There are two interesting (read: controversial) nominees up for the Federal Appeals Court. Both are very conservative, yet both could be tough for the Democrats/liberals to defeat. The first is Michael McConnell, whose anti-abortion and church/state views are causing alarm for groups like NARAL and the People for the American Way. But at the same time, he has the support of a large number of renowned legal scholars, including the liberal Laurence Tribe. Even more surprising is that the senior liberal in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, voiced his unqualified support for McConnell (what's up with that?!). With heavy-duty backing like that, McConnell is likely to be confirmed, or so I hear.
The 2nd nominee is Miguel Estrada, a favorite amongst conservatives. But even though the Dems are wary of Estrada, they don't have much to work with since, unlike McConnell, Estrada hasn't left much of a paper trail. I was surprised that all Hispanic Democrats in Congress are unanimous in their opposition, one of them going so far as to say that Estrada, aside from his surname, has no ties whatsoever to the Hispanic community (Estrada was born in Honduras and lived there until he was 17). No word yet on Estrada's chances, but I have to think it'll be very tough for the Dems to defeat his nomination.
The NY Times has a good article on the basics of the nominations and why liberals and conservatives alike should be paying attention to the fate of these two nominees.
[edited for a damn typo]
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
Full Version: Federal Appeals Court nominees
The Democrats are horrified that Miguel Estrada is being groomed to be the first Hispanic appointment to the Supreme Court. (The D.C. Circuit is traditionally a springboard to the Supremes.)
Horrified at Estrada's politics? No. Horrified that George W. Bush is about to completely undo the damage that Pete Wilson did to the national Republican party with Hispanic voters. A Latino appointment o the Supremes by President Bush would be a huge welcome mat out to Latino voters.
Horrified at Estrada's politics? No. Horrified that George W. Bush is about to completely undo the damage that Pete Wilson did to the national Republican party with Hispanic voters. A Latino appointment o the Supremes by President Bush would be a huge welcome mat out to Latino voters.
The Angst over Estrada in Democratic circles is only a preview of how they and HRC'll choke when the first openly gay Republican is nominated to ANY federal court. What a Gotterdaemmerung that'll be!
One Latino appointment, especially a Latino immigrant who is hostile 1) to other Latinos and 2) to immigrants in general, is not going to swing things around for the Republicans.
Speaking of hypocrites, what about Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who came out strongly against a young Latino immigrant who was trying to get a college scholarship and then more broadly against immigration? He was later revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house! He'll surely help the Republicans in the heavily Latino state of Colorado, I'm sure!
If Bush nominates a MODERATE REPUBLICAN QUEER for any post, I'M ALL FOR IT! His father did us a great favor with Souter. I say more like him! W. should really try to find more people like his new FDA chief. Or the hottie who's our Surgeon General. Or the Senators from Rhode Island or Maine or even Chuckie Hagel of Nebraska. Or our Secretary of State, a decorated veteran and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not all Republicans are evil (or hateful or hypocritical or seething with jealousy because liberals tend to be smarter and more attractive and win more Nobel Prizes and Rhodes Scholarships and have more sex). Just the extreme ones!
Speaking of hypocrites, what about Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who came out strongly against a young Latino immigrant who was trying to get a college scholarship and then more broadly against immigration? He was later revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house! He'll surely help the Republicans in the heavily Latino state of Colorado, I'm sure!
If Bush nominates a MODERATE REPUBLICAN QUEER for any post, I'M ALL FOR IT! His father did us a great favor with Souter. I say more like him! W. should really try to find more people like his new FDA chief. Or the hottie who's our Surgeon General. Or the Senators from Rhode Island or Maine or even Chuckie Hagel of Nebraska. Or our Secretary of State, a decorated veteran and the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not all Republicans are evil (or hateful or hypocritical or seething with jealousy because liberals tend to be smarter and more attractive and win more Nobel Prizes and Rhodes Scholarships and have more sex). Just the extreme ones!
How is Estrada hostile to other Latinos and immigrants in general? The only thing I've heard so far was the charge that Estrada is Hispanic in name only.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Speaking of hypocrites, what about Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who came out strongly against a young Latino immigrant who was trying to get a college scholarship and then more broadly against immigration? He was later revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house! He'll surely help the Republicans in the heavily Latino state of Colorado, I'm sure!
You've got your story wrong. Tancredo was not "revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house!" He hired a company to do work on his house, and the company he hired, unbeknownst to the Tancredos, had illegal aliens on their payroll. If you think this is just as bad, you must think a) that Tancredo should have, upon seeing hispanics working on his house, essentially profiled them and assumed they were in the country illegally and demanded to see their papers (Maybe he could have done it in a thick German accent! Then you and the Denver papers could have called him a Nazi!); and/or
that it is up to individual consumers to make sure each and every company they do business with does not have any illegal aliens on the payroll. How, exactly, do you propose this would work? Again - and at the risk of turning quick trips to DC-area McDonald's into weeklong endeavors - I suppose if I see a hispanic or any foreign-looking individual working at a company I'm about to do business with, I should demand to see some sort of documentation, just to make sure I'm in the clear. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm a compassionate conservative.
Speaking of hypocrites, what about Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who came out strongly against a young Latino immigrant who was trying to get a college scholarship and then more broadly against immigration? He was later revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house! He'll surely help the Republicans in the heavily Latino state of Colorado, I'm sure!
You've got your story wrong. Tancredo was not "revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house!" He hired a company to do work on his house, and the company he hired, unbeknownst to the Tancredos, had illegal aliens on their payroll. If you think this is just as bad, you must think a) that Tancredo should have, upon seeing hispanics working on his house, essentially profiled them and assumed they were in the country illegally and demanded to see their papers (Maybe he could have done it in a thick German accent! Then you and the Denver papers could have called him a Nazi!); and/or
that it is up to individual consumers to make sure each and every company they do business with does not have any illegal aliens on the payroll. How, exactly, do you propose this would work? Again - and at the risk of turning quick trips to DC-area McDonald's into weeklong endeavors - I suppose if I see a hispanic or any foreign-looking individual working at a company I'm about to do business with, I should demand to see some sort of documentation, just to make sure I'm in the clear. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm a compassionate conservative.
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
The Angst over Estrada in Democratic circles is only a preview of how they and HRC'll choke when the first openly gay Republican is nominated to ANY federal court.
I assume you used the word "openly" to distinguish Justice Souter.
The Angst over Estrada in Democratic circles is only a preview of how they and HRC'll choke when the first openly gay Republican is nominated to ANY federal court.
I assume you used the word "openly" to distinguish Justice Souter.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
You've got your story wrong. Tancredo was not "revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house!" He hired a company to do work on his house, and the company he hired, unbeknownst to the Tancredos, had illegal aliens on their payroll. If you think this is just as bad, you must think a) that Tancredo should have, upon seeing hispanics working on his house, essentially profiled them and assumed they were in the country illegally and demanded to see their papers (Maybe he could have done it in a thick German accent! Then you and the Denver papers could have called him a Nazi!); and/or that it is up to individual consumers to make sure each and every company they do business with does not have any illegal aliens on the payroll. How, exactly, do you propose this would work? Again - and at the risk of turning quick trips to DC-area McDonald's into weeklong endeavors - I suppose if I see a hispanic or any foreign-looking individual working at a company I'm about to do business with, I should demand to see some sort of documentation, just to make sure I'm in the clear. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm a compassionate conservative.
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
You've got your story wrong. Tancredo was not "revealed to have hired illegal immigrants to do work on his house!" He hired a company to do work on his house, and the company he hired, unbeknownst to the Tancredos, had illegal aliens on their payroll. If you think this is just as bad, you must think a) that Tancredo should have, upon seeing hispanics working on his house, essentially profiled them and assumed they were in the country illegally and demanded to see their papers (Maybe he could have done it in a thick German accent! Then you and the Denver papers could have called him a Nazi!); and/or
that it is up to individual consumers to make sure each and every company they do business with does not have any illegal aliens on the payroll. How, exactly, do you propose this would work? Again - and at the risk of turning quick trips to DC-area McDonald's into weeklong endeavors - I suppose if I see a hispanic or any foreign-looking individual working at a company I'm about to do business with, I should demand to see some sort of documentation, just to make sure I'm in the clear. Well, thanks, but no thanks. I'm a compassionate conservative.He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
Kids kids. Tancredo is an anti-immigrant extremist. Not everyone who wants to restrict immigration should be labelled an "anti-immigrant extremist, but Tancredo certainly is. Didn't he turn in some honor student to the INS after he read about the kid in the newspaper doing something good? That's harsh.
But the incident at his house, with the contractor's workers, could've happened to any of us. He had no duty to investigate, nor should he have. It's not evidence that should be used against him. His actual behavior is bad enough: you don't also have to try to build him up into a hypoocrite when there's no real evidence of hypocrisy.
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
Kids kids. Tancredo is an anti-immigrant extremist. Not everyone who wants to restrict immigration should be labelled an "anti-immigrant extremist, but Tancredo certainly is. Didn't he turn in some honor student to the INS after he read about the kid in the newspaper doing something good? That's harsh.
But the incident at his house, with the contractor's workers, could've happened to any of us. He had no duty to investigate, nor should he have. It's not evidence that should be used against him. His actual behavior is bad enough: you don't also have to try to build him up into a hypoocrite when there's no real evidence of hypocrisy.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
I would NEVER have the unmitigated gall to demand the immigrant documentation of anybody unless I were actually their (direct) employer, in which case it's required by law. Tancredo is not in the wrong here. If you don't like Tancredo, then criticize his legislative activity, but not this. fantomas, frankly, you're just being blindly partisan.
I'm guessing the liberals/Democrats who used this episode to discredit Tancredo were also decrying the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Both actions are wrong, and to use one party's dirty tricks to justify your own ... well, obviously somebody's mother never told them about two wrong's not making a right.
I asked earlier about how exactly has Estrada been anti-Latino and anti-immigrant. Let's talk about specifics and details ... God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
I would NEVER have the unmitigated gall to demand the immigrant documentation of anybody unless I were actually their (direct) employer, in which case it's required by law. Tancredo is not in the wrong here. If you don't like Tancredo, then criticize his legislative activity, but not this. fantomas, frankly, you're just being blindly partisan.
I'm guessing the liberals/Democrats who used this episode to discredit Tancredo were also decrying the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Both actions are wrong, and to use one party's dirty tricks to justify your own ... well, obviously somebody's mother never told them about two wrong's not making a right.
I asked earlier about how exactly has Estrada been anti-Latino and anti-immigrant. Let's talk about specifics and details ... God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.
Tancredo is more of a hypocrite for initially running on a platform that supported term limits- he said he'd only serve 3 terms if elected -- only to walk away yesterday from that pledge -- he has decided he too is indispensible here in DC.
As for Estrada, absolutely we need to find out more. Hispanic groups seem to be divided, with LULAC on the pro side. Others think he may be some sort of Tio Tomas ...
As for Estrada, absolutely we need to find out more. Hispanic groups seem to be divided, with LULAC on the pro side. Others think he may be some sort of Tio Tomas ...
Estrada appears to be holding up well before the Senate Judiciary Committee, so unless they can find something, he may just get through. Bush should put up conservative Alberto Gonzales, who does appear to be fair with regard to the law.
More on Estrada at: Jack Newfield's piece on Bush's nominees
From the article: "The Bush political operation has been working overtime trying to generate at least some token Latino support for Estrada. In June the eighteen-member Hispanic Caucus of the Congress--all Democrats--had a closed meeting with Estrada to which the White House reluctantly agreed. "I asked him a very specific question about affirmative action and minority businesses," says Nydia Velázquez, the five-term Congresswoman from Brooklyn, "and he just would not say anything meaningful about it. And then he was quite insensitive about immigrant rights--and he is an immigrant himself! Estrada has no understanding of the needs and aspirations of the Latino community. He has no history of effort in trying to help other Hispanics." She adds, "I don't think he is going to make a good impression on the Senate. He does not answer questions. And if you ask him again, he becomes abrasive."
Seven-term Congressman José Serrano came away with an even harsher view. "Estrada seems baffled," Serrano told me, "about why we would even ask him questions about justice and empowerment. He wouldn't even acknowledge there has been discrimination against Hispanics in America. He seemed lost, like he had never been involved in any struggle to better the lives of Hispanics. He had no comprehension of Latino history and suffering."
As a result of this performance, Velázquez and Serrano say, the Hispanic Caucus is sending a letter to Senator Leahy opposing Estrada's confirmation. Perhaps even more significant, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has also voted to fund's early decision may now influence other Latino civil rights organizations like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza and the National Puerto Rican Coalition."
More on Estrada at: Jack Newfield's piece on Bush's nominees
From the article: "The Bush political operation has been working overtime trying to generate at least some token Latino support for Estrada. In June the eighteen-member Hispanic Caucus of the Congress--all Democrats--had a closed meeting with Estrada to which the White House reluctantly agreed. "I asked him a very specific question about affirmative action and minority businesses," says Nydia Velázquez, the five-term Congresswoman from Brooklyn, "and he just would not say anything meaningful about it. And then he was quite insensitive about immigrant rights--and he is an immigrant himself! Estrada has no understanding of the needs and aspirations of the Latino community. He has no history of effort in trying to help other Hispanics." She adds, "I don't think he is going to make a good impression on the Senate. He does not answer questions. And if you ask him again, he becomes abrasive."
Seven-term Congressman José Serrano came away with an even harsher view. "Estrada seems baffled," Serrano told me, "about why we would even ask him questions about justice and empowerment. He wouldn't even acknowledge there has been discrimination against Hispanics in America. He seemed lost, like he had never been involved in any struggle to better the lives of Hispanics. He had no comprehension of Latino history and suffering."
As a result of this performance, Velázquez and Serrano say, the Hispanic Caucus is sending a letter to Senator Leahy opposing Estrada's confirmation. Perhaps even more significant, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund has also voted to fund's early decision may now influence other Latino civil rights organizations like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza and the National Puerto Rican Coalition."
[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Tancredo is more of a hypocrite for initially running on a platform that supported term limits- he said he'd only serve 3 terms if elected -- only to walk away yesterday from that pledge -- he has decided he too is indispensible here in DC.
Is Paul Wellstone in MN also a hypocrite? He pledged a two-term limit, but then decided he too was indispensible in our fair city. For what it's worth, I oppose official term limits, and pols should think long and hard before they make such a pledge. Though generally backing out of that pledge doesn't hurt anybody.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]
Tancredo is more of a hypocrite for initially running on a platform that supported term limits- he said he'd only serve 3 terms if elected -- only to walk away yesterday from that pledge -- he has decided he too is indispensible here in DC.
Is Paul Wellstone in MN also a hypocrite? He pledged a two-term limit, but then decided he too was indispensible in our fair city. For what it's worth, I oppose official term limits, and pols should think long and hard before they make such a pledge. Though generally backing out of that pledge doesn't hurt anybody.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
I would NEVER have the unmitigated gall to demand the immigrant documentation of anybody unless I were actually their (direct) employer, in which case it's required by law. Tancredo is not in the wrong here. If you don't like Tancredo, then criticize his legislative activity, but not this. fantomas, frankly, you're just being blindly partisan.
I'm guessing the liberals/Democrats who used this episode to discredit Tancredo were also decrying the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Both actions are wrong, and to use one party's dirty tricks to justify your own ... well, obviously somebody's mother never told them about two wrong's not making a right.
I asked earlier about how exactly has Estrada been anti-Latino and anti-immigrant. Let's talk about specifics and details ... God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.
Talk about the road calling the sidewalk gray...you ask for a "meaningful exchange of ideas" then start on about "liberals/Democrats" using Tancredo's hypocrisy against him. HE is the one who asked the INS to deport Jesús Apodaca and his family. Republicans were trying to distance themselves from him. Moreover, a newspaper--not liberals/Democrats--first identified the fact that Tancredo had employed a contractor who had employed these immigrant workers to build his home recreation center. Tancredo Student Flap Info Here
*I* wouldn't ask about someone's immigrant status, but then I'm also not railing against immigrants or calling the INS to try and have them expelled, as Tancredo did. I live in a state and in a county that have hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal. I'm not a rich Congressman, but I usually have some clue about the people working in my home. Immigrants--legal and illegal--contribute an incredible amount to this nation, and probably figure somewhere in the family trees of nearly everyone writing in here (some of us also have Native American and African slaves among our forebears, but they could also be considered immigrants of a different fashion).
I believe Paul Wellstone is wrong not to have stepped down if that's the pledge he made, but then he's become more of a pragmatist and less of a liberal idealist since he went to Washington. I too am against term limits, especially if they're not universally applied, because at the federal level they allow the representatives of those states and districts that do NOT impose them to gain seniority at the expense of states that do. Were they universally applied--still a bad idea--we'd not have the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings...uh, maybe they aren't such a bad idea!
I would NEVER have the unmitigated gall to demand the immigrant documentation of anybody unless I were actually their (direct) employer, in which case it's required by law. Tancredo is not in the wrong here. If you don't like Tancredo, then criticize his legislative activity, but not this. fantomas, frankly, you're just being blindly partisan.
I'm guessing the liberals/Democrats who used this episode to discredit Tancredo were also decrying the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Both actions are wrong, and to use one party's dirty tricks to justify your own ... well, obviously somebody's mother never told them about two wrong's not making a right.
I asked earlier about how exactly has Estrada been anti-Latino and anti-immigrant. Let's talk about specifics and details ... God forbid we have a meaningful exchange of ideas.
Talk about the road calling the sidewalk gray...you ask for a "meaningful exchange of ideas" then start on about "liberals/Democrats" using Tancredo's hypocrisy against him. HE is the one who asked the INS to deport Jesús Apodaca and his family. Republicans were trying to distance themselves from him. Moreover, a newspaper--not liberals/Democrats--first identified the fact that Tancredo had employed a contractor who had employed these immigrant workers to build his home recreation center. Tancredo Student Flap Info Here
*I* wouldn't ask about someone's immigrant status, but then I'm also not railing against immigrants or calling the INS to try and have them expelled, as Tancredo did. I live in a state and in a county that have hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal. I'm not a rich Congressman, but I usually have some clue about the people working in my home. Immigrants--legal and illegal--contribute an incredible amount to this nation, and probably figure somewhere in the family trees of nearly everyone writing in here (some of us also have Native American and African slaves among our forebears, but they could also be considered immigrants of a different fashion).
I believe Paul Wellstone is wrong not to have stepped down if that's the pledge he made, but then he's become more of a pragmatist and less of a liberal idealist since he went to Washington. I too am against term limits, especially if they're not universally applied, because at the federal level they allow the representatives of those states and districts that do NOT impose them to gain seniority at the expense of states that do. Were they universally applied--still a bad idea--we'd not have the likes of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings...uh, maybe they aren't such a bad idea!
Office holders, particularly members of Congress are rightfully held to a higher standard. We do scrtutinize who they do business with because business can be a corrupt process. We certainly would be in our rights to scrutinize what work was done and what was paid to make sure this wasn't a bribe in disguise. So to, if an official is going to take a particularly hard line stance on an issue, they need to make sure there are no skeletons in their new walk-in closets. It's a legitimate complaint, but it should be seen in perspective.
And, yes, Paul Wellstone is a hypocrite. Being a moderate liberal, I've experienced him as a pain in the ass since he was elected. And now he's doing the party a further disservice by ignoring pledges he made when he came into politics. Oh well, with friends like these, who needs Republicans?
And, yes, Paul Wellstone is a hypocrite. Being a moderate liberal, I've experienced him as a pain in the ass since he was elected. And now he's doing the party a further disservice by ignoring pledges he made when he came into politics. Oh well, with friends like these, who needs Republicans?
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Moreover, a newspaper--not liberals/Democrats--first identified the fact that Tancredo had employed a contractor . . .
Oh, well, as long as it was the media, I guess liberals and Democrats couldn't have been involved. Thanks for clearing that up.
Moreover, a newspaper--not liberals/Democrats--first identified the fact that Tancredo had employed a contractor . . .
Oh, well, as long as it was the media, I guess liberals and Democrats couldn't have been involved. Thanks for clearing that up.
What you guys seem to be saying is that if you are opposed to immigration you are responsible for everyone else's abuse of the immigration system, i.e. hiring illegal aliens. I suppose if Tancredo catches a cab from the airport to his office on Capitol Hill, he is required to make sure that cab company's drivers are here legally. Or if he eats dinner at a restaurant, he should go check the busboys' papers just to make sure everything's on the up and up. If not, liberals/Democrats - I'm sorry, I mean the media - will be forced to do their duty and expose his hypocrisy. Wow, you guys are a tough crowd.
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Talk about the road calling the sidewalk gray...you ask for a "meaningful exchange of ideas" then start on about "liberals/Democrats" using Tancredo's hypocrisy against him.
fantomas, you unfairly misrepresented what I wrote. It was WRONG of the Republicans to impeach Clinton, and those who defended Clinton were right to denounce the impeachment. But this atack on Tancredo is just as wrong. If you want to defeat your political opponents, at least play fair.
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. The thread about nasty posts makes a lot of good points about the pathetic partisan bickering ("Conservatives are ass****s!", "Liberals suck!!" ... yeah, that does everybody a whole lot of good). I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
Talk about the road calling the sidewalk gray...you ask for a "meaningful exchange of ideas" then start on about "liberals/Democrats" using Tancredo's hypocrisy against him.
fantomas, you unfairly misrepresented what I wrote. It was WRONG of the Republicans to impeach Clinton, and those who defended Clinton were right to denounce the impeachment. But this atack on Tancredo is just as wrong. If you want to defeat your political opponents, at least play fair.
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. The thread about nasty posts makes a lot of good points about the pathetic partisan bickering ("Conservatives are ass****s!", "Liberals suck!!" ... yeah, that does everybody a whole lot of good). I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
Back to the subject at hand, I don't see how opposition to affirmative action makes Estrada anti-Latino. I oppose hate crimes legislation. That doesn't mean I'm anti-gay. It just means that my values and principles differ from those who favor such legislation. As for minority businesses, Rep. Velazquez doesn't say anything one way or the other, except she clearly didn't like what he had to say. Again, doesn't prove Estrada's anti-Latino, just that he and Rep. Velazquez differ in their political views.
It sounds like the same song, different verse with Representative Serrano. It's clear that Rep. Serrano doesnt like Estrada. Simply because Estrada has had a very different immigrant experience and doesn't share the Representative's liberal politics, it doesn't mean Estrada's anti-Latino. Estrada is an immigrant who came here at 17, went to Columbia and Harvard Law School, and has made a very successful career for himself in the law. I'm sure he faced adversity and discrimination at many points along that road. I can't imagine Estrada has "no comprehension" of what Hispanics deal with and experience in this country.
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics. The Senate will have to determine if Estrada's legal view of, say, affirmative action is based in the law or a manifestation of his political agenda. I doubt they'll prove the latter, and I think Estrada will be confirmed. By the way, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg clearly has a feminist agenda. I still think she's an excellent jurist.
It sounds like the same song, different verse with Representative Serrano. It's clear that Rep. Serrano doesnt like Estrada. Simply because Estrada has had a very different immigrant experience and doesn't share the Representative's liberal politics, it doesn't mean Estrada's anti-Latino. Estrada is an immigrant who came here at 17, went to Columbia and Harvard Law School, and has made a very successful career for himself in the law. I'm sure he faced adversity and discrimination at many points along that road. I can't imagine Estrada has "no comprehension" of what Hispanics deal with and experience in this country.
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics. The Senate will have to determine if Estrada's legal view of, say, affirmative action is based in the law or a manifestation of his political agenda. I doubt they'll prove the latter, and I think Estrada will be confirmed. By the way, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg clearly has a feminist agenda. I still think she's an excellent jurist.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics. The Senate will have to determine if Estrada's legal view of, say, affirmative action is based in the law or a manifestation of his political agenda. I doubt they'll prove the latter, and I think Estrada will be confirmed. By the way, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg clearly has a feminist agenda. I still think she's an excellent jurist.
I wish you'd told John Ashcroft this when he demagogued against Ronnie White. Or that you'd sent letters to the Republicans when they forced Miguel Paez to languish for months after Clinton had appointed him to the bench. It's so....
Btw, Miguel Estrada is from a wealthy Honduran family. He comes from considerable privilege in an extraordinarily poor country. That should by no means disqualify him for anything, but it is one reason his experience is quite different from that of the majority of Latino immigrants to this country, and indeed to many Latinos who were born here, like Velázquez. Again, these are not reasons to disqualify him. I mean, Jay Rockefeller was born rich, and he has represented the poor and working-class of his state pretty well.
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics. The Senate will have to determine if Estrada's legal view of, say, affirmative action is based in the law or a manifestation of his political agenda. I doubt they'll prove the latter, and I think Estrada will be confirmed. By the way, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg clearly has a feminist agenda. I still think she's an excellent jurist.
I wish you'd told John Ashcroft this when he demagogued against Ronnie White. Or that you'd sent letters to the Republicans when they forced Miguel Paez to languish for months after Clinton had appointed him to the bench. It's so....
Btw, Miguel Estrada is from a wealthy Honduran family. He comes from considerable privilege in an extraordinarily poor country. That should by no means disqualify him for anything, but it is one reason his experience is quite different from that of the majority of Latino immigrants to this country, and indeed to many Latinos who were born here, like Velázquez. Again, these are not reasons to disqualify him. I mean, Jay Rockefeller was born rich, and he has represented the poor and working-class of his state pretty well.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics.
Tell that to Charles Pickering or Priscilla Owen. Technically you can do this. Maybe you shouldn't but you can. Generally you just come up with other reasons to hide what you're doing. That will be harder in this case. Hopefully the GOP will take back the Senate in Nov. and none of this will matter.
You can't disqualify a nominee simply because you don't like his politics.
Tell that to Charles Pickering or Priscilla Owen. Technically you can do this. Maybe you shouldn't but you can. Generally you just come up with other reasons to hide what you're doing. That will be harder in this case. Hopefully the GOP will take back the Senate in Nov. and none of this will matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
I assume you used the word "openly" to distinguish Justice Souter.
Among others, yes.
I attended Souter's swearing-in and met him and the other Justices at a reception afterwards. I was struck by Souter's "reticence" as much as I was by Scalia's bluster and Marshall's genuine courtesy. It was a very interesting day!
***
From Fantomas, we learn that "One Latino appointment, especially a Latino immigrant who is hostile 1) to other Latinos and 2) to immigrants in general, is not going to swing things around for the Republicans."
OK, here we go again, and thanks for asking, BSR: facts, please FT, evidencing Estrada's alleged hostility to these to groups. And don't go changing the story and hiding behind the Tancredo tale or trying to appear faux raissonable now that things appear to be going Estrada's way - "Keep that in mind." Trotting out statements from the most radical of the Latino socialist/victims organizations - PRLDEF, MALDEF, La Raza, etc. - or their Democratic stooges in Congress won't cut it. Just because he doesn't buy into their clicheed Newspeak about "empowerment" and avoids their adherence to affirmative action (read, quotas and "bean counting" [to quote your buddy Bill]) hardly disqualifies him in my mind; it adds the unique credibility the usually accompanies true individuals who can and aren't afraid to think for themselves.
BTW, MANY Hispanics, and others (Persians come to mind) emigrate to the US as wealthy people. Does that mean they don't get to try for the same things the rest of us poor suckers do? Or is the USA only for losers and wretched refuse. Lots of inconsistencies here, FT; you're slipping fast.
***
You JQ, come out of all this smelling like a rose! Can we talk?
I assume you used the word "openly" to distinguish Justice Souter.
Among others, yes.
I attended Souter's swearing-in and met him and the other Justices at a reception afterwards. I was struck by Souter's "reticence" as much as I was by Scalia's bluster and Marshall's genuine courtesy. It was a very interesting day!
***
From Fantomas, we learn that "One Latino appointment, especially a Latino immigrant who is hostile 1) to other Latinos and 2) to immigrants in general, is not going to swing things around for the Republicans."
OK, here we go again, and thanks for asking, BSR: facts, please FT, evidencing Estrada's alleged hostility to these to groups. And don't go changing the story and hiding behind the Tancredo tale or trying to appear faux raissonable now that things appear to be going Estrada's way - "Keep that in mind." Trotting out statements from the most radical of the Latino socialist/victims organizations - PRLDEF, MALDEF, La Raza, etc. - or their Democratic stooges in Congress won't cut it. Just because he doesn't buy into their clicheed Newspeak about "empowerment" and avoids their adherence to affirmative action (read, quotas and "bean counting" [to quote your buddy Bill]) hardly disqualifies him in my mind; it adds the unique credibility the usually accompanies true individuals who can and aren't afraid to think for themselves.
BTW, MANY Hispanics, and others (Persians come to mind) emigrate to the US as wealthy people. Does that mean they don't get to try for the same things the rest of us poor suckers do? Or is the USA only for losers and wretched refuse. Lots of inconsistencies here, FT; you're slipping fast.
***
You JQ, come out of all this smelling like a rose! Can we talk?
[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
OK, here we go again, and thanks for asking, BSR: facts, please FT, evidencing Estrada's alleged hostility to these to groups. And don't go changing the story and hiding behind the Tancredo tale or trying to appear faux raissonable now that things appear to be going Estrada's way - "Keep that in mind." Trotting out statements from the most radical of the Latino socialist/victims organizations - PRLDEF, MALDEF, La Raza, etc. - or their Democratic stooges in Congress won't cut it. Just because he doesn't buy into their clicheed Newspeak about "empowerment" and avoids their adherence to affirmative action (read, quotas and "bean counting" [to quote your buddy Bill]) hardly disqualifies him in my mind; it adds the unique credibility the usually accompanies true individuals who can and aren't afraid to think for themselves.
BTW, MANY Hispanics, and others (Persians come to mind) emigrate to the US as wealthy people. Does that mean they don't get to try for the same things the rest of us poor suckers do? Or is the USA only for losers and wretched refuse. Lots of inconsistencies here, FT; you're slipping fast.
Gmgsfinfo, you really should take something because you become way too emotional at the drop of a hat. Liberals are the emotional ones, remember. Read what I wrote. I said in my comment that that his having come from a wealthy background shouldn't be an issue--just as it wasn't for Jay Rockefeller. Did you not read that? Probably not. The U.S. has always rolled out the carpet for wealthy people, whatever their backgrounds, however they made their money. They could be former dictators and they'll find a waiting estate in Florida--just ask the people of the Philippines or Haiti etc. about that.
The VAST majority of Latinos emigrate to this country from middle-class, working-class or poor backgrounds. The overwhelming majority of Latino immigrants come from Mexico, followed by the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Guatemala, Colombia, etc. They are NOT RICH. The wealthy people in those nations (except for Cuba, obviously, and Colombia now) usually have no need to immigrate--they often can come and go as they please. I went to school with and have taught rich Latin Americans, and I can assure you, they are far less constrained in their comings and goings than the majority of their fellow countrypeople. How "Persians" (Iranians) enter in this I'm not sure, but I suppose you're grasping for straws.
Also, who in the HELL are you to talk about Latino socialist/victim organizations? I've worked with PRLDF and other Puerto Rican groups, and I can tell you your characterization is totally wrong. There's not a socialist thing ABOUT them. But since you know so much you show me where in their literature they are "socialist".
Nothing would qualify Estrada for you because he's obviously on the right, as former George H. W. Bush staffer C. Boyden Gray noted tonight on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer." Two Latino Congresspeople, from my region no less, spoke with this man and had serious problems with his views, his attitude, his approach; the Congressional Latino Caucus in toto came out against him. Of course as a judge he will not be adjuticating solely on behalf of Latinos, but extremist beliefs may endanger all our civil rights.
But why do I even reply to you? You'll just hammer away some spiteful comment and expect a response. It's really not worth it.
OK, here we go again, and thanks for asking, BSR: facts, please FT, evidencing Estrada's alleged hostility to these to groups. And don't go changing the story and hiding behind the Tancredo tale or trying to appear faux raissonable now that things appear to be going Estrada's way - "Keep that in mind." Trotting out statements from the most radical of the Latino socialist/victims organizations - PRLDEF, MALDEF, La Raza, etc. - or their Democratic stooges in Congress won't cut it. Just because he doesn't buy into their clicheed Newspeak about "empowerment" and avoids their adherence to affirmative action (read, quotas and "bean counting" [to quote your buddy Bill]) hardly disqualifies him in my mind; it adds the unique credibility the usually accompanies true individuals who can and aren't afraid to think for themselves.
BTW, MANY Hispanics, and others (Persians come to mind) emigrate to the US as wealthy people. Does that mean they don't get to try for the same things the rest of us poor suckers do? Or is the USA only for losers and wretched refuse. Lots of inconsistencies here, FT; you're slipping fast.
Gmgsfinfo, you really should take something because you become way too emotional at the drop of a hat. Liberals are the emotional ones, remember. Read what I wrote. I said in my comment that that his having come from a wealthy background shouldn't be an issue--just as it wasn't for Jay Rockefeller. Did you not read that? Probably not. The U.S. has always rolled out the carpet for wealthy people, whatever their backgrounds, however they made their money. They could be former dictators and they'll find a waiting estate in Florida--just ask the people of the Philippines or Haiti etc. about that.
The VAST majority of Latinos emigrate to this country from middle-class, working-class or poor backgrounds. The overwhelming majority of Latino immigrants come from Mexico, followed by the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Guatemala, Colombia, etc. They are NOT RICH. The wealthy people in those nations (except for Cuba, obviously, and Colombia now) usually have no need to immigrate--they often can come and go as they please. I went to school with and have taught rich Latin Americans, and I can assure you, they are far less constrained in their comings and goings than the majority of their fellow countrypeople. How "Persians" (Iranians) enter in this I'm not sure, but I suppose you're grasping for straws.
Also, who in the HELL are you to talk about Latino socialist/victim organizations? I've worked with PRLDF and other Puerto Rican groups, and I can tell you your characterization is totally wrong. There's not a socialist thing ABOUT them. But since you know so much you show me where in their literature they are "socialist".
Nothing would qualify Estrada for you because he's obviously on the right, as former George H. W. Bush staffer C. Boyden Gray noted tonight on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer." Two Latino Congresspeople, from my region no less, spoke with this man and had serious problems with his views, his attitude, his approach; the Congressional Latino Caucus in toto came out against him. Of course as a judge he will not be adjuticating solely on behalf of Latinos, but extremist beliefs may endanger all our civil rights.
But why do I even reply to you? You'll just hammer away some spiteful comment and expect a response. It's really not worth it.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
If you want to defeat your political opponents, at least play fair.
BoSoxRudy, I hear you. I just wish more people on the other side of the spectrum take this to heart. Labelling Lani Guinier a "Quota queen" for her legitimate work on distributive voting, demogoguing on Ronny White as "pro-criminal," claiming that Democrats do not care about the security of Americans--none of this is playing fair. Not one bit of it (Sorry for the Daschlean moment). Just like the constant labeling of liberals as "socialists"--which you haven't done, I will say--and other such outrageous statements is not fair. The rhetoric from the right side often is so dismissive and strident that it makes it difficult to have a fair discussion.
I have to say that I find far too many liberal spokespeople namby-pamby and polite. But I understand it. I went to see Dinesh D'Souza and Jennifer Hochschild (of Princeton) in a debate/discussion. A good friend of mine also was on the panel. D'Souza utterly dominated the proceedings, because Hochschild, who is obviously very smart and informed, was trying so hard to let him speak, not to interrupt, etc. It was maddening. Some people on this board have urged that we laugh off the extreme statements of someone like Ann Coulter. Why? She is so beyond fair it's frightening. The same is true of Limbaugh, Hannity, and so many other commentators from the right. I will say that Christopher Buckley, to name just one person, not only has a sense of humor, but does let the other side get in a word once in a while.
[quote]
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
In the past I did not attack posters personally. You have targeted your comments at me before, not just at my comments, and I've called you on it. I still am not attacking YOU, BoSoxRudy. I don't consider you or anyone else here an enemy. I respect what you and most of the conservative posters have to say, even when I disagree. It is one thing to discuss these topics passionately, and another to attack people who are posting to the board. The ad hominem/feminam attacks really are problematic. I would like to dialogue with you, and have been able to have interesting and sometimes fun exchanges with William1865, who is quite conservative--to his bone. But I try not to attack him, and the reverse is usually the case. A bit more levity (without cruelty, hatefulness or spite) would do everyone here a bit of good, whatever our ideological leanings.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
If you want to defeat your political opponents, at least play fair.
BoSoxRudy, I hear you. I just wish more people on the other side of the spectrum take this to heart. Labelling Lani Guinier a "Quota queen" for her legitimate work on distributive voting, demogoguing on Ronny White as "pro-criminal," claiming that Democrats do not care about the security of Americans--none of this is playing fair. Not one bit of it (Sorry for the Daschlean moment). Just like the constant labeling of liberals as "socialists"--which you haven't done, I will say--and other such outrageous statements is not fair. The rhetoric from the right side often is so dismissive and strident that it makes it difficult to have a fair discussion.
I have to say that I find far too many liberal spokespeople namby-pamby and polite. But I understand it. I went to see Dinesh D'Souza and Jennifer Hochschild (of Princeton) in a debate/discussion. A good friend of mine also was on the panel. D'Souza utterly dominated the proceedings, because Hochschild, who is obviously very smart and informed, was trying so hard to let him speak, not to interrupt, etc. It was maddening. Some people on this board have urged that we laugh off the extreme statements of someone like Ann Coulter. Why? She is so beyond fair it's frightening. The same is true of Limbaugh, Hannity, and so many other commentators from the right. I will say that Christopher Buckley, to name just one person, not only has a sense of humor, but does let the other side get in a word once in a while.
[quote]
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
In the past I did not attack posters personally. You have targeted your comments at me before, not just at my comments, and I've called you on it. I still am not attacking YOU, BoSoxRudy. I don't consider you or anyone else here an enemy. I respect what you and most of the conservative posters have to say, even when I disagree. It is one thing to discuss these topics passionately, and another to attack people who are posting to the board. The ad hominem/feminam attacks really are problematic. I would like to dialogue with you, and have been able to have interesting and sometimes fun exchanges with William1865, who is quite conservative--to his bone. But I try not to attack him, and the reverse is usually the case. A bit more levity (without cruelty, hatefulness or spite) would do everyone here a bit of good, whatever our ideological leanings.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Gee, FT, I actually thought we were getting somewhere, what with our multilingual banter and all. I told you your smattering of German was passable and you get all verklempt. Ach! But anyway, I've worked with MALDEF and - uh-oh, here's that "M" word again - monitored their and other Latino groups' activities over the years here in CA. Not because I'm a CIA agent or anything, just because I like to know what's going on in the world and how to stop things that are bad from getting worse. Remember, Latinos are quite a presence in California, too. Some of them, mostly the MALDEF and La Raza crowd, actually believe it's their land and are agitating to "take it back," much like radical feminists used to speak about doing with (cf. in) "the night" years ago. They call it Aztlan. It never existed, but they think it's El Dorado. Comprende?
Cezar Chavez had quite a socialist bent, but like MLK's leanings in that direction, it was downplayed when it came time to canonize him, although he was not, as far as I know, a plagiarist too. I haven't saved their various tracts over the years - cheap foolscap doesn't wear well - so I can't cite you specifics, but like the National Lawyers' Guild, a LOT of their literature contained the Marxist maxim "from each according ..." In fact, for decades, the NLG publicly and actively advocated the abolition of private property until too many parents and even more guardians and trustees threatened to cut off the kids' law school tuition if they didn't quit the organization. But I digress; the Guilters aren't farmworkers or working class Latinos, they just play (up to) them on TV.
I can't answer your final question for the same reason that I don't know why I do so myself! But ya know ... it is kinda fun!
Cezar Chavez had quite a socialist bent, but like MLK's leanings in that direction, it was downplayed when it came time to canonize him, although he was not, as far as I know, a plagiarist too. I haven't saved their various tracts over the years - cheap foolscap doesn't wear well - so I can't cite you specifics, but like the National Lawyers' Guild, a LOT of their literature contained the Marxist maxim "from each according ..." In fact, for decades, the NLG publicly and actively advocated the abolition of private property until too many parents and even more guardians and trustees threatened to cut off the kids' law school tuition if they didn't quit the organization. But I digress; the Guilters aren't farmworkers or working class Latinos, they just play (up to) them on TV.
I can't answer your final question for the same reason that I don't know why I do so myself! But ya know ... it is kinda fun!
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
No, I can't agree with this. If you hire a company, you shouldn't have to investigate in advance whether their employees meet all the legal requirements. The company is supposed to do that. Once it's discovered that there are illegal workers, then that company needs to be punished.
He is the anti-immigrant and the hypocrite, not me. If he is so fixated on illegal immigrants, I would think he'd be looking more closely at what goes on at his own home. You can make all the excuses you want, but this is just more conservative hypocrisy in action. Keep that in mind.
No, I can't agree with this. If you hire a company, you shouldn't have to investigate in advance whether their employees meet all the legal requirements. The company is supposed to do that. Once it's discovered that there are illegal workers, then that company needs to be punished.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. The thread about nasty posts makes a lot of good points about the pathetic partisan bickering ("Conservatives are ass****s!", "Liberals suck!!" ... yeah, that does everybody a whole lot of good). I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
Gee, I've heard similar sentiments before somewhere. Now, where was that exactly....?
(Edited for grammar)
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]
fantomas, I am trying to elevate the level of discussion on the P&R thread. I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to make this place a little less maddening, a little less frustrating, and a lot more productive. The thread about nasty posts makes a lot of good points about the pathetic partisan bickering ("Conservatives are ass****s!", "Liberals suck!!" ... yeah, that does everybody a whole lot of good). I realize that I had been guilty of too much partisanship as well, and am making an attempt in this thread and several others to cut the BS and instead contribute to a meaningful discussion of ideas. I'm asking you to take a good hard look at yourself and your style/approach on this board.
Work with me here.
Gee, I've heard similar sentiments before somewhere. Now, where was that exactly....?
(Edited for grammar)
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
What you guys seem to be saying is that if you are opposed to immigration you are responsible for everyone else's abuse of the immigration system, i.e. hiring illegal aliens. I suppose if Tancredo catches a cab from the airport to his office on Capitol Hill, he is required to make sure that cab company's drivers are here legally. Or if he eats dinner at a restaurant, he should go check the busboys' papers just to make sure everything's on the up and up Wow, you guys are a tough crowd.
No, we're saying that a sitting congressman who is a vocal advocate for a particular policy has to be especially careful when choosing companies to work with. Particularly after the many "home improvement" scandals that have worked their way down the pike. In addition, while I can't speak for anyone else, I did make a point of mentioning that this is a gaff that should be put in perspective. I question the congressman's judgement, not his ethics.
And gmginsfo, we can talk any time you like. I've often thought of a career behind the scenes in politics. If you get elected, give me a call. I can make the switch from moderate liberal to moderate conservative for the right salary.
What you guys seem to be saying is that if you are opposed to immigration you are responsible for everyone else's abuse of the immigration system, i.e. hiring illegal aliens. I suppose if Tancredo catches a cab from the airport to his office on Capitol Hill, he is required to make sure that cab company's drivers are here legally. Or if he eats dinner at a restaurant, he should go check the busboys' papers just to make sure everything's on the up and up Wow, you guys are a tough crowd.
No, we're saying that a sitting congressman who is a vocal advocate for a particular policy has to be especially careful when choosing companies to work with. Particularly after the many "home improvement" scandals that have worked their way down the pike. In addition, while I can't speak for anyone else, I did make a point of mentioning that this is a gaff that should be put in perspective. I question the congressman's judgement, not his ethics.
And gmginsfo, we can talk any time you like. I've often thought of a career behind the scenes in politics. If you get elected, give me a call. I can make the switch from moderate liberal to moderate conservative for the right salary.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.