The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Review
including Santorum vs. Casey on MTP
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, September 3, 2006.
{This review is dedicated to the memory of Joe Wilson's time in the limelight and to the erstwhile "scandal" which bore his name.}
Rick Santorum "debated" Bobby Casey junior on NBC's Meet the Press, but it was really Russert vs. Santorum, with Casey along for decoration, and Santorum won.
The there's FOX NEWS Sunday, where Liddy Dole got Chuckie Schumer to agree to take her to dinner. For his part, Schumer demanded that the White House apologize for leaking Plame's name. He's not sure it was Armitage who leaked it, but he knows for a fact that "Karl Rove leaked it too."
Arlen Specter on FNS said that the nomination of Judge Terence Boyle "does have big trouble."
On TW, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Joe Biden, said that he didn't know if we had helped foil the recent terror plot involving airplanes exploding over the Atlantic, but that it was proof that the Bush Administration had done nothing to make our country safer from terrorism.
On FTN, DNC boss Howard Dean, talking about his party's electoral chances this November, proclaimed: "We're going to win in places like Indiana! We're going to win in places like Arizona! [YEAAARRRRGH!]" (He set himself up.)
Also on FTN, GOP Senate Whip Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate agenda this September will be "entirely about national security."
And on LE, it was Shays-Meehan. Marty Meehan behaved like irrelevant snot, but Chris Shays explained his "timetable" for getting out of Iraq. He said that it head to do with replacing the Iraqi forces as they become competent to handle security themselves. (He says that the Iraqi government has stopped doing anything.) Guest host John Roberts accused Shays of advocating "cut and run."
Read More for the show-by-show review:
SANTORUM VS. CASEY ON MTP. On NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert said that he was going to moderate a debate between Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and his Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Robert Casey, junior. In truth, the debate was between Senator Santorum and Tim Russert. Junior was there, but he did not forge for himself an impression of relevance.
[Here is the TRANSCRIPT of this debate.]
Russert opened by asking Junior, who had previously offered support for the war in Iraq, a convoluted hypothetical. If Junior had been a U.S. Senator who had voted in favor of the war based on what we knew then, would he say that he would have voted against the war if he had known what he knows now. Junior didn't really say, other than relating that "Americans have serious doubts," but he tell us that BushLied™: "mislead" based on "faulty" intelligence.
Russert confronted Santorum: "NO WMD!" Rick answered that we've found more than 500 chemicals weapons, and reports say that there are more. Russert asked Rick if Iraq were a grave threat to America. Santorum answered that the Iraqi had trained terrorists and funded terrorists.
As the questions came, Santorum looked more-or-less toward the camera while answering, and while Junior looked at him with a dopey expression which I might have taken for fawning admiration had I not known better. Casey's contentions, well, were straight from Howard Dean's cue cards, with some medications to try to make everything compatible with some of his past boneheaded statements.
At one point, when Santorum was going off on the Dems and the war in response to a Russert query: "Rick, you're not debating the party. You're debate me here right now." This probably came as news to Russert.
Santorum did fault the Bush Administration for not laying out the mission for the American people. Russert pulled out an old quote of the Senator criticizing Clinton (Bill) for going into Bosnia without a plan, a mission, or a timeframe. He could now be saying that about Bush, Russert averred. Santorum explained that Milosevic had been no threat to American interests. He still thinks we had no business being there.
Casey had a bomb ready, though, and he dropped it on Santorum. Vice President Cheney, he announced, had opposed sanctions against Syria and Iran when he worked for Halliburton; now, he favors them. He challenged Santorum to "renounce" Cheney and to give back the money the Veep had raised for him. Santorum derailed and dismissed this bit of political jabberwocky without really addressing it.
Okay, Bob Casey has been auditor general and now treasurer in Pennsylvania, but he's clueless about government and its revenue. Russert placed a graphic which showed the majority of federal spending going to Medicare and Social Security. Casey declared that Social Security "is a problem, not a crisis." (This was the Dem talking point from when the President was working to create personal savings accounts within Social Security.) In order to secure Social Security, Casey said that he would move towards "fiscal responsibility" and "repeal the Bush tax cuts." Santorum then ridiculed him to his face, but Casey remained passionless and almost remote.
An ominous question from Russert: If Casey wins, would he serve the full six year term? He would, but what is frightening about it is that it seemed to have Vice Presidential undertones. This might be part of a potentially dangerous Democratic strategy: Nominate Evan Bayh to the top of the ticket and put Junior Casey in the no. 2 slot. This would lull the American people to sleep in such a way that no targeted get-out-the-vote strategy the GOP could muster would save them.
The Democrats blew it here in a big way. Rick Santorum was vulnerable, and the Democrats could have had a good chance of picking up this seat had they ran someone who could win. They blew it, banking on Casey's name. This is a good thing, because Rick Santorum is a great Senator, but it reminds me somewhat of what the Republicans have done with Bill Nelson's seat in Florida. With a good nominee, that seat could have been ours.
For more information, Alex Charyna liveblogged the "debate" at the SantorumBlog:
Did Casey have his coffee this morning? The social security/budget segment was a terrible one for him. “I’m for fiscal responsibility,” is a terrible answer, and that’s all he could answer. Even Russert didn’t buy it.
It will be interesting to see how close Junior can keep this, anyway.
LIDDY DOLE AND CHUCKY SCHUMER ON FNS. It seemed that National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairwoman Elizabeth Dole had memorized that argument that missile defense is a good thing and "we're in a holy war." No arguments here. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee boss Chuckie Schumer, in turn, argued that the World War II analogy is "flawed," and that – repeated often – "the Republicans have no plan in Iraq." He went on to explain that the difference between World War II and the GWOT is that "they don't have a plan in Iraq." He then explained: "That's why they're covering up." I'm not sure what.
Host Chris Wallace mentioned that Babs Boxer plans to introduce a resolution for a vote of no confidence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Schumer likes that she's doing so. Dole explained that "war is hell," and Wallace confronted her that the Republicans are failing on immigration, Social Security reform, and two other issues.
Speaking of Democrats, Chuckie Schumer announced: "We have an agenda, and it's what the American people want." He listed two things on the Democrats' agenda: Lower gas prices and tuition tax credits. Democrats will achieve these things, he promised. (Will he reduce gasoline taxes?)
Can the Dems regain the Senate? "It's a tall order," sayeth Chuckie, "but the wind is at our back."
Wallace did the math, and the Dems have to pick up, he's calculated, 6 of the seven vulnerable Republican seats to take control of the Senate, if they do not lose a vulnerable Dem seat. Dole countered that Schumer has to take her out "to a really nice dinner" if the Dems manage to seize control of the Senate. Schumer promised to take her out no matter who has control of the Senate.
Asked if he'd apologize to Karl Rove and the White House for his tantrums regarding the Joe Wilson scandal™, Schumer hissed: "No, absolutely not." He said that it has not been determined that Armitage leaked the name and that Rove leaked it too. He said that the White House has never apologized for the leak. He called it, no matter who leaked her name, "a dastardly act" for which "the White House should apologize." (Dick Armitage did not work in the White House.)
JOE BIDEN ON TW. This was Joe Biden on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and it was more of the same from Biden: "We need a political solution" in Iraq. Steph reminded him that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri had declared that Iraq was the central front in the War on Terror, something against which he and his fellow Democrats have long argued. Biden argued that this was Bush's fault.
"There is a need for a political solution as well," Biden reiterated.
One of his favorite tactics is to announce that, in his judgment, "The American people are smart." Then he offers his argument as what these smart American people have concluded, thus leaving some folks feeling that if they accept the Biden logic, they are smart.
The American people are smart, he said, because they know that "we are still pretty vulnerable at home" and that the Bush Administration has done nothing about this. The recently foiled terror plot involving airlines exploding over the Atlantic is proof of this, he said. Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he "hoped" that our intelligence services helped the British to foil the plot. Either he doesn't know that we did, or wants to leave that doubt in the minds of those who watch the Steph show.
Biden argued that "no one thinks the President has a comprehensive plan," and I was frankly shocked that Steph didn't back this up with polling data.
Steph asked him when he was going to formally enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, what with his time in Iowa. Biden answered: "I've gotten in." Evidently, Joe Biden is not one for formalities.
ARLEN SPECTER ON FNS. Specter said that he thinks Judge Terence Boyle's nomination to sit on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "does have big trouble." He said that he wants it to get to an up-or-down vote, but he fears that it will be filibustered. (People For the America Way hates his guts.)
HOWARD DEAN ON FTN. DNC boss Howard Dean was Russ Mitchell's first guest on CBS' Face the Nation. (Mitchell was, of course, subbing for former CBS temporary anchor Bob Schieffer.) Dean argued that the Republicans "are looking increasingly incompetent" in fighting the war on terror, which he defined as "capturing and killing Osama bin Laden." He wants to quit Iraq and concentrate catch OBL.
Mitchell argued that the Dems have no plan to with the GWOT. Dean argued that they do, as evidenced by the fact that the Republicans have cut funds to first responders.
Dean thinks Rumsfeld should resign. He is "incompetent," Dean argued, and "not very smart politically." Mitchell asked him if he'd like Rumsfeld to stick around as a "target," and Dean said he wants "a new direction."
The Dems' biggest challenge is that Republicans "may not know how to govern, but they know how to win elections."
Dean said that Dems we "going to win in places like Indiana! We're going to win in places like Arizona! [YEAAARRRRGH!]"
Dean said, "This is going to be like 1994. People want a new direction."
He sees "the big battle [as] will the Democrats set a bitter direction on security."
MITCH MCCONNELL ON FTN. Mitchell told Majority Whip Mitch McConnell that a poll shows that the American people think the terrorists are winning. Mitch said that this election will not be a "referendum," but rather, " a "choice. He said that he hasn't seen a Democrat plan for the GWOT: "They're arguing amongst themselves": the "George McGovern wing" of Dean and his ilk versus the "more reasonable wing," Joe Lieberman. Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nebraska, McConnell sees as GOP pickups this year.
His strategy is to "remind voters what Democrats do when they're in power." Give them a "clear understanding of what the choice is."
McConnell thinks Secretary Rumsfeld recent speech was "superb" and that he would be "remembered as one of the greatest Secretaries of Defense in history." We're fighting the terrorists before they can attack us.
McConnell said that we have been secure from terror in America since 9-11 'because of our policy of going on offense" of terrorism.
Mitchell argued that Republicans are saying that opponents of the war are "unpatriotic." McConnell pointed out that Mitchell had no give a name, and that he knew of no Republican who had called them unpatriotic.
McConnell said that the Senate "will deal with national security in September." He doesn't think Specter's stem cell bill will come up in September.
SHAYS-MEEHAN ON LE. Remember CBS News' John Roberts, the "next Dan Rather"? Well, he's no Katie Couric, but he did get to play Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition this morning, subbing for the absent host. He talked to Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) and Marty Meehan (D-Massachusetts), the House team best known for campaign finance reform.
Meehan wants a "sense of renewed engagement with our allies" to stop Iran.
Shays called the United Nations "somewhat impotent." He said that the lack of support in the region shows Iran that "they are the players in the region."
Meehan said that Iran has been helped by our "lack of competent efforts in Iraq."
Shays argued that we "should have diplomatic relations with every country" so that we can have our intelligence agencies working out of our embassies.
Roberts confronted Shays with his recent argument against timetable/date certain. Now, he wants a timeline, but he explained that his timetable has to do with when the Iraqis become competent to replace us, we can scale back. Roberts called this "cut and run," and Meehan agreed and declared that the Administration "should be held accountable for their own incompetence."
Shays said that though he's not Rumsfeld's "biggest fan," he doesn't think it will do any good for him to quite with two years left in the Administration. He faulted the Administration for disbanding Saddam's armed forces, our enemy in Iraq when we invaded, which he said led to looting.
Roberts taunted Shays with Lieberman's loss in the Dem primary, and Shays said that he has been critical of the President. He criticized the Iraqi government, saying that "they have not been doing the heavy lifting." He reiterated that he thinks the war is a "noble mission."
Meehan said that it is "pretty clear" that there is a civil war in Iraq. He taunted Rumsfeld for not calling the Pentagon Nazis for, in Meehan's opinion, declaring that there was a civil war in Iraq.
Roberts argued that Iraq was not a part of the GWOT, and Meehan said that Iraq was not a response to 9-11 but the Administration is trying to link for the election.
Shays said that "the 9-11 Commission was clear: we're not fighting al Qaeda, we're fighting Islamic terrorists." He said our mission now is to "be sure that we don't lose in Iraq."
Roberts accused the President of playing "good cop/bad copy" with Secretary Rumsfeld. The analogy of appeasement now and in World War II, Meehan called "outrageous." He thinks "it's over the line." They're playing politics, he said.
Shays said that he read Rumsfeld's speech, "and I buy into it entirely." He said that we have to wake up and realize the enemy we're fighting.
Roberts donned a goofy grin when he reported that some are saying that "Karl Rove's word is no longer gospel in the Republican Party." Shays agreed and said that this was healthy, in that "Karl Rove is not a god."
~~~~~
This thread is for reactions and discussion. Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - lineup — Comments (8) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Review 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I wanted to leave the room, but couldn't. I was frozen in place listening to Liddy respond to questions by saying she would rather discuss another topic or idea. And then to trivialize the confrontation by betting a dinner with Chuckie... Sheesh. I haven't been believing in the MSM warnings that we could lose congressional control- until now!
Liddy was an utter flop on that segment. Someone like Newt or Santorum could have handed Chucky's head to him on a plate. But noooooo....we get dinner dates instead......I'm apalled.
The New Tone is what pushed the “ideologues” (a.k.a. “articulate” candidates) aside for more personable people like Liddy Dole and Bill Frist. Now we have become an intellectually broke party that gets run over by the MSM daily. But we smile a lot and are very pleasant in the process.
It is why Newt back on the scene is such a breath of fresh air. It reminds us of what we were once capable of as a party in the arena of ideas. We need candidates that make the choices clear, paint the Dems for what they are and ask the voters if it’s true they’re sick of 4.7% unemployment, 4+% GPD growth, 6% interest rates and lower taxes? But that would violate the New Tone.
When people see some guy get sand kicked in his face everyday and do nothing other than smile at the culprit, they don’t decide they want that guy for class president because he’s above it all. They laugh at him and think he's a joke. When your coworker comes to the office every morning and calls you a child molester as the morning greeting while you never defend yourself, everyone in the office begins to think it must be true. That’s what the New Tone has gotten us.
No disagreement from me....Liddy Dole is a joke. However, Rick Santorum was marvelous.
Has anyone found the MTP interview video online? If so, please post a link to it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005066
It's better than the Coonskin Qaueda vid.
Wow. I forgot what an articulate, clear and passionate speaker Sen. Santorum is. He is very clear and down-to-earth, and answers questions directly. Santorum is definitely a top tier communicator in the Senate.
Most Republican Senators are embarassingly poor communicators. I hate to say it but the Democrats have many more top tier communicators than Republicans, and sometimes how you say something is more influential than the substance.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
and I think he will, '08 becomes an instant option for him. You'd want to pair him with a Western governor if he were to get the nomination -- and who knows what Bill Owen has left in his tank? -- but that would allow me to be excited about 2008. I'd transfer my support from Al Haig.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
put in front of us today: Allen, McCain, Rudy, Mitt, Huckabee, Newton... and I can't get excited about Sam Brownback, even though I'd happily vote for him. (To be fair, I'll vote for the nominee.)
None of these folks are exciting to me right now.
Al Haig. That's my statement.
Should either McCain or Giuliani somehow win the nomination, I think getting Santorum as their running mate would be a great coup for either, especially Giuliani because it would serve to mollify the base on social/cultural issues.
The problem with a successful Santorum run for President or VP would be that a hard-fought retention of his Senate seat would be lost to Gov Rendel's pick of replacement, unless of course Swann pulled of the upset this November. That would of course be the best outcome; Santorum pulls off the comeback, Swann the upset, and Santorum is free to ponder 08 w/o fear of handing the Dems a Senate seat.
As I said before in some other discussion, a VP can fill a void, but a VP can't cover up for ACTIVE failings in the Presidential nominee.
Cheney covered for Bush on foreign policy not because Bush was seen as wrong. He was seen as inexperienced, and Cheney brought that inexperience.
Giuliani, on the other hand, is pro-abortion. An anti-abortion VP doesn't change that.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The last sitting Senator elected to the White House was JFK, going on half a century ago. The last recovering Senator to be elected to the White House was Nixon. There have been no sitting or recovering Senators elected President in the post Watergate era. However, Mondale, Dole, Gore and Kerry have all gone down as candidates. The reason why is the public’s distaste for the Beltway since Watergate and their desire to change Washington. 2008 is not going to be any different. If anything, the voters are going to want to change the Beltway more than ever and being a sitting Senator will be as big of a liability as ever, regardless of party.
A sitting governor is a much better option.
Her voting record in the Senate has already done serious damage to her Presidential aspirations. Her strategy of voting pro-defense to blunt the “too liberal” criticism has backfired with the kooks. But if she votes in a manner that keeps the kooks happy, she marginalizes herself with the majority of the country as a liberal Northeast senator.
She would have been better off picking the easiest state to win a governor’s election in rather than the easiest state to win a Senate seat in, but thank God she did not. I think it is why you see these stories being floated about her backing out of ‘08 and wanting to lead the Senate.
She sees the Dems aren’t going to win anything this fall and when they don’t there will be a blood letting that takes Reid down. She also sees she can no longer win in ’08 and is now jockeying to lead the Dems in the Senate in either the minority or in the majority after some Dem governor like Warner or Richardson is elected, making her the most important power broker in Congress for years to come. It won’t happen, but I think that is becoming her strategy. And it’s all hinged on the reality that senators have voting records and Beltway insider baggage that prevents them from being elected President while governors do not.
She also sees she can no longer win in ’08 and is now jockeying to lead the Dems in the Senate
I think this may well be true, and Hillary may even accept that as her long term career rather than as a holding pattern for the ultimate White House goal. After 1980, Teddy apparently realized he would never become President, and focused on maximizing his power in the Senate. He did in fact become a very influential player. Maybe Hillary is facing the fact (I hope it's a fact!) that she's too polarizing to ever win a general election, so the viable strategy for maximizing her political power is within the Senate Democratic caucus.
Not with a Warner or Richardson administration, but she will become Ted Kennedy in the Senate. I think she sees the Dems are going over the cliff at the national level for 2008 and 2012 or 2016 (after an incumbent GOP reelection) is just too far away.
Did Russert find time to ask Casey Jr about his views on the judiciary, and the type of judge he would support. Was he asked if he had given Schumer and Reid assurances that he would vote their way if Bush gets another opening on the Sup Court?
My guess would be that these questions were not asked. Its rare in debates to have questions asked from a center-right point of view.
I guess, or maybe he just didn't feel the need to challenge Casey since Casey was coming off as such a lightweight (in which case, kudos to Tim for picking the tougher battle, though I doubt that's the case).
Anyway, Tim repeatedly interrupted Rick with irrelevant points or "what about this contrary issue" type of questions that only prevented hearing the point of the response.
Tim asked Casey a couple of questions that Casey totally blew-off, and Tim seemed not to notice- probably too busy checking his notes for the next Santorum "question".
But Santorum definitely came off better than his two debate opponents.
The continuing problem with many Republican Presidential candidates for '08 is that they are still "pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants"! Frist, Brownback, Pataki, McCain, Pence, and Hagel are all for amnesty legislation. Huckabee believes in open land borders. Allen, Newt, Romney, Tancrado, and Smith are all for fully closing the land borders first as well as for "full enforcement of all of the present laws as they pertain to illegals" on all of the illegals that are in the U.S. right now. This last group also doesn't believe that it's possible to fully deport 100% all of the illegals that are presently here, but they also don't believe that the federal government is trying its best to deport all illegals that are caught. This last group also sees creating a system of attrition to use against all employers who hire and use illegals as the best solution to the continuing illegal immigration problems. Illegals would leave the U.S. on their own if a successful system of attrition is put in place. Too many politicians from both major political parties still want illegals to exist here in the U.S. for both cheap labor purposes and for adding to the number of possible voters. "Vote for US conservatives-not for "Grumpy Gus" liberals!"
Pence has consistently opposed allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country and gain legal status. If you insist on calling Pence's guest worker plan "amnesty," you'll have to do the same for other conservatives like Newt who have praised Pence's plan.
Pence's bill allows all illegals who are presently here to stay here for up to 16 years while also re-applying for worker visas every few years. After these 16 years are up, as long as these illegals actually follow the rules, then these illegals can apply for permanent U.S. Citizenship. How is allowing these illegals to stay here in the U.S. not some form of amnesty when legal immigrants already in the U.S. have to follow a completely different set of rules including having it mandatory to have someone legally sponsor them if they want to legally stay anywhere in the U.S. if they want to work and/or live here? Under Pence's bill, illegals don't need anyone to sponsor them while they are here, and this is just one problem with Pence's bill. "Vote for "US" conservatives-not for "Grumpy Gus" liberals!"
Pence's bill requires illegal immigrants currently living in the United States to leave the country. They can then apply to re-enter legally through a guest worker program, which is when the 16-year countdown starts.
Under the Pence plan, the illegals must leave, but they do so with pretty much a guarantee they'll be allowed back in! Yeah, that's really tough.
And do you really think this part of the plan would ever enforced, even if it was adopted, which itself is unlikely since the likes of Ted Kennedy and John McCain would never allow the illegals to suffer such hardship.
Face it, the Pence plan carries with it the biggest flaws of the McCain/Kennedy/Hagel/Marginez/Reid plan; (1) it allows current illegals to stay permanently and eventually become citizens -- which is another way of saying amnesty and a future gold-rush in voters for the Democrats; and (2) It massively increases already large-scale legal immigration -- which again, will be a huge boon for the Democrats, and it represents a surrender to the will of foreigners in setting immigration policy w/ very little or no consideration for what is best for the US, and current Americans, which of course should be the driving factor in setting public policy.
It is interesting that most of the plans force legalized illegal aliens to wait quite a long time before they can become citizens. I can completely understand why the Democrats go along with this -- it delays the ultimate fulfillment of amnesty, and thus has an appearance of being tough, of not being an amnesty, and this helps win over Republicans and shield them from public opinion. Sure, they'd love to go ahead and reap the electoral benefits of importing more Democrats now, or as soon as possible, but they know time is on their side, so they are patient.
Its a bit harder to understand Republican motives. Again, its clear that its done in large part to soften the response from the people, but its hard to believe that all of these Republican officials don't understand how badly it will hurt them demographically. Its hard to believe, that they actually believe, that the GOP can actually break even with immigrant communities while mass immigration continues, despite all of the nonsense put out by Michael Barone (who excels at flawed historical comparisons) and Dick Morris saying they can. It almost makes me think that they are simply trying to delay judgement day, which in the Republicans case, will almost certainly be doomsday. It makes me think that they are of the mindset that, in 11 yrs or 16 yrs, or whatever the duration, they'll be out of politics anyway, so what do they care? That would help explain why McCain supports an eleven year wait, because it would put the day of reckoning past a possible 2012 reelection campaign for President. Its only natural that Pence, being a younger man, would want an even longer wait, thus the 16 years.
...then anyone who supports net legal immigration is a supporter of Amnesty.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Don't you think its a bit of a sham to pretend as though illegals who return home, with the promise that they'll very quickly be let back in on a path to citizenship if they so choose, are just like any other legal immigrants?
And what is particularly frustrating about the Pence plan, as well as the McKennedy senate plan, is that their champions and sponsors never speak of the massive increase it could, and almost certainly would, unleash on already large-scale legal immigration. The only one I've heard asked about it was Senator Martinez, and his incredibly lame response was that the bill did not intend to increase legal immigration in such a mannter. Unfortunately he wasn't asked the obvious follow up question of 'well then, if its not the intent, then why does it not only allow it, but virtually guarantee it?'
Why does even Pence, an otherwise stellar conservative, continue in the deception of calling for 'temporary guest worker plan', which are not temporaray and do not consist of guests? Why does even he try to dupe the public by using words like 'guests', which of course puts in the mind of most people a group of workers who will eventually go home, not stay by the millions?
Why can't proponents of increased legal immigration be honest and up front about it? Why not just admit that their preferred method of dealing with illegal immigration is to so massively increase the legal visas that pretty much anyone who wants to come can do so? Why not tell us that they think current levels of about one million legal immigrants per year should be doubled, or tripled if that is what is needed to accommodate foreign demand?
That Ted Kennedy would push a fraud on the American people comes as no surprise at all -- he has a history of it going back to 1965 -- but it is truly surprising and dismaying to see someone of Pence's caliber resorting to such tactics.
Don't you think its a bit of a sham to pretend as though illegals who return home, with the promise that they'll very quickly be let back in on a path to citizenship if they so choose, are just like any other legal immigrants?
No, because my purposes for opposing illegal immigration are all served by the Pence plan. The rule of law is restored, the border is secured, immigrants are screened before being allowed entry, and long-term control of immigration is regained.
And what is particularly frustrating about the Pence plan, as well as the McKennedy senate plan, is that their champions and sponsors never speak of the massive increase it could, and almost certainly would, unleash on already large-scale legal immigration.
Actually, if what you say is true, and that the opening salvo from the Pence plan will just be a laundering of illegal alien labor, then it won't actually BE a net increase in immigration will it?
I don't think you can have it both ways, since the Pence plan is not to be unlimited beyond a few years.
Why does even Pence, an otherwise stellar conservative, continue in the deception of calling for 'temporary guest worker plan', which are not temporaray and do not consist of guests? Why does even he try to dupe the public by using words like 'guests', which of course puts in the mind of most people a group of workers who will eventually go home, not stay by the millions?
Pence isn't deceiving anyone. You're just showing your own ignorance of how legal immigration works. Most any temporary resident immigrant has a SHOT of becoming legal if he stays around long enough and plays by the rules. What's wrong with that?
If anything, it's dishonest to blame Pence for existing provisions of immigration law.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
First of all, if your idea of having control of the border is to make it so that just about anyone who wants to come can do so, then we just have different ideas of control.
Your statements about a laundering of illegal immigration not increasing net immigration, and of my being ignorant of legal immigration works are nonsense. You say that most here under a 'temporary' status have a shot at staying permanently. Yeah, okay, so what? That doesn't cut against what I'm saying at all. The Senate bill, plus the Pence plan, MASSIVELY INCREASES this pool of people here 'temporarily', and sure enough, pretty much all of them will have the option to stay. To pretend as though this is not a big deal, as if its just a continuation of the status quo is absurd. So it is, in effect, a large increase in already large-scale legal immigration.
And since you said I'm ignorant of how legal immigration works, then I'm going to assume that you are aware of how the biggest part of it is made up of extended family-reunification. Legalized illegals, plus new 'guests' would be able to go ahead and bring some family members over while still technically 'guests', or 'temporary' if you prefer. Once the 'guest' decides to stay permanently, then obviously so too will his family. Then once they become permanent legal residents (or citizens; I don't know the exact details), both the former 'guest' and his family will be able to bring even more family over. This is called chain migration, and it is here where the largest impact on legal immigration comes from. This is where Heritage's estimates of tens of millions more immigrants on top of those that would be admitted under currnt policy and law come from, and it is these estimates that the sponsors of the Senate bill have refused to even address. I don't think Heritage has done the same analysis for the Pence bill, but the results must be the same since, like the Senate bill, it allows the legalized illegals and future 'guests' to not only stay, but bring family over with them. And since the Senate bill was amended to limit the number of 'guests' (though no limit was put on family) to 200,000 per year, while the Pence bill is unlimited, it goes to reason that the Pence bill would result in even greater increases in legal immigration.
People are often accused of mixing legal and illegal immigation during these debates, but that is unavoidable when bills ostensibly about illegal immigration and guest-worker programs will actually have enormous impacts on legal immigration. I just wish the champions of the Senate bill, and Pence himself, would fess up to it. Tell us how many more immigrants will settle permanently if their bill passes.
Surely you don't object to giving the Ameican people as much info as possible, do you? Don't you think that we should have as good an idea as possible about the consequences and effects before we pass a reform bill? Don't you think that the revelations about the Senate bill's effects on permanent legal immigration should have been made by its sponsors instead of Heritage and Senator Sessions? Do you object to the American people being fully aware that the Senate and Pence method of solving the illegal immigration problem comes at a cost of admitting tens of millions more immigrants? If large increases in legal immigration are so necessary, and if they would be so wonderful for the nation, then why all the subterfuge in bringing it about? Its not like you wouldn't have the media on your side.
1) The Pence plan is not a "compromise". For it to be a compromise it would have to be midway between two other proposals. It is not. By any measure it is worse than the Senate plan, which is the "compromise" plan on the table at present.
2) The Pence plan is an amnesty because it specifically alters the law to absolve law breakers of responsibility for their crimes. That is what makes it amnesty, a word which has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. I'd like to horsewhip whoever started the notion that "amnesty" means "giving somebody American citizenship".
3) I'm still waiting for someone to offer a good argument why America needs immigration at all. Most countries seem to manage just fine without it. The practical effect of it here has been to hold down wages, which in turn is likely to result in the GOP losing Congress. That strikes me as a heavy price to pay just so Mz Krieble can save a couple of bucks on her hired help.
I find it hard to argue in good faith with someone about ending ILLEGAL immigration, when that person won't even grant for the argument the value of LEGAL immigration.
But you do prove my point elsewhere in this thread: the Pence plan does wonders when it comes to separating the anti-illegal immgiration people from the anti-immigration people.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The Pence plan does nothing at all as regards seperating the anti-illegal immgiration people from the anti-immigration people.
This is because, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, it is simply another amnesty plan which attepts to legalize illegal behavior.
If Pence were to propose a serious immigration plan which proposed to bar all the current illegals and punish their employers, while at the same time allowing for further truely legal immigration, than you could make the argument you are trying to.
In any case there is nothing at all to prevent you from trying to make an argument for increased legal immigration if you think you can. I suspect you don't because you can't.
1. The Senate bill allows illegal immigrants residing in the United States to stay in the country and obtain legal status. The Pence bill does not. From a rule-of-law perspective (to name one possible measure), that makes the Senate bill worse.
2. Okay, so amnesty doesn't necessarily mean giving an illegal immigrant citizenship. But, for better or worse, that's what most people mean when they use the word in the immigration debate. And that's why "amnesty" gets such a negative reaction from most people. In any case, the penalty for illegal immigration under current law is deportation. How exactly does encouraging illegal residents to self-deport "absolve law breakers of responsibility for their crimes"? The result is the same, it just puts less of a burden on law enforcement resources that are needed to go after more serious crimes.
3. Well, for one thing, if you want agriculture to remain a viable industry in the United States, you need a guest worker program. Lots of jobs in agriculture pay well above minimum wage and they still can't find enough Americans to do the jobs. Much of our winter vegetables production has already moved to Mexico. And as a small-government conservative, I'd rather support agriculture by allowing immigration than by jacking up farm subsidies. (Incidentally, I am always amazed at how many people manage to rail against both legal immigration and "outsourcing" -- for many industries, it's one or the other.) Also, what industrialized countries, other than Japan, are doing "just fine" without immigration?
Look, I understand that plenty of people have concerns about elements of the Pence plan. I don't think it's perfect myself. I just hate to see inflammatory terms like "amnesty" getting tossed at Mike Pence, who's one of the strongest and most articulate conservatives in public office today.
I've heard or read Pence say that his plan does not allow illegals a path to citizenship, yet almost all summaries of the bill, pro or con, say otherwise.
The Pence plan does nothing special for illegal aliens whatsoever.
The Kennedy plan, the Senate plan, and the Bush plan are all clemencies or amnesties because they reward illegal aliens with a green card, which is something many legal aliens don't get!
The Pence plan does no such thing. All it does is combine heightened immigration enforcement with a new visa type. And that visa type, to my knowledge, is given no special privileges with respect to green cards, either. Any permanent residency you get from a W visa would be that provided for work visa holders in existing immigration law.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Amnesty has nothing to do with citizenship.
A criminal, who may be an American or a foreigner, may be given clemency for their crimes. That would be amnesty.
A foreigner may be given US citizenship. That is not amnesty.
If people could quit pretending that amnesty and US citizenship are joined at the hip in some fashion the entire immigration debate would be greatly advanced.
The Pence plan is an amnesty. It absolves people of the legal penalties for crimes thay have commited. Their citizenship has nothing to do with it.
On the completely seperate topic of whether Pence is giving US citizenship to the Mexican illegals - sure he is. Not in any formal sense, true. But we're talking about people who have already lived here several years, and who Pence says cannot be deported. Under the Pence plan they can stay another sixteen years, supposedly. And then what? If we are unwilling to deport them now, what makes anyone think that we'll be more willing to do so after they have lived here for sixteen additional years and have families and homes here? The practical difference bewteen what Pence is saying and what Ted Kennedy wants is more a matter of semantics than anything else.
I repeat, I have yet to hear a credible argument made for why the US needs immigration, period.
"I repeat, I have yet to hear a credible argument made for why the US needs immigration, period."
Unfortunately I think that says more about what you consider credible than anything.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Why do the pro immigration people always run from this debate? If you are confident in your position you should be eager to present it. Instead all your side can manage is "Nativist xenophobe!"
I'm perfectly willing to discuss both issues. I'll argue each in turn, though. I'm not going to try to argue about illegal immigration, though, if you'll answer every point of mine with "But we don't even need immigration at all!"
Because THAT cop out makes the whole discussion moot.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Huh? Does anyone really say this? Not that I've heard. Maybe: "But we don't even need illegal immigration at all!"
I repeat, I have yet to hear a credible argument made for why the US needs immigration, period.
Jon Sandor, in this thread, is the reason I said that to begin with, in reply to the same Mr. Sandor.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Nor would his plan repeal current law that provides for deportation but which Presidents rarely enforce. Pence simply states that he doesn't favor taking affirmative action to seek out and deport millions. Rather, his plan, if enforced against employers, would result in self deportation and would find those illegals that commit crimes to be deported in larger numbers.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
It may be that the 'path to citizenship' for the new 'guests' to be admitted under the Pence bill is the same as currently exists for temporary visa holders, but the Pence plan greatly increases the number of 'temporary' visa holders who will be offered this path to permanent residency. To pretend as though that is unremarkable is disingenuous.
questions about amnesty.
I don't bother with the labels personally, but Santorum -- son of immigrants -- calls it "amnesty" and opposes it.
Is Tom Tancredo running for President?
Tom Tancredo hasn't officially either dropped in or dropped out yet. He still may run as an Independent instead. At this point, there are many possibilities for him including not running at all. He definitely wants someone to run for President who is on a par with Tancredo's views on what to do on illegal immigration. Vote for "US" conservatives-not for "Grumpy Gus" liberals!
I was able to watch most of the show. It was a 2 on 1 show, but Santorum held his ground and came off as the winner IMO. His seat is still the most vunerable, but he's a proven winner and great campaigner and debater. He might just pull it off.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
Click on my user profile to see the "full disclaimer."
Our party has lost its way. If she is the best we have to represent us, how can we win? Asking for a dinner from the poor excuse as a senator from NY, pleahze. How patronizing. they should be patronizing us. We need leadership and "guts" to win in the face of this juggernaut of MSM and liberal bs. Sorry but I am so over politics being what is important instead of AMERICA. That is why Joe in Conn is important - we can have differences politically but not when it comes to AMERICA. I do not want to be a muslim - I am a christian and proud of it.
Forgive the emotion but where is it anymore?