0 comment Thursday, May 8, 2014 | admin
Michael Finnegan, in this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses the uses to which the Internet is put in vetting the crowd of presidential candidates. You Tube has been a source of some clips which show the candidates flip-flopping, and contradicting themselves.
With its marriage of politics and mass technology, the explosion of video sharing on the web poses major risks for presidential candidates: Gaffes and inconsistent statements witnessed by dozens can be e-mailed instantly to millions.
The White House ambitions of Republican George Allen of Virginia were dashed in no small part by a web video that showed him, at a campaign event, calling an Indian American a "macaca." Allen also lost his November bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate.''
Mitt Romney appears in a clip , speaking in South Carolina, saying
I love immigration, I love immigrants, we're all descendants of immigrants... but let's make it legal immigration.
(Applause)
But he has not been consistent over time.
...To get to the right of McCain, he has trumpeted his stand in Massachusetts against gay marriage and reversed his position on abortion.
The issue that many believe Romney will use as a wedge between himself and McCain is immigration. McCain is firmly committed to a comprehensive plan along the lines proposed by President Bush. Romney has flirted with striking a more anti-immigration stance, which would endear him to a good portion of the Republican base and to many House Republicans. But as Sam Youngman reported yesterday in The Hill, Romney remained silent on the issue at a recent conservative summit.
In this article from the American Spectator, Philip Klein writes
In the next year, the leading Republican presidential candidates will do their best to placate the conservative base on the immigration issue. McCain will likely emphasize the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to go through to obtain citizenship under his reform plan. In a speech in New Hampshire a few days before the midterm elections, Giuliani gave a preview of how he may handle criticisms that he was lax on immigration as mayor. He argued that his policies as mayor were based on the fact that he took over a city that already had an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants and emphasized that many of the same tactics he employed to cut crime in New York could be applied to improving border security (such as increasing law enforcement personnel and making better use of technology). Romney, meanwhile, in one of his last acts as governor, authorized state troopers to detain illegal immigrants -- a move that drew kudos from Pat Buchanan.
But if none of these gestures is enough to satisfy anti-illegal immigration hardliners, Hillary Clinton may be able to return to the White House -- even if most people don't like her.''
Yeah, and it will be on our heads. This is the ever-present threat, the cudgel used to try to batter the 'anti-illegal immigration hardliners', so-called, into submission.
Klein in the above quote mentions Romney's previous feints on the immigration issue: his temporary get-tough stance as governor of Massachusetts, which coincidentally followed the revelation that he had used a landscaping firm which employed illegals.
Then, of course, at the recent 'conservative' summit he was silent on the immigration issue. Now, in the video clip, he is all in favor of immigration -- he loves immigration, just as long as it's legal. And by the way, he isn't in favor of deportation.
What he is saying may pass for tough talk among the metrocons and neocons who make up most of the GOP and the 'conservative' movement in America, but it puts him in the same territory as Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or most of the rest of the lackluster candidates.
Here, he says the Gingrich-esque things about 'learning English' and about welcoming educated, skilled immigrants. Um, Mitt, how many educated and skilled Latino immigrants are there out there? And do we have the will and the resources to vet all the millions of would-be immigrants -- presuming, of course, that the would-be immigrants suddenly develop a regard for laws and rules? Considering that ICE is already swamped. backlogged and overwhelmed, I somehow doubt that we have the means to screen those millions. Or the will.
Mitt has said that he would not deport, so Mitt, what would you propose to do with 30 million or so uneducated, unskilled illegals who are already here? Not to mention the many millions who haven't crossed the finish line yet?
I am skeptical that we can welcome immigration from the countries which are now sending most of the immigrants and still have skilled, educated, assimilable immigrants. It's all talk, meant to gull the easily-satisfied voters and to pander to the 'Hispanic vote.'
Personally I am scratching Romney's name from my list of 'candidates to vote for as a last resort.' Faced with a list of wishy-washy, all-things-to-all-people, middle of the road eunuchs, I will sit the election out with a clear conscience. Last time I voted halfheartedly, with great doubts about the choice I made, and I have since regretted it. No more of the 'lesser of two evils' approach. I've been called a 'purist' or a 'hard-liner' and all the rest of it; I've been warned that 'if Hillary gets elected, then it will be on your head' but I'm beyond being swayed by those kinds of chicken-little remarks from the party loyalists.
If we elect yet another Republican candidate who carries out liberal policies, who refuses to do the ultimate conservative thing and preserve our sovereignty, our borders, and our culture, then we further damage conservatism by allowing it to move permanently leftward, while our country slides into oblivion. If we must have liberal policies, let the liberals do the dirty work; let them be seen to be the authors of the destruction of the country, and maybe enough people will wake up and see that we need traditional conservative antidotes, not more of the same liberal poison.
If we have a Democratic president, maybe our Republican congressmen (and women; I'm being inclusive) will start acting like conservatives. I have no doubt that our Republican pols are willing to go along with liberal policies as long as a Republican president initiates them. Maybe a Democrat in the White House would inspire the GOP politicians to start rediscovering conservatism, and to start opposing liberalism instead of embracing it as most of them seem to be doing now.
Sadly, Romney seems to be just another liberal in conservative's clothing. As I've said, one cannot be a real conservative and support mass immigration and the kinds of wholesale changes to our country which are the inevitable result of mass immigration.
One cannot fight a 'war on terror' while welcoming Islam to set up shop in our country. All the rest of the conservative issues take a back seat to the question of whether we maintain our country, our language, our culture, and of course our safety and security within our lawful borders. Any candidate who isn't able or willing to acknowledge the importance of those issues is not a conservative, and no amount of hawkish posturing or penny-pinching fiscal conservative talk, or social conservative rhetoric will change that.
The media, and of course the pandering pols, are doing their best to avoid the thorny subject of immigration and borders. Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul are the only candidates among the whole crowd who are not guilty of equivocating, double-talk, or avoidance of the issue.
With its marriage of politics and mass technology, the explosion of video sharing on the web poses major risks for presidential candidates: Gaffes and inconsistent statements witnessed by dozens can be e-mailed instantly to millions.
The White House ambitions of Republican George Allen of Virginia were dashed in no small part by a web video that showed him, at a campaign event, calling an Indian American a "macaca." Allen also lost his November bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate.''
Mitt Romney appears in a clip , speaking in South Carolina, saying
I love immigration, I love immigrants, we're all descendants of immigrants... but let's make it legal immigration.
(Applause)
But he has not been consistent over time.
...To get to the right of McCain, he has trumpeted his stand in Massachusetts against gay marriage and reversed his position on abortion.
The issue that many believe Romney will use as a wedge between himself and McCain is immigration. McCain is firmly committed to a comprehensive plan along the lines proposed by President Bush. Romney has flirted with striking a more anti-immigration stance, which would endear him to a good portion of the Republican base and to many House Republicans. But as Sam Youngman reported yesterday in The Hill, Romney remained silent on the issue at a recent conservative summit.
In this article from the American Spectator, Philip Klein writes
In the next year, the leading Republican presidential candidates will do their best to placate the conservative base on the immigration issue. McCain will likely emphasize the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to go through to obtain citizenship under his reform plan. In a speech in New Hampshire a few days before the midterm elections, Giuliani gave a preview of how he may handle criticisms that he was lax on immigration as mayor. He argued that his policies as mayor were based on the fact that he took over a city that already had an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants and emphasized that many of the same tactics he employed to cut crime in New York could be applied to improving border security (such as increasing law enforcement personnel and making better use of technology). Romney, meanwhile, in one of his last acts as governor, authorized state troopers to detain illegal immigrants -- a move that drew kudos from Pat Buchanan.
But if none of these gestures is enough to satisfy anti-illegal immigration hardliners, Hillary Clinton may be able to return to the White House -- even if most people don't like her.''
Yeah, and it will be on our heads. This is the ever-present threat, the cudgel used to try to batter the 'anti-illegal immigration hardliners', so-called, into submission.
Klein in the above quote mentions Romney's previous feints on the immigration issue: his temporary get-tough stance as governor of Massachusetts, which coincidentally followed the revelation that he had used a landscaping firm which employed illegals.
Then, of course, at the recent 'conservative' summit he was silent on the immigration issue. Now, in the video clip, he is all in favor of immigration -- he loves immigration, just as long as it's legal. And by the way, he isn't in favor of deportation.
What he is saying may pass for tough talk among the metrocons and neocons who make up most of the GOP and the 'conservative' movement in America, but it puts him in the same territory as Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or most of the rest of the lackluster candidates.
Here, he says the Gingrich-esque things about 'learning English' and about welcoming educated, skilled immigrants. Um, Mitt, how many educated and skilled Latino immigrants are there out there? And do we have the will and the resources to vet all the millions of would-be immigrants -- presuming, of course, that the would-be immigrants suddenly develop a regard for laws and rules? Considering that ICE is already swamped. backlogged and overwhelmed, I somehow doubt that we have the means to screen those millions. Or the will.
Mitt has said that he would not deport, so Mitt, what would you propose to do with 30 million or so uneducated, unskilled illegals who are already here? Not to mention the many millions who haven't crossed the finish line yet?
I am skeptical that we can welcome immigration from the countries which are now sending most of the immigrants and still have skilled, educated, assimilable immigrants. It's all talk, meant to gull the easily-satisfied voters and to pander to the 'Hispanic vote.'
Personally I am scratching Romney's name from my list of 'candidates to vote for as a last resort.' Faced with a list of wishy-washy, all-things-to-all-people, middle of the road eunuchs, I will sit the election out with a clear conscience. Last time I voted halfheartedly, with great doubts about the choice I made, and I have since regretted it. No more of the 'lesser of two evils' approach. I've been called a 'purist' or a 'hard-liner' and all the rest of it; I've been warned that 'if Hillary gets elected, then it will be on your head' but I'm beyond being swayed by those kinds of chicken-little remarks from the party loyalists.
If we elect yet another Republican candidate who carries out liberal policies, who refuses to do the ultimate conservative thing and preserve our sovereignty, our borders, and our culture, then we further damage conservatism by allowing it to move permanently leftward, while our country slides into oblivion. If we must have liberal policies, let the liberals do the dirty work; let them be seen to be the authors of the destruction of the country, and maybe enough people will wake up and see that we need traditional conservative antidotes, not more of the same liberal poison.
If we have a Democratic president, maybe our Republican congressmen (and women; I'm being inclusive) will start acting like conservatives. I have no doubt that our Republican pols are willing to go along with liberal policies as long as a Republican president initiates them. Maybe a Democrat in the White House would inspire the GOP politicians to start rediscovering conservatism, and to start opposing liberalism instead of embracing it as most of them seem to be doing now.
Sadly, Romney seems to be just another liberal in conservative's clothing. As I've said, one cannot be a real conservative and support mass immigration and the kinds of wholesale changes to our country which are the inevitable result of mass immigration.
One cannot fight a 'war on terror' while welcoming Islam to set up shop in our country. All the rest of the conservative issues take a back seat to the question of whether we maintain our country, our language, our culture, and of course our safety and security within our lawful borders. Any candidate who isn't able or willing to acknowledge the importance of those issues is not a conservative, and no amount of hawkish posturing or penny-pinching fiscal conservative talk, or social conservative rhetoric will change that.
The media, and of course the pandering pols, are doing their best to avoid the thorny subject of immigration and borders. Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul are the only candidates among the whole crowd who are not guilty of equivocating, double-talk, or avoidance of the issue.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Politics, Presidential Candidates