It's not like I wasn't expecting comments like those above. In fact, it's a tactic that Villaraigosa has employed in the past.
Last time around, a KNX (radio) reporter asked AV whether he still supported MEChA's goals. Did AV respond by saying, "No, I don't want to reclaim Mexico's lost territories. That Aztlan stuff is bunk!"
No, that's not what he said. In fact, he refused to repudiate MEChA or Aztlan. Instead, he called those who had accused him of being intolerant... intolerant themselves. Certainly a cute trick.
The problem with cute tricks is that smart people don't fall for them.
As I said before, eventually the truth will come out. "Liberals" will be shown to have been supporting the rather illiberal concept of ethnic nationalism. Call me all the names you want, the problem you guys have is there are lots and lots of facts out there that will greatly discredit "liberalism" among the great majority of Americans.
Good luck, and you can read up on MEChA here, here, and here.
Let's say you're a black politician and you aren't a racist. Let's say you're "inclusive".
You go to a rally, and you go up on stage and you see a bunch of guys with bow ties and bean pies. Do you continue to stand there surrounded by those guys, or do you beat a hasty exit?
It would be extraordinarly disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Villaraigosa did not know all about the BB's and their ideas. He should know, right? He's the former president of the UCLA chapter of the slighly less extreme group MEChA.
If you can kinda filter out the bad design and the POV, there are a lot of uncomfortable facts at mayorno.com. The L.A. Times has done a terrific job covering for him until now, but if he becomes mayor expect his actions to get national attention from less corrupt sources and expect those actions to further discredit Democrats near and far.
"...Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future. You are old and tired. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die."
FYI: "bigfern" has three comments, all on the L.A. Mayoral race. "Shimpiphany" has just one comment, that above.
Be that as it may, for those who are confused and didn't read the links above, let's try this from the other direction.
Last year, some California state representatives visited Mexico, and the report on that visit is here: Mexico City -- Members of the Assembly of California have asked the Mexican Senate (sic) to beseech Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill so that almost 2 million undocumented Mexicans can obtain driver's licenses that would serve as identification... The chairman of the Latino parliamentary group in California's congress, Marco Antonio Firebaugh, said that the governor "is the one who has the ability to make it law, to give this right to Mexicans, whether they have settled in California or not." ..."We want the Mexican people to know that the measure is on his desk," and that he has the power to decide, Firebaugh added... "However it is now September and he has not responded whatsoever, although we will insist on approval of the bill, basically so that illegal migrants can have access to education and health services in the U.S.," Firebaugh added...
So, to recap: elected U.S. politicians went to Mexico and tried to encourage that country to interfere in our laws. If you don't see a problem with that, then I don't think we have anything more to discuss.
Now, Villaraigosa was not, to my knowledge, involved in this trip.
However, can't we agree that the Kaus link provided above describes a situation close to the Firebaugh link? Maybe it's not quite as bad, but most people will agree it's some percentage as bad. Once again, if you think those two incidents are completely distinct, then there's nothing more to discuss.
Those who read the link I provided above will note what follows the two paragraphs I excerpted: other Latino leaders chided Villaraigosa for his statements and suggested that he wasn't mayoral material. Perhaps they were just "vendidos," right?
Two weeks ago, Antonio Villaraigosa, Speaker of the California Assembly and a leading candidate to be L.A.'s first modern Latino mayor, publicly thanked Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo for having "great impact in defeating Proposition 187" (the anti-illegal-immigration measure that passed in 1994 with almost 60 percent of the vote but has since been killed in the courts). The Los Angeles Times's story quoted Mexico's Deputy Foreign Minister, Juan Rebolledo, to the effect that Villaraigosa "gave [Zedillo] thanks on behalf of Mexican Americans." The Times then waxed enthusiastic about how Villaraigosa's comments heralded the "rise of a new phenomenon: cross-border politics," and what one expert called the "silent integration" of California and Mexico.
But there were at least four things conspicuously wrong with what Villaraigosa said: 1) It wasn't true; Zedillo didn't have a "great impact." Prop. 187 was struck down by a federal judge and then abandoned by the newly-elected Democratic Governor, Gray Davis -- a 187 opponent -- who "settled" the lawsuit by basically letting the judge's ruling stand; 2) Zedillo is head of a foreign power -- do we want American politicians encouraging him to meddle in California's affairs, especially to overturn the will of California voters? 3) Why thank Zedillo "on behalf of Mexican Americans?" Villaraigosa is Speaker of the state assembly -- doesn't he represent all Californians (many of whom were non-Mexican-Americans who opposed 187)? Villaraigosa's bald appeal to cross-border ethnic solidarity would be troubling even if it hadn't had a triumphalist "we beat the gringos" undertone. Mexican diplomat Robelledo said "I was surprised he was so explicit;" and 4) Zedillo's government is not exactly a model deserving of fawning flattery...
Now, people are free to support whomever they want. But, before supporting someone I'd suggest doing your research first. If you still support Villaraigosa after doing your research, then you share his goals.
Ja, Herr Scheisskopf, if that is in fact your real name...
So, the original post is telling us the people like big government. And, the Dem response to the problem pointed out by Herr S. should be... a celebration of big government?
Here's a better idea: somewhat smaller, much sounder government. An end to illegal immigration (see Hitchens's diary and my unanswered comment #27.) A restriction of the nanny state, a restriction of terrorism-and-Bush-sponsored infringements on civil liberties, and fighting against things like omnipresent security cameras.
That would be the way to win. The Republicans under the Bush dynasty won't do it. If the Dems don't do it, expect a third party to do it and at least come close.
The idea that Bush would support big government is not a shocking twist to many; he's basically a liberal with messianic tendencies.
I'm just one blogger, so it's difficult for me to correct all of the lies in that ProgressNow article. I'd also like to suggest that "liberals" look closely at their "friends."
I'm going to assume those "Ecuadorian immigrants" were in fact illegal aliens. The Feds probably weren't interested in them for two reasons: a) they didn't have enought manpower, and b) the employers of those illegal aliens would have thrown a fit. So, in their quest to support "immigrants", "liberals" end up supporting big corporate donors to Bush and a modern-day hacendado system.
ProgressNow attempts to buttress their argument by referring to the WSJ. And, a reference is given below to the WSJ as well.
Can you add two and two and look a bit more closely at your "friends"? Why would the WSJ oppose someone who's opposed to massive illegal immigration? Think about that for a few minutes and then you might wonder whether you should trust what ProgressNow tells you.
And, to help broaden your knowledge of this issue, consider an "immigrants guide" published by Colorado's Education Dep't. Sounds good, right?
Except it gives several tips for living here illegally. And, it was co-sponsored by the Mexican consulate. And, major funding came from:
the First Data Western Union Foundation, also offers advice on how to send money back to Mexico by electronic transfer by using companies "such as Western Union." A sample budget for "Jose and Ana Maria" budgets $200 per month to "family in Mexico."
Perhaps liberals should determine whether they're "pro-immigrant" or just suckers.
So are the freepers... Conservatives tend to view freedom primarily - if not exclusively - through an economic lens.
Those who do the latter are what we call "libertarians" or "Ayndy Randyans," not "conservatives." The words "liberal" and "conservative" encompass a whole wonderful rainbox of ideologies and only some of them are corporatist/market-in-everything types.
As for the perceived slight against FR, exactly how much time have you spent reading comments there?
Which post are you referring to? The end of the Jerome's story or my post?
"Post" doesn't equal "comment". That bit wasn't referring to your comment.
There are certainly bigots who oppose immigration in one form or another. On the other side, there are bigots and outright traitors who support massive immigration. And, there are groups who use the phrase "anti-immigrant" in order to smear the 75% or so of Americans who oppose illegal immigration. Meanwhile, some of those groups support a modern-day version of the bracero program (delousing pens anyone?) or would willingly give a foreign country more control over our country in exchange for money or votes.
This post is certainly informative. It seems to be implying that "conservative" = "bigot". Certainly something I'd expect from Atrios or DailyDross, but I thought this was a step above.
And, opposing massive illegal immigration or massive immigration is now apparently "anti-immigrant." For those who want to learn the truth, I'd suggest scanning one of my immigration categories.
Just as an example, here's a few things those who use the phrase "anti-immigrant" might consider "pro-immigrant":
California legislators ask Mexican Senate to intervene [in driver's licenses for illegal aliens]: [CA Assmblymn] Marco Antonio Firebaugh, said [in Mexico] that the governor "is the one who has the ability to make [giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens] law, to give this right to Mexicans, whether they have settled in California or not... We want the Mexican people to know that the measure is on his desk... However it is now September and he has not responded whatsoever, although we will insist on approval of the bill, basically so that illegal migrants can have access to education and health services in the U.S..."
"they were here first": CA Sen. Gil Cedillo said we should give driver's licenses to illegal aliens because "they were here first." By "first" he means before the U.S. southwest became part of the U.S.
Mexico to begin "propagating militant activities" in the U.S.: [Mexico's foreign minister Jorge] Castaneda said Mexican officials will begin rallying unions, churches, universities and Mexican communities. "What's important is that American society sees a possible migratory agreement in a positive light," Castaneda said. "We are already giving instructions to our consulates that they begin propagating militant activities -- if you will -- in their communities."
Vicente Fox:In the last few months we have managed to achieve an improvement in the situation of many Mexicans in that country, regardless of their migratory status, through schemes that have permitted them access to health and education systems, identity documents, as well as the full respect for their labor and human rights. And, that's not even the worst of what he said.