We have to do something for the people who have been here for years and have paid taxes -- you know, we're for the people who have been in this country and paying taxes and raising their family. But for the people who have not been here, who have been here illegally and have taken advantage of the situation, we need to have a plan to get them back to the countries they came from, and more important, which is the first thing John talks about, we have gotta shut these borders down. I couldn't agree more.

... I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, we all agree you've gotta shut the borders down. People who are coming into this nation taking our jobs.

We've got to have a plan to 'get them back to the countries they came from'?  'These people'.  'Taking our jobs'.  This is straight up Jim Sensenbrenner racism, and an endorsement of the vicious attacks on immigrants we've seen for years (including a jump in KKK membership we're seeing).  McAuliffe is a multi-millionaire, having profited handsomely to the tune of $14M from the Global Crossing fiasco, to the detriment of American shareholders.  He's also a global elitist, hanging out with the Clinton's on a regular basis, as well as other world leaders.  So in his case, immigrants aren't taking his job.  In fact, it's a lot more likely that real immigration reform, which would address NAFTA and poverty, would cost him and his friends money.  Or maybe he's just a straight up racist.  Or maybe, as the caller indicates, McAuliffe believes that 10% of the electorate is composed of racist Republicans that will sit out a election where they have the opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton.  I don't know which explanation makes McAuliffe come out worse.

Regardless, Hispanics moved dramatically to Democrats this election cycle, and every political strategist worth his or her salt knows that the party that captures this block of voters realigns the country to their advantage.  I hope that comments like these coming from campaign will see a quick disavowal from the Clinton campaign, and failing that, appropriate scolding from progressives and Hispanic leaders.  Racism and xenophobia from Hillary's campaign Chair are not ok.

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign got right back to me. Hillary Clinton says that McAuliffe speaks for himself.

“These comments do not reflect Senator Clinton’s thinking or her position on immigration.”

“America has been a beacon of opportunity to generations of immigrants and we need an immigration system that respects that heritage while also respecting the rule of law. Senator Clinton supports comprehensive reform that fixes our broken immigration system, strengthens our border security and sanctions employers who break the law. She has supported legislation that provides an earned path to citizenship while respecting the enormous contributions that immigrants make and continue to make to our country.”

McAuliffe says that he speaks for himself, but holds the same position as Clinton.

“My comments on a local radio program yesterday did not reflect Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s positions. Let me be clear, like the Senator, I support comprehensive immigration reform that respects our nation’s immigrant heritage and provides an earned path to citizenship, while maintaining strong, secure borders and respect for the law.”

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe (all tags)

Comments

55 Comments

Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Sounds like HRC is running for both the Democratic and Republican nominations.  Vote purple!

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-06 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

  I am involved in Democratic infrastructure-building in my community. I am Puerto Rican, speak fluent Spanish, and have my share of liaisons to the local Hispanic community.

  I will make sure that the community is made aware of these statements by Hillary's people. Many of them will be voting in the primary.

by Master Jack 2007-02-06 01:52PM | 0 recs
recommended reading

Great post Matt!

I'm going to have to mail Mr. McAuliffe another copy of our immigration report showing how supporting the workplace rights of immigrants is in the benefit of working Americans. And how immigrants have helped to expand the economy  because of their massive entrepreneurship, their paying taxes, their paying in to S.S. and of course their power as consumers.

Arg. McAuliffe's words are very troubling.

If you want info on what Sen. Clinton herself has said on immigration however  , read this http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/2007/01/ what_are_the_candidates_saying_1.html

by DMIer 2007-02-06 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: recommended reading

Could you post a link to that report?

by Peter from WI 2007-02-06 03:44PM | 0 recs
by DMIer 2007-02-07 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

No Democrat will ever go anti immigrant. This is because Immigrants make up a huge part of the Democratic Party base, Clinton has to look tough on "security", so stuff like this covers them from the conservative attack line of "not seeing the danger of criminals coming across the borders". This is just BS talk. If you want to keep illegal immigrants increase security on the border, help the countries find jobs for their people, reduce free trade so they won't have to come up here.  

by bsavage 2007-02-06 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

McAuliffe needs to go, it makes zero sense to vote for somebody whose campaign is being chaired by a dipshit.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-06 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Is he actually working for the campaign? I thought he was going around promoting his book and saying how much he supported Clinton.

by bsavage 2007-02-06 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

He's her campaign manager.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-06 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

This exchange puts him in the running for worst campaign manager ever.

by Steve M 2007-02-06 02:35PM | 0 recs
I second that motion

Does this make Bob Schrum the second worst ever?

by optimusprime 2007-02-06 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

campaign Chair, not manager

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-06 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Apologizes. Thanks for the correction.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-06 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

What's really shortsighted about this is that the Republicans are not going to be dominated by the Tancredo types.  Remember, whenever there is an internal struggle within the GOP, the moneyed interests win, and they are looking to Latinos as future consumers (really more so than as workers) and as potential Republicans (because they have to recruit some people of color, and the track record of Republicans with African-Americans isn't something that can be overcome quickly).

Hillary could find herself up against a candidate who supports some version of responsible immigration reform (McCain, if he survives the primary?) and get absolutely killed in the southwestern states that the Dems will need to win the presidency.

by Colorado Luis 2007-02-06 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Further proving that Hillary is much less concerned with a progressive future for this country than anything other than her own personal gain.  Thinking long-term for the best interests of party, the country, or those with whom she allegedly shares values is of no part of Hillary's political strategy.

by Peter from WI 2007-02-06 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Great post Matt.  I think too often in the past we have let racist type comments from politicians, both Rs and Ds, slide if the subject of the attack were hispanics.  And as for hispanics taking jobs, check out this great article on the economic vitality brought by immigrants, its at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/nyregi on/06entrepreneurs.html?hp&ex=117082 4400&en=8df879395e5347ac&ei=5094 &partner=homepage (sorry, I dont no how to create a text-based highlighted link).

by Andy Katz 2007-02-06 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

YEah that report by Center for an Urban Future was super hot. SO glad its getting press.

by DMIer 2007-02-06 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

WOW- Hillary's comment not regretting her war vote, and worse yet, conflating Iraq with 9/11; and Terry's racism (yes, that's what it is)- the dynamic duo hit the exacta today. I am speechless. Note to DEMS: the future of the party relies on hispanics- don't piss us off.  

by RAULC 2007-02-06 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Being against illegal immigration does not make one a racist.  But Democrats need to come out strongly for legal immigration: Anyone who comes to this country, plays by the rules, and assimilates is welcome.  Period.

by Awesome Dad 2007-02-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

I'm a liberal/progressive and I agree w/ you and w/ Parvin below. Uncontrolled immigration mainly benefits business by driving down the cost of labor. This puts greater stress on the middle and lower classes and worsens the situation in countries of the immigrants. The super wealthy oligarchy of Mexico has no incentive to fix their own country when they can import their problems to the USA. It is not compassionate, in the long run, to favor uncontrolled immigration.

Most progressive don't get it. Listen to Thom Hartmann (Air America) talk about immigration and see if he can convince you that immigration needs to be controlled.The corporate Republican love uncontrolled immigration (cheap labor). The Democrats are afraid to anger part of their base.

Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes made it easy to outsource our jobs. What jobs remain are in jeopardy by illegal hiring practices condoned by our government. I won't even mention the corporate driven H1 visas that are handed out like candy and have greatly devalued my PhD, but I feel lucky that I don't depend on a blue collar job.

Below is one of Hartmann's articles on immigration. Give it a read.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329 -21.htm

by Ready2Fight 2007-02-06 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

I have to disagree here. You do not have to be racist to want stricter immigration reforms. I am a non white kid of immigrant parents. I actually think by condoning illegal immigraaton we do a disservice for those Latinos who try to come in legally becaaue there will be not enough pressure to increase immigration quotas for Latino countries. I do support increasing the immigration quotas for Mexico and other countries.

But WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO SEND A MESSAGE to MEXICO to fix its problems. Mexican politicans are scum who don't give a shit about their people. I would increase quotas and encourage free movement of Mexicans from Mexic to the US and vice versa to really stir up the people over there to take control of their fate from the bastards who rule them.

Why aren't people marching against the MExican government with the same passion they are against the US government regarding immigration? Why not at least send a stateement to Mexico demanding they improve the lives of the poor people in their country who are forced to flee to make something of their lives and in the process are subject to a humiliating trek across the border and a lot of them have to endure indiginities along the way,  kooked up in an apartent with a bunch of other Mexicans and are afraid to complain to cops about Latino gangs for fear of getting deported ?

Aare there racists who want more controls for their own reasons? Sure. But we will only alienate people by using such broad language about illegal immigration.

And while I don't think border security can ever be made totally secure, if we can tolerate stupidass inconvenient security measures(like the new liquids rules) at airports which give us a false sense of security, I would trade that for mor border security which gives us more bang for the effort and buck.

by Pravin 2007-02-06 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

They were out in vast numbers during the last 'fixed' election.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-02-06 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Pravin,

We probably could increase legal immigration quotas, but only if we reduced illegal immigration by an equal or greater ammount.

by Awesome Dad 2007-02-06 02:34PM | 0 recs
Wha?

You must have missed this.

by Colorado Luis 2007-02-07 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wha?

I was talking about Mexicans over in the US not marching enough against Mexico's policies. Maybe Hispanic groups over here can help fund the marchers back home. in all the recent marches done recently, more time should have been spent bashing Mexico for forcing them to come over here illegally.

by Pravin 2007-02-08 10:27PM | 0 recs
Goodbye HRC
I had pretty much decided that Mrs. Clinton wasn't going to be my candidate but these comments by her Campaign Chair just put the nail in the coffin. As a Democratic Latina leader, pushing this sorry meme of Latinos/immigrants "taking our jobs" is complete BS. Since when has there been a race for American Citizens to become farmworkers? What most people don't understand is that it takes a lot more than crossing a fence to come into this country. There's a great documentary called "Wetback" (an unfortunate title imho) that's eye opening.
by nicthebrick 2007-02-06 02:32PM | 0 recs
From the progressive Latinos in my neighborhood

I just moved to a new neighborhood, mostly Latino and have had the pleasure of meeting loads of progressive activist who are doing things to change the status quo.  McAuliffe's recent comments was the topic of conversation at the beginning of the week.  From what I gleaned, if he keeps making comments like this, he'll definitely scare away people who were actively pushing for a Clinton nomination.  Already, he turned this small and vocal group.  These people who are not for looser immigration controls, but for making other countries responsible for

by fabooj 2007-02-06 02:34PM | 0 recs
Oops

Finger quiver there.  As I was saying...

their own people and having our country actually aid these countries, as opposed to paying lip service.  The main gist of what I heard is that their (grand)parents managed to come here via legal channels and it's not fair to others who are doing the same.  But when they were discussing McAullife's comments, it seemed like they understood a whole different subtext to them.  

by fabooj 2007-02-06 02:39PM | 0 recs
It's the subtext

I got in a conversation with someone about Joe Biden's remarks and why they were so offensive, and I was trying to explain that it's the subtext and code words that are so important in rhetoric like that.

This idiot's rhetoric is the same thing. Even leaving aside the idiocy of the policy (deporting millions of immigrants, many with children who are US citizens?), the rank xenophobia of the tone and subtext are enough to turn off anyone with the slightest sensitivity to immigrants.

This is a complicated issue, but when we allow politicians to descend to this level of gutter rhetoric, we debase our party. Leave this crap to Tom Tancredo and start listening to politicians with some real experience and knowledge about this issue.

by BriVT 2007-02-06 02:50PM | 0 recs
Terry is an Enabler

For those who subscribe to racist xenophobic viewpoints, congrats you got yourself a spokeperson.

I would be dismayed (knowing Terry's pivotal role on Hillary's staff) but not shocked if Hillary is trying to woo these voters as a 'in it to win it' strategy.

by optimusprime 2007-02-06 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

This is totally absurd.  No campaign chair speaks "just his own position".  Either he goes or he is speaking on HRC's behalf.  No third position.

Keep it up Hillary!!   You may outdo McCain for the race to the bottom.

by syvanen 2007-02-06 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

It is tiresome to comment on these dipshits such as McAuliffe who don't know diddly-squat about immigration.  Here in the Sonoran Desert, we've heard it all from both sides of the political aisle, and then some.

However and prior to 9-11, 90% of the undocumented immigrants from Mexico returned to Mexico.  As such, these immmigrants came thrice on average in a life time and always returned.  But because Anglo America freaked out about this ugliness for disrespecting brown people--all the security apparatus-established, debstabilized this migration pattern.

To wit, had passport control issues--ingress/egress, been addressed and funded adequately, 9-11 would have been a figment of imagination for some screen writer out of Hollywood.  Of course, both the Democrats and the Republicans are to blame since they did not ever put any priority of concern on either the ingress or egress systemic.  Sadly, this intellectual laziness got us to where we are today.

Of course, if you want to measure this metric for mental masturbation, ask yourself this:  Has this self-annointed "expert" ever made mention of our "littlest citizens" in which these are the children born in the USA and returned to the nation of origin of their parents of undocumented status?  

And furthermore, while these "experts" are having dinner with their immediate family members, are they thinking of our "littlest citizens" going to bed hungry that same evening, having access to decent health care, and even think that these kids may be lacking books in a school which may even be a hovel?

I think not, but then, what the hell do I know after having spent a large part of the past twenty years doing business in Latin America and for having some familiarity with migration patterns that are inherent in economic development.

And yes, I am a Chicano.

Jaango

by Jaango 2007-02-06 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

A follow-on post to those who speak fondly of changing Mexico into their image.

At some point in the future, expect the "aggessive" Moderates and "progressives" to begin addressing issues pertaining to Organized Labor in Mexico.  The Labor Unions are owned and operated by the federal government, and until this changes, nothing of importance will change in Mexico, so the migration patterns will continue into the future, and probably in larger numbers.

Ya' can't nuke Mexico and expect Americans to continue their investment patterns in Mexico.  Hell, it would not be surprising that Americans own most of Mexico, and Mexicans own most of the West due to wealthy Mexicans, investing in our housing mortgages.  A "safe harbor" as such, on both sides of the Border.

How is that for the Eternal Brotherhood for Irony?

by Jaango 2007-02-06 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Placing Terry's shameless pandering response aside, ILLEGAL immigration is a very real issue. Sadly, discussions about ILLEGAL immigration has been poisoned by racist xenophobes on the Right who attempt to disguise their bigotry under the rubric of "border security," and by vote-thirsty, open-border advocates on the Left who dishonestly blur the distinction between legal and ILLEGAL immigration.

This subterfuge prevents meaningful debate and discourages viable, moral solutions that protect the economic interests of the working poor and individuals from identity fraud.

Moreover, avoidance benefits the cheap labor interests of big business and deters needed changes to trade policies to help Mexico and the other Latin countries build healthy communities that serve the economic interests of their citizens.

by fafnir 2007-02-06 03:10PM | 0 recs
Why Hillary sucks...

Heh...heh...heh...

This is some great stuff Matt. This is what the blogosphere does very well.

Shine the light of reason on a dark corner...

And watch the cockroaches scurry into their filthy holes.

Clinton needs to go home and take her fat-assed hubby with her.

They are just as opposed to the progressive America I want to see as the Bush Crime Family, the ReThug Party or the Theocratic Fascists.

Without the intellectual and moral failure, no I'm not talkin' about Monica try NAFTA, of the Clintons there would have been no Bush Appointment in the first place.
.

.

by Pericles 2007-02-06 03:40PM | 0 recs
Racism Goes Much Deeper Than This

Racism is like an iceberg.  9/10ths of it is invisible, below the waterline.  While it's very important to focus on this sort of shit, particularly coming from where it does, we need to do much, much more to dig beneath the surface.

The "colorblind" rhetoric of the last 20-30 years is a key component in how post-segregation racism is expressed.  I wrote a diary just over a year ago, "GOP Racism Visible In Results--CA Scorecard Shows" which showed a dramatic gap between the voting records of California Democrats and Republicans on bills affecting racial equity.  I've just finished an article for Random Lenghts News (not published yet) that looks at the scorecard for 2006.  The results are similar--only a little worse for the Republicans.  Here's a taste:

Assembly Democrats scored 98 percent to 23 percent for Assembly Republicans; Senate Democrats scored 95 percent compared to 16 percent for their Republican counterparts. The divide was so vast that the lowest-score Democrat in the Assembly scored 25 percent higher than the highest-scoring Republican (80 to 55). In the Senate, the gap was 30 percent (70 to 40).

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-02-06 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Can we also note that Terry McAuliffe earned Disingenuous Douschbag of the Day status for saying he "couldn't agree more" with the caller when the first thing the caller said was that NAFTA (and CAFTA) are helping kill America and turn off voters?  Terry helped push NAFTA through!  He helped kill American jobs and economic health in so many communities around our country!  And when sacrificing economic security and ceding ground to the right on economics (allowing the conversation to be about 'tax cuts' and never talking about - or delivering on - economic justice and 'populist' stances), the Democratic Party allowed the right to make "cultural" issues like immigration and gays/guns/God to be the vote-determining factors.  Terry, you're not going to get white working-class voters back on our side by trying to trick them into thinking you corporate Dems are really with them.

I can hardly see a way for a Democrat to win in 2008 or beyond without addressing economic security issues.  And doing it well.

[Just a point here - my candidate, John Edwards, does the best job on talking about economics in a way that can bring white working-class voters back to the Democratic Party, get lower-income folks more engaged in politics because it can impact their lives, and position Democrats to take advantage of demographic shifts because we are being the party that cares about and works for Latinos/as.]

by Peter from WI 2007-02-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
Clinton's Rounding up 51%

Do what the Republicans do, which is to ignore campaign messages that they know are for the purposes of winning and not for the purpose of governing.  

Yes, Hillary (and Edwards) have been out pandering to AIPAC, and they'll all pander to a number of other constituencies before we win the election in 2008.  If you are against all pandering, you are against winning.

Is Clinton's 2009-2017 going to be worse than that of Bill Clinton?  Of course not.  If you successfull condemn all Democratic candidates for trying to round up a majority, will immigration policies be worse under a new Republicans Administration?  Of course they will be worse!

Keep it up, you guys!  Scream bloody murder each time our candidates bow to the Independents and undecideds, and we're going to get another Republican Administration in 2008!

I think you guys need to go beyond reading to DISCERNMENT!  This is going to be essential regardless of who our candidate is.  It's what enables Republicans to be fervently for their candidate even when he is out rounding up "moderates by promising" compassionate conservatism.  

Of course "compassion" is anethema to Republicans, but only if they really believe there is any chance that compassion will actually find its way into policy.  If they know it's just words, they ignore such palaver, and that's what you need to do when the Democrats talk tough on immigration, if you ever want to see another Democrat elected president.

You can safely ignore anything that all of our present candidates say when talking tough about immigration; they all need Latino votes too much to do anything that will seriously hurt Latino's interests once they are elected.

Latinos like Clinton and trust her based on past experience, so they're not going to take what Terry McAuliffe says seriously.  You've got to remember that Bill Clinton appointed Latino Bill Richardson to a cabinet position (interior, was it?, and then to the United Nations (Ambassador, was it?)  They also appointed Daval Patrick to the Justice Department before he became the first Black governor of Massachusetts.  They're not racists or jingoists, and we all know that. So we give them some slack while they round up 51%, so that they can come back and do some more good in the White House.

by francislholland 2007-02-06 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

It is the lack of moral and logical clarity in their moderation that shows that these people are more interested in pandering. I am for curtailing illegal immigration (does it make sense Democrats to scream about Dubai ports deaks but stay silent on porous border security?). So you would think I am the kind of moderate these people ara trying to reach. Wrong. If you look at my comment an compare it to Terry's, we have a totally different reasoning for what appears to be the same position. And this just tells me the kind of thinking that goes on their other issues.

by Pravin 2007-02-06 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

I see tremendous naiveté among our forces about what it will take to win the presidency.  Let's not forget this one fact:  The only people who have won the Presidency and been seated in the White House over the last thirty years is the Clintons.  You want purity?  Buy a poodle with a pedigree.  If you want to consistently hear your candidate say things that you agree with 100% until he loses on election day, then Hillary Clinton is not your candidate.  She is not going to say anything (or fail to say anything) that will have the effect of turning the White House over to the Republicans for another 8 years.  

I like Clinton for exactly the same reason that many people dislike her.  I understand that she will do everything it takes to win, and then she will govern as a liberal to the best of her ability.  Others prefer that she and all of our candidates run as a liberals, whether they win or not.  I'm tired of losing.  The Iraq War came from what?  Losing to George Bush.  Lose again, get another Republican war "mandate".  

It would be one thing if "progressive" Left wanted mostly to get into office to implement leftist policies.  That would be fine in my book.  But combine that with an insistence on exclusively espousing Leftist values throughout the campaign, in a way that limits the campaigns' attractiveness to non-Leftists, and now you have a recipe for electoral disaster, in my opinion.

Here's a morality quizz for you:  If a heavily armed cannabalistic pedophile breaks into you house and demands to know where your children are hiding, do you (1) tell him, because it's "important to have an honest process", or (2) keep quiet while he searches the house, hoping he won't find them, or (3) lie and say they have run out the back door into the field, and then take your kids and drive away as fast as you can.

If you are a Quaker and a member of the Underground Railroad movement, how do you respond when a slave catcher arrives at you door and asks, "Are you a member of the Underground Railroad Movement?"  Do you say, "Yes, I am!" with the moral certainty that you have done the right thing telling the truth, regardless of the consequences for those who are hiding in your cellar?

I know that a lot of progressives will insist on telling the truth in these situations, because "honesty is always the best policy".  In my way of thinking, there are times when moral absolutes must give way to moral imperatives.  Here, the moral imperatives are to save your children and to defend the slaves from those who would imorally enslave them again.  The moral imperative of the Democrats is to win over the country and take the Government back from the Republicans before they start World War III.  

Had I been a member of the Underground Railroad, I would have lied every time when slave-catchers came to my house.  If someone calls my house and asks if my children are home alone, I have told them to lie and say I am home asleep, but never to tell strangers that they are alone in the house.  If that is "disingenuous", then so be it.

by francislholland 2007-02-06 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

And so I don't care what Terry McAuliffe says to the anti-immigration crowd in an effort to dissuade them from voting Republican en masse.  I know what Hillary's immigration policy will be (much like it was before, in 1992-2000), and no pandering words issued on a right-wing talk radio program are going to convince me otherwise.  

Did the Clintons spends billions on an "immigration fence"?  No!  Did they round up immigrants at poultry factories?  No!  Did they establish torture chambers in Guantanamo Bay?  No! Why not?  Because that's not who they are and nothing has changed about them since then.

by francislholland 2007-02-06 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

Well if you are going to admire her win at all costs attitude ala Reeese Witherspoon in Election, then you better not complain ife she also drives away people to third party votes. If you are going to consider electability, then you better take the negative with the positive.

by Pravin 2007-02-06 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

It's third party people in Florida who gave us George Bush and Iraq.  I hope they'll think about that before they do anything drastic in 2008.  Regardless of whom we choose as the nominee, we're going to have to hold our noses and bite our tongues on a lot of occasions if we're going to elect a President in 2008.  If everything s/he says everywhere s/he goes is pleasing to us here at MyDD, then we can just kiss this election goodbye right now!

by francislholland 2007-02-06 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

By your logic, we should never vote third party in our lifetime because a republican presidency willl automatically mean total disaster. How ridiculous. The DLC types can always blackmail people into not voting 3rd party in any given cycle because of this reasoning.

Lets get this straight. In the worst case, Nader just gave rise to Bush. He did not give rise to Iraq. That was the doing of the weakness of the Dem party.

You do realize, that even if Nader was to declare to never run again, Repubs WILL WIN another election at some point in our lifetime. So are the DEms just going to let anything goes and try to win back the Preidency hoping the REpubs screw things so much that they win by default? If the Dems are truly a strong enough party, it should not matter if they lose Presidential power for a term once in a while.  They should be planning on strategy when that inevitability happens. Nader just accelerated that Democratic reform for us. There is no Dean or Webb if the DLC types got more powerful. I mean despite all the losses, the DLC types are still clinging on.

by Pravin 2007-02-07 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's Rounding up 51%

Bill governed as a liberal to the best of his ability too. But DLC tactics do not drive up base partisanship, they do not make independents into lifelong Democrats and if rhetoric like McAuliffe's is followed all that will happen is that Hillary Clinton will have to govern with a Republican congress.

51% is not enough to aim for. You shouldn't just say whatever is popular enough to get you over the finish line. That's not to say that you should go around saying unpopular things all the time, but you need to have some substantive principles to argue for, or Democrats once again get slandered as not believing in anything.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-07 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

I find it troubling that in the liberal blogosphere issues seem to be the sole litmus test for supporting a candidate.  That's for another debate, however.  The only other thing I wanted to address was the implication that somehow, because McAuliffe is friends with the Clintons, he somehow can't hold progressive views.  Are world leaders not allowed to have friends?  The petulance and elitism of the blogosphere has been one thing that has always bothered me about it, but I've always put up with it.  I will likely continue to read blogs like MyDD and Kos simply for the news updates, but when it comes to the opinions, I'll go elsewhere.  Too much negativity.  Terry McAuliffe and the Clintons have done so much for our party, which isn't to imply that the netroots haven't, but let's give credit where credit is due and allow public figures a gaffe or two without stringing them up by the heels and calling them names.  Sometimes I feel like I'm back on the elementary school playground when I'm on these sites.

by manteca514 2007-02-06 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

I find it troubling that in the liberal blogosphere issues seem to be the sole litmus test for supporting a candidate.

I'm genuinely hopeful that this is a typo.

by jsw 2007-02-06 04:54PM | 0 recs
You are SO right, Manteca!

I'm glad you said what you did!

by francislholland 2007-02-06 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

If iraq war vote was sole litmus test, then why isnt Edwards bashed more. It is only when Edwards starts talking about another issue Iran in a reckless manner, he gets bashed. It was how she behaved related to those issues for three whole years. It gives us an idea on how she will conduct herself with not only Iraq but Iran. Besides sole issue litmus test is fine when that sole issue is the biggest issue on the agenda for the term she is serving. If this was the 1970s, you bet pro choice would be a litmus test for many. It is also about character and Hillary has lied her ass off with the shifting positons. ONce again, if you read our comments in the last two days, we exposed some of her statements as lies versus mere political triangulation.

But then again, if you actually bothered to read our comments, you would know it was not about a sole issue litmus test.

by Pravin 2007-02-06 06:25PM | 0 recs
A question for Matt Stoller

Here's my Question for Matt Stoller:

Since you support "reform", and since one of the selling points of "reform" is more stringent enforcement, and since that enforcement would include deporting future illegal aliens, aren't you yourself endorsing the KKK by your own definition?

by TheLonewackoBlog 2007-02-06 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

If McAuliffe is saying that kind of stuff on talk-back radio what has he been telling the donors?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-06 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

Here we've got the opportunity to lock up the Hispanic vote for a generation, thanks to Tom Tancredo and his GOP buddies.

And Terry McAuliffe goes all "these people" on them.  Swell.

And these guys are the professionals??  No wonder we've been losing for so long.

Feingold is absolutely right: this cycle's going to be about the Democratic voters v. the D.C. (pseudo)Democratic consultant class.  

by RT 2007-02-07 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

I am a proud Dem, the child of Hispanic legal immigrants and I do not support illegal immigration.  Illegal aliens bust unions, drive down wages, drive up rents and do take jobs from Americans of all stripes.  And by the way, all illegal aliens are not brown/hispanic.  They come from china, eastern europe, ireland, africa, the point is you can be against illegal aliens and the damage they do to our economy and not be a bigot/racist/kkk.  the way to end illegal immigration is to fine employers who give them jobs.  There are no jobs Americans will not do.  Raise wages to living levels with commensurate benefits and even the worst jobs will get filled.  the worst jobs deserve the best wages and benefits.  why should our big business economy be subsidized by illegals?  Better pay/benefits and a lifting of all boats at the bottom of the ladder is exactly what the Dem party should stand for.  save the calls of racism for those who deserve it.  the business of the Democratic Party is not propping up the oligarchies of bannana republics.

by joker 2007-02-07 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

"There are no jobs Americans will not do." You are kidding, right? "Illegal aliens bust unions" -BS-sure they affect some workers- but was there ever a union for tomato pickers? And the drive to services unionization is heavely influenced by recent naturilized citizens who were here illegally. I bet you are a Cuban- that particular Hispanic group has a sweet deal concerning immigration-in essence - there is no such thing as an illegal Cuban immigrant- which is good- it would be nice if Cubans, who mostly support republicans (see a connection) supported similar laws as applied to Mexicans. Just to be sure, half of working class America has suffered net wage losses for thirty years and it has nothing to with illegal immigrants. You see- wealth creation in this country is a great as ever, but the distribution of it is what is broken.

by RAULC 2007-02-07 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008

It is not an issue of race, no matter how hard you wish it to be. It is an issue of economics and law.  Anyone entering this country illegally (note the word "illegally") should be treated in a manner fitting their actions. My family legally immigrated to this country and fought adversity to achieve success and fulfillment and I do not want the legacy of my relatives besmirched by those who choose to skirt the laws.  Advocating that immigrants enter this country legally is not scapegoating them -- it is only asking that they follow the law. What is missing here is that nobody is holding the farming industry, the meatpacking industry and other industries accountable for hiring illegals. Hold them legally accountable or incentivize them to make their illegals legal and then we may be getting somewhere. But please, when it comes to the issue of immigration let's start talking about solutions to this multifaceted problem and stop yelling and screaming like a bunch of four-year olds who aren't getting their way...And let's be done with the "I know you are but what am I" mentality of the current political discourse.

by GlenCoco 2007-02-07 10:36AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads