Living in NC (the land of Jesse Helms) I can echo that Kevin is correct - this is the republican base!

It's why Mitt Romney is making such a nitwit of himself; it actually plays well to these numbskulls.

May they suffer the consequences of the policies they endorse.

It's Republican fake toughness, beating up on people who can't fight back.

Yes, this is them, in their unvarnished beauty. The rest is just window dressing.

Republican success derives from playing to the base emotions of the masses: greed, hate, fear, violence, and sex (homosexuality, Clinton's impeachment), and so on.

And all the while they've been dragging Christianity through the sewers with them, such that all of these evil vices are very nearly synonomous with Christianity. (You could also hear these people booing answers that dared to hint at charity, compassion, the rule of law, and the Constitution)

The most frightening part is that these "values" of viciousness are held by at least 30% of the American populace. Probably more.

Who wants to take the over/under on the survival of this nation at two generations?

"Electrolytes. It's what plants crave"

Don't let any third-party smartass tell you any different. These people have different values than we do. The Joe Kleins of the world get all teary-eyed over thoughts of a new Reaganesque GOP, but the Republican base is filled with people who hate helping their fellow man and are so paralyzed with fear of terrorism that they will gladly trade away our American freedoms from security against the dark Muslim horde.

These are the stakes!

I gave up trying to live with them a long time ago. So many hateful and intellectually narrow people, they are a distressing lot.

Oh, wah wah, liberals.

If it meant saving the lives of American citizens, of course the President would torture poor people.

That's a canard anyway. When a terrorist decides to enter the battlespace and engage our troops, be it in Kenosha, Baghdad, Burbank or Shit Holler, Kentucky, that terrorist gives up materialism and enters the world of jihad. They might have a toothbrush and a prayer mat, perhaps some gum. And they come at us and come at us until they are stopped. Sometimes, we have to torture them to get them to tell us where they have emplaced in the battlespace items which might injure our troops.

Liberals are against that? My goodness. One would think you were all rooting for our troops to lose.

I agree wholeheartedly with Hucksterbee on the immigration issue--it's a Christian thing to want to help the meek in order to win the favor of the Creator. These people come here to work, and there are puh-lenty of jobs for them, sir. Let's not lose our minds because Lou Crazy Eyes Dobbs doesn't like brown folks.

Sometimes, we have to torture them to get them to tell us where they have emplaced in the battlespace items which might injure our troops.

I'm confident, given a little waterboarding, that you could be compelled to confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby right after you shot Lincoln.

Sometimes, we have to torture them to get them to tell us where they have emplaced in the battlespace items which might injure our troops.;

We should also torture everyone in the Bush administration until they admit that they knew about 9/11 and failed to do anything, that they conspired with Enron to defraud California of billions of dollars in deliberately manipulated energy prices, that they knew all along Iraq did not have WMDs or any connection to al Qaida, that the $16 billion in cash that was sent to Iraq was actually distributed to Republican campaign contributors, that Bush/Cheney/Libby et al. conspired to out a covert CIA agent and perjure themselves to cover it up, and so on for another 30 impeachable scandals.

Seeing the post from Norman Rogers reminded me of the typical republican chicken hawk.

I am a Army veteran and I am reminded that almost none of the republicans I know never served in the military. And the few republicans that have served are not as ignorant as the chicken hawks.

"of course the President would torture poor people"

wow - talk about a slip, there Norman

Norman, I'm a US soldier, serving in the reserve component (not currently subject to UCMJ). I expect to be deployed to either OEF or OIF within a year or two. More than that, I'm an officer in a leadership position, responsible for everything that my unit does or fails to do.

You, Norman, and people like you (people who dig for ways to justify torture), are a disgrace, and beneath me and my soldiers. This is true whether you're trolling or sincere. I say this as someone who worries - every day - about my ability to find "battlespace items which might injure our troops".

If I were to lose soldiers because of a failure to prepare or take my job seriously, I don't know how I would live with myself. But I don't know how I would live with myself if I were as fundamentally low of character as you are either.

And we should believe what Klein tells us about anything because why? Much less what he says about hanging with Luntz? Digby watched the debates and had a different read.

Maybe what the Joke Line's blog post is all about is the fear of the angry masses served up to him steno out to his readers as easily as anything Hoekstra might say about FISA. What does the Joke Line conclude?

"This level of anger--the topic of my column below--seems likely to be exploited disgracefully by the Republican candidate in the general election campaign, especially if it's Romney. I hope the nativists lose, as they almost always have in American history. But I'm worried that they may not."

All the fancy dials distract the Joke Line like a shiny object glittering in the gutter. When he looks up from Luntz' dials he does not see the audience who applauded McCain and Huckabee but rather a ravenging nativist mob whom the Republicans will use to defeat the weak and unready Dems.

Which is probably just what the folks who want a lot a population beset with economic worries to be - distracted, focused on the trees and not the forest. Imagine if the Joke Line had asked why Romney simply didn't refuse to hire contractors for his mansion who didn't pay their workers a living wage, regardless of their immigration status? Imagine if Huckabee or McCain had asked this.

Lunz played the Joke Line a thousand ways last night. We want to hear it because there's little more fun than hearing the opposition trashed. But we shouldn't confuse trash talk for the game. Why any progressive would think anything that he said bore any relationship to reality is beyond.

I am a Army veteran and I am reminded that almost none of the republicans I know never served in the military. And the few republicans that have served are not as ignorant as the chicken hawks.

Oh, bah! You've never served in the Army--perhaps in the Salvation Army or the Kiss Army. NOT the US Army, though. They don't take whiners.

The simple fact of the matter is, I went to work for my father after my deferments ran out during the Vietnam War. I was slightly too old--graduating from Princeton in 1965. I was never in jeopardy of being drafted--my father was friends with Nelson Rockefeller and some of his people and had the draft reached out and tried to get me, I had a slot waiting for me in the Connecticut National Guard.

So don't go calling me a "chicken hawk." Had I been in danger of being drafted, I was ready to mount up and go to war, albeit in Groton or perhaps Hartford. Ugh--Hartford.

Norman, I'm a US soldier, serving in the reserve component (not currently subject to UCMJ). I expect to be deployed to either OEF or OIF within a year or two. More than that, I'm an officer in a leadership position, responsible for everything that my unit does or fails to do.

Well, you better put down the bong, duuuude, and get ready to do your part, because General Petraeus needs you frosty, and ready to put rounds down range, sir.

That was one scary poll. Unfortunately, many people I know react the same way to the same degree.

It is worth a trip from Kevin's link over to Joe Klein's blog to read the comments. They are reaming him a well deserved new asshole over his lying article about the RESTORE bill (FISA restoration act.).

First, I am unable to attach much credibility to Joe Klein's judgment of anything, much less his analysis.

Secondly, the focus group. So Frank Luntz, or more likely his production crew, select fourteen folks to push buttons. Faced with such heady responsibilty, I imagine, most of those folks were thinking the whole time during the "debate" of their responsibility to push the button, rather than of what the candidates were actually saying.

Besides fourteen is hardly a valid data sample.

There is also the possibility that Joe Klein, given his demonstrable dishonesty, was never even there. He may have just dreamed the whole thing.

Hotrod, good to see you. You know you have my respect and admiration, and are the recipient of frequent installments of white light.:)

"Well, you better put down the bong, duuuude, and get ready to do your part, because General Petraeus needs you frosty, and ready to put rounds down range, sir."

troll or not - wow

I understand Repubs better than you do - that's why I chose this moniker - so let me add some nuance to your smug view of the meanies. Repubs know that every foot-dragging weasle-word about "the childrens" or "the deserving childrens" means amnesty before a fence for all the undeserving childrens out there too. They want the fence built, and a real ID in effect. Once the fence is built and the ACLU and La Raza and the rest of the illegal support groups are defeated the Repubs will be as generous as anyone else with the squatters and queue-jumpers that are here...but until that day comes they know what the current code words and dog whistles mean.

Norman Rogers,

Get a grip. You need help.

Repubs know that every foot-dragging weasle-word about "the childrens" or "the deserving childrens" means amnesty before a fence for all the undeserving childrens out there too. They want the fence built, and a real ID in effect. Once the fence is built and the ACLU and La Raza and the rest of the illegal support groups are defeated the Repubs will be as generous as anyone else with the squatters and queue-jumpers that are here...but until that day comes they know what the current code words and dog whistles mean.

You're a liberal plant, moron.

First of all, so-called undocumented workers are here to help grow this economy. Put up fences and criminalize these good people, and the stock market will tank, the housing starts that are helping to keep the economy growing will plummet and thousands of small businesses will shutter themselves and go out of business.

Demonizing immigrants is what the cheap suit crowd in my beloved Republican Party have decided to engage in, since we don't want to hear them prattle on and on about things they don't understand. Hush, your betters have spoken.

Simple demographics, sir. We HAD a great foothold in the Hispanic community. In three election cycles, we had a significant opportunity to bring millions of motivated, family-values and small-business oriented voters into the Republican fold. And dirty shirt wearing buffoons like yourself put a match to all that and burned it up faster than a bone dry mansion in Malibu.

Ah, that trademarked Kevin Drum cluelessness.

Assuming Klein isn't lying, the dials might have plummeted because those in the room aren't as dumb as Klein and Huck think they are, and they recognized someone using fake compassion in order to cover up massive illegal activity.

If Klein wants to do something "nice" for poor IllegalAliens, he can first realize that there are billions of people worse off than the country where we get most of our IAs: Mexico. And, he can try and understand that taking 14% of a country's workforce is not a good way to help that country.

Perhaps Kevin Drum should just come right out and make it even easier to discredit him by being as explicit as Klein was.

[Note: WM may edit or delete this comment without notice as they have many past comments.]

"Ah, that trademarked Kevin Drum cluelessness."

ROFL.... Oh, the irony, given the content of the post in which this comment appeared.

Kevin's post pretends that Huckabee was talking about scholarships for poor people in general, when he was talking specifically about illegal immigrants. IMHO most voters don't want to reward people for breaking the law. That's why the focus group showed disapproval.

Waterboarding is a difficult issue. It certainly meets the definition of "torture," which is outlawed by treaty. However, it does no permanent harm and it's effective at getting people to provide information. Reports I've read say that waterboarding has been used just three times after 9/11. It was used to get information from top al Qaeda terrorist leaders. That information helped prevent more attacks.

I suspect a majority of voters would support doing it again. I suspect that McCain's position is a loser in the general election as well as the Republican primaries.

So I clicked on POST to make sure it appeared on the page. Lo & behold, the slanderous Normie post appears just above mine.

NORMAN - SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Bombs or tax cuts are the only tools the GOP have to solve problems any more. When was the last true diplomat in the Republican Party - Kissinger?

I saw a great bumper sticker today - SATAN IS A REPUBLICAN - kinda says it all, doesn't it?

NORMAN - SHUT THE F#!K UP!

Fine. I picked up the third season of Gilmore Girls on DVD, and that's far more entertaining than trying to explain how the world really works to a bunch of inbred wanna-be Republicans and a slew of mealy-mouthed liberals.

Hey (ignorant of the Constitution) ex-liberal,

Article VI - "...all Treaties made ...under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."

Additionally, experienced, professional military folks will tell you that confessions obtained through torture are unreliable. A subject of torture will admit to whatever the torturer demands.

Hmmmm....poor immigrants and foreign "terrorists."

Surely it's a coincidence that both of these groups are non-white, right "sensible" Republicans?

Chris, you are correct that treaties are the law of the land, but that fact doesn't contradict the idea that a majority of voters might support waterboarding an al Qaeda leader in order to prevent a terrorist attack.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/11/waterboarding-i.html

This is really the only post that you need to read concerning torture, provided you read the comments and follow the link as well.

Frank Luntz's focus group sessions... where each participant got a "dial" that allowed them to register instant approval or disapproval...

If that's something Luntz set up, someone should have checked the wiring.

ex-liberal: a majority of voters might support waterboarding an al Qaeda leader in order to prevent a terrorist attack.

And if confessions obtained under waterboarding were even reliable that might mean something.

"but that fact doesn't contradict the idea that a majority of voters might support waterboarding an al Qaeda leader in order to prevent a terrorist attack"

So are you a conservative - or a populist? Cause they ain't the same thing, no matter what bottom feeders like Tancredo and Limbaugh think. In fact - they're nearly mutually exclusive.

But congrats on getting that Glenn Reynolds-esque mealy mouth writing technique down.

I agree wholeheartedly with Hucksterbee...

Focus, Norm, that's Egbert's schtick.

Norman Rogers was too old to serve by graduating in 1965, right when the war was escalating....

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

Wow. It's possible that it was due to Norman's cowardice and the cowardice of his entire family undermining our troops in 1968 that Walter Cronkite announced the war was lost.

Thanks Roger Norman, coward and chickenhawk.

Norman has GOT to be a parody, doesn't he?

As for "Ex-Liberal's" defense of torture, the obvious followup question for anyone who approves of it being used sometimes is: "How often do you think it should be used?" Since virtually every military man who actually has any experience with it thinks it's almost always disastrously counterproductive strategically (in addition to its moral effects) -- for multiple reasons that really shouldn't be that hard to figure out -- the only sensible answer is: "Only in EXTREMELY rare circumstances." And under no circumstances should a single man by himself -- no matter where he is in the chain of command, right up to the Oval Office -- ever be allowed to make that decision by himself with legal impunity. Either we need something like a FISA Court in which a supermajority of judges (appointed by more than one man and more than one political party, please) can pick those very rare situations in which it might be justified -- or else we need to keep it illegal and simply depend on the fact that, in those extremely rare situations where it might be justified, almost no DA would ever indict the torturer, no jury would ever unanimously convict him, and no President would ever fail to pardon him if he WAS convicted.

What the Bushites want is legal freedom to use torture even in situations in which all 12 members of a jury would unanimously agree that it was not justified. The proper response to that is unprintable. (I'll add that if we actually do decide to set up that Permissible Torture Court, we had better CALL it that, instead of resorting to those multisyllabic euphemisms we're all so familiar with by now -- so that we keep in mind exactly what it is we're really doing.)

And as for the American public's attitude toward waterboarding: a Nov. 3 CNN showed the public opposing its use against "suspected terrorists" by 58-40 ( http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm ). Supporting torture as an interrogation technique may indeed be a winner in the GOP primaries, but it won't be in the general election -- unless some particularly slick GOP demagogue talks the people into supporting it and the Democrat turns out to be a befuddled mushmouth on the subject. (This is another reason why I hope the Dems nominate Sen. Webb for VP, in order to put some steel in the Presidential nominee's spine on this point.)

Did the dials go to 11?

Kevin's post pretends that Huckabee was talking about scholarships for poor people in general, when he was talking specifically about illegal immigrants. IMHO most voters don't want to reward people for breaking the law.

ex-liberal's comment pretends he has the reading comprehension of a fourth grader. The comment addresses "college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants," not undocumented immigrants, themselves. Those children that were born here to undocumented workers haven't done anything illegal, unless there are statutes against things like honor rolls & National Merit Scholars -- which may very well be the case in whatever godforsaken backwater ex-liberal calls home.

They might have a toothbrush and a prayer mat, perhaps some gum. ... Sometimes, we have to torture them to get them to tell us where they have emplaced in the battlespace items which might injure our troops.

Fucking hilarious. Even funnier that people engaged this as if it were serious.

I cannot help but wonder how Democratic focus groups would respond to the immigration stimulus. I think the great immigration scare of the early Twenty-first Century is nonpartisan and it scares me.

Did the dials go to 11?

Okay - I spit beer on my monitor. Too funny! (And I am, or course, embarrassed that I didn't think of it.)

Reports I've read say that waterboarding has been used just three times after 9/11. It was used to get information from top al Qaeda terrorist leaders. That information helped prevent more attacks.

Hahahaha! And reports I've read indicate that you can lose 15 pounds of unsightly fat in only 7 days! You can get $38 million from a widow in Nigeria! And if you wear these clothes and this aftershave, you can have sex with models!

sigh.

"Norman has GOT to be a parody, doesn't he?"

Probably - no one says things like this -

"So don't go calling me a "chicken hawk." Had I been in danger of being drafted, I was ready to mount up and go to war, albeit in Groton or perhaps Hartford. Ugh--Hartford."

in the context he used.

No one says things like -

"Well, you better put down the bong, duuuude, and get ready to do your part, because General Petraeus needs you frosty, and ready to put rounds down range, sir."

at all. Someone who uses the terms "battlespace" (professional slang) and "needs you frosty" is either really really weird, or working some sort of agenda. Though I've never had a gripe with the anonymity of the web, particularly in as freewheeling of a blog as Kevin's, my contempt for this douchebag is unaffected by whether or not he's a liberal or conservative, troll or honest poster, serviceman or civilian.

Gee, Kevin, if you're going to write about Joke Line, you should at least comment about his baseless article about FISA law -- since twice appended -- which appeared in last week's TIME magazine. Apparently, the primary source of his information was Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Looney Tunes).

And Norman Rogers, the fact that you're obviously frustrated with your personal life is really of no concern to me -- but since you claim to be so fabulously wealthy, perhaps you should consider just hiring hookers, instead of marrying them.

Have you ever tortured anyone, Norman? (I mean, other than your prescence here) What did you accomplish? Did you feel patriotic during the process? Did you feel remorse after? Or is your experience subjective/fantasy? And if so, ever considered getting help with your sociopathic tendencies?

Hold on while I pause the programme--Rory and Jess are having a bit of a spat and I don't want to miss it while I respond to a couple of things.

First, no. I'm not a parody. It's easy to confuse the fact that I don't care what any of you think with the blunt and honest way that I express myself. Blog commenting is a kind of therapy for me, and I have found--after four long years of doing this--that the more open, honest and breath-takingly simple I am, the less likely it will be that one of you turds will turn my words back onto me.

Second, hush. I explained what's what and who's who earlier. Do I need to rehash all of that? Give me a break.

Third, Lorelai is the kind of person who needs a good listener in her life. What I've figured out, after many, many years, is that I'm not a good listener. I promise, in the future, to be a better listener. I promise to continue to be more honest and open. And maybe, as we work all of these issues out together, we'll all learn a little something about the one person we seem to forget when we're blog commenting or shouting at the neighbors or when we're arguing with a convenience store clerk as to whether or not blunt wrapping papers should be subjected to both state and local taxes--yes, that person is ourselves.

BG

"You know you have my respect and admiration, and are the recipient of frequent installments of white light.:)"

That's not some sort of Jewish thing, is it? :-)

Don't admire me too much - I drink too much. Too much fornication too, under often questionable circumstances. I need to get hitched and go back to church.

But I appreciate the sentiment :-).

Just for the record, I served in the US Army. Second Infantry Division. Not that it really matters, but I felt like stating that fact.

It never ceases to amaze me at how the chicken hawks in our country can not support the military enough to actually serve in it.

Well, Norman, if your goal is to be breathtakingly simple, you've succeeded magnificently.

Well, Dahling, I could introduce you to my niece...(Now that's a Jewish thing...)

Well, Dahling, I could introduce you to my niece

Does she look anything like Lorelai? I could send bus fare.

Bruce,

I hear what you're saying, and I believe that you're pointed in the right direction, but any form of bureaucratic approved torture in anathema to our values. A couple of reasons for this -

-It inevitably elevates the "bigger badass" to the top of the interrogator heap. The thinkers and the patient get shunted aside.
-Processes tend to evolve that reward, and push for, quick answers.
-Group complicity in the worst of human nature.
-The "ticking time bomb" is bullshit, at least in the Jack Bauer sense (there are exceptions I'll mention in a minute). I'm not privy to Gitmo's inner workings (neither are you, ex-lib), but it's plausible, even very likely, that we've had people in Gitmo and other places that knew things that would save\kill human beings. It's much less plausible that they're knowledge was of such an immediate sort that by the time we captured, processed, and transported that longer term, and more effective, techniques wouldn't be appropriate
-If a bureaucracy can justify torture, it can justify ANYTHING (ask John Yoo)

The only "acceptable" form of torture is a soldier or intelligence officer out on the ends of the earth - convinced that he has a "ticking time bomb" on his hands. This will likely be in the form of a VBIED or something similar - not a Atomic Demolition Munition. The key - that trooper has to take responsibility. If he makes the tough call and gets it right - congratulations - here's your pardon, promotion and\or book deal. If you get it wrong - go to jail. If you misjudge and beat the guy to death, or you torture an innocent local - the only thing your motive is good for is mitigation at the sentencing hearing.

The Bushies don't handle the idea of personal responsibility in lieu of explicit authorization well. Just one more unfortunate aspect of over-lawyering.

Rereading the 1237 post, I want to clarify - I don't consider torture "acceptable". I just recognize that the ticking time bomb theory does present the possibility of a real dilemma - but it's a dilemma at the individual moral\ethical level. Trying to apply it at the bureaucratic\policy level has a lot less to do with trying to do the right thing than it does with reactionary politics, fear, and, in the US's case, an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

Hotrod,

Just a quick question about the "ticking time bomb theory." I know that you are more knowledgeable in this area than I am, but couldn't the person being tortured just blurt out the wrong answer, just to avoid being tortured (I know this scenario happened in some movie)? So torture isn't that effective anyway because you don't know if you are getting the right answer or not. I am just curious because the "ticking time bomb theory" is the hypothetical most cited by torture apologists.

And thanks for your service.

All,

I know that this post is a bit late, but please do not discount the use of the immigration issue to rile up the Republican base. I just remember the California gubernatorial election in 1994 between Kathleen Brown and Pete Wilson (I just graduated from High School, started college, and was working on my first political campaign). In that election, poll after poll showed support for all the issues that Kathleen Brown supported...all except one. And that was illegal immigration. The Republicans used it as a wedge issue in 1994 (that was the year of proposition 187 - which was later found to be unconstitutional) and it was the only reason Pete Wilson won that election.

Maybe I am just overly pessimistic. But I just have a bad feeling about next year. I just feel that the Republicans are going to use illegal immigration as a wedge issue just like 1994.

I keep waiting for that inevitable moment when Norman threatens to horsewhip some young'un.
Tonight he disappointed me, sigh. And I made a whole big bowl of popcorn.

Norman Rogers: "Does she look anything like Lorelai?"

Sorry, Norman Rogers, but the only one that "[looks] anything like Lorelai" placed in today's third race at Hollywood Park.

Yeah -- Norm is having his Kong moment, Lorelai is his Ann. Sad to see how a pretty face can make a fool out of such a brave man. That last paragraph of his about becoming a better listener was such a tearjerker. But I'm sure he'll get a grip once he's mailed the DVD back to Netflix.

The question isn't why we should punish the innocent who had nothing to do with their parents breaking the law, but why we should reward them. Shouldn't any Dream Act cover the children of bank robbers, serial murderers, rapists, and so forth? Are they not also innocent children of lawbreakers?

The real question is why we are the only country in the world that has a custom of granting citizenship to jackpot babies. There is no Constitutional basis for this. Clearly the authors of the 14th amendment could not have predicted that we would have a president and Senate so corrupt that they would encourage illegal infiltration into our country.

Do you mean 'your Republican base' or 'your base Republican' ?

(pretty much one and the same)

Blog commenting is a kind of therapy for me, and I have found--after four long years of doing this--that the more open, honest and breath-takingly simple I am, the less likely it will be that one of you turds will turn my words back onto me.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Your form of "therapy" is not working. The staff at the institution you reside at needs to strengthen the dosage of your psychotropic medication.

The PURPOSE of focus groups, particularly those with dial reaction, is simply to measure how people react to what they are hearing, as they hear it: favorable or unfavorable.

The Luntz findings are ABSOLUTELY consistent with every other measure I know of, e.g., Stan Greenberg's polling that finds the word "benefits" is what motivates ferocious objections to illegal immigration.

Pull your collective head out of your ass, folks.

Quinnipiac just did two major polls in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which showed that folks oppose ILLEGAL immigration, and regard it as a bad thing, by huge margins: Ohio voters are 84 - 11 against driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, 61 - 35 percent against a free education to the children of illegal immigrants. In Pennsylvania, it's 81 - 16 against driver's licenses while it's 58 - 37 that children of illegal immigrants should not get a free public education.

For progressives to either deny that this IS what the public thinks or, grudgingly to concede that this is what people believe but it only proves that most Americans are racist, is the epitome of arrogant stooooopidity.

We can do a LOT better than this -- but first, you guys gotta grow up. (Cue Dice and assorted knuckleheads to huff about how smart and self-evidently righteous they are.)

So how come EVERY SINGLE FUCKING POST Kevin makes about "immigration" always frames it as if the ONLY issues that count are the benefits resulting from breaking the law?

From the outside the republican take on immigration comes across as incredibly nasty and hateful. The attitudes you see in this very thread are going to ensure that the republican party doesn't get anywhere near power for a generation or more. Look at California. Wilson had temporary success with immigrant-bashing. Republicans used to be able to win presidential elections in CA and used to be competitive within the state. No more.

Marc,

Image what is going to happen after the Democratic Party collapses and all of those middle class angry private sector white start voting in the Democratic primary. What effects will they have on elections? Remember, they are much better at showing up to the polls than almost any other demographic group.

The sad demise of the Americanist continues unabated...

(Cue Dice and assorted knuckleheads to huff about how smart and self-evidently righteous they are.)

Nah, you took care of that for us.

The gist of what you're saying, as always, borders on the anti-social and the ludicrous. Is there any reason to parse what you're saying and point out that you're just nuts and totally off base?

-Frank Luntz: serial liar and Republican operative. Regardless of what you think of his methodology, Luntz doesn't do anything that would hurt the Republican Party. His income would disappear.

-Illegal immigrants actually do NOT overwhelm the health care industry at all. The perception that they do is made by, as always, right wing hate purveyors like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and center-right kooks like Dobbs and Matthews.

-Path to legalization and citizenship policies make sense. Drivers licenses make sense. In certain urban areas, far too many people drive illegally, and anything that curtails the driving of a vehicle without some form of liability insurance is a public safety issue.

-The overwhelming benefit of having wingnuts go nuts about undocumented workers is that it makes more people vote for the Democratic Party. You can only motivate voters with hate for so long.

If I wanted to get people to be against having Hispanics come to this country to find work, the best way to go about it is to scream about how illegal it is. I'd call it "illegal immigration" and I'd spread all kinds of stories about how evil and awful it is. Here's how I would about getting people to drive slower on the freeways. I'd call it "Murder Death Driving" and I'd spread all kinds of stories about how people are flying through windshields and getting impaled on poles. I'd get some hack to repeat it over and over again on his tinny little TV show. Holy shit, murder death driving killed four nuns and a basket full of puppies today!

Polling means what on an issue with loaded code words? Do you just accept it without questioning it? Most of the people who post here question everything they see or read and do a good job of analyzing what they see. Perhaps that's why you have such a problem when you wander in here, full of piss and vinegar. What does it say about your inability to see past simple poll results--of course people are going to be against something called "illegal" Duh!

When you start to talk reasonably about the issue, this is what the polling does:

The survey found, for example, that 67% would allow illegal immigrants to “apply for a four-year visa… as long as they pay a $5,000 fine, a fee, show a clean work record, and pass a criminal background check.” That, too, is similar to a Rasmussen Reports survey which found 65% support for a compromise proposal allowing illegal aliens a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

Despite the presence of loaded buzzwords and all that, you see more and more people getting more and more reasonable about the issue. If a candidate wants the progressive vote, then progressives are going to demand reasonable approaches instead of kneejerk reactions that don't solve problems. That's what's so difficult about courting a progressive voter. They think about things.

In your little way, you simply enable demagogues to take issues into areas they don't need to go in. That's why, on a consistent basis, your analysis of events is rejected wholesale in this forum and that's why nothing you say means anything in the long run. You're just giving us your kneejerk analysis without engaging your brain.

Bush seeks to pressure Democrats on war funds, stand up to this corrupt sucker and tell him NO, and while your at it bring our troops home.

Pale Rider,

The questions for progressives is how in the next 25 years they plan to lower carbon emissions in the U.S. below 1990 levels while allowing in 25 million more legal immigratns and an equal number of illegal immigrants?

Also, how do they plan to increasing take homepage for the middle class while allowing in 40 million or more immigrants. How do they plan to improve the education system while filling schools with non-english speakers? How can the U.S. create jobs, homes, and transportation infrastructure for 40 million immigrants while lowering carbon emissions? How can the U.S. expand healthcare coverage while adding 40 new million immigrants to the 40 million current immigrants to the roles of taxpayer funded education.

It would be nice if progressives could reconcile their positions of the environment, healthcare and open borders. I just do not see how it works.

It seems to be that the left had decide to support open borders because the Republicans are for closing the borders. It also does not hurt that virtually all of those immigrants will be future Democratic voters will have a huge appetite for government funded benefits.

Image what is going to happen after the Democratic Party collapses and all of those middle class angry private sector white start voting in the Democratic primary.

First of all, how many of them do you think there are?

Second of all, how many of them actually vote? Where's your proof that they are more motivated to vote than any other group? It's actually old people who turn out to vote on specific issues in large numbers. And in a primary? Please. There will not be a massive flood of people who are going to rise up in February and march down to the polling places to somehow punish a Democrat who's running for office in a primary.

Third, the middle class rejection of Republican policies is pretty much a done deal, based on looking at the overwhelmingly low approval ratings of the President, the lack of campaign donations going to Republicans in the House and Senate, and the lackluster enthusiasm for anything this administration tries to do. The middle class is being harmed by the policies of the Republican Party. And they know it. So maybe that's what's going to motivate part of that block you mentioned to do what, exactly? Punish Democrats because they're not Republicans?

Fourth, this election will hinge on what women decide to vote for, and in overwhelming numbers, they ain't gonna pull the lever for the party that denied kids health care, let New Orleans drown and have kept us in a needless war. The "angry white male" is a thing of the past. Sure, a lot of them could tip an election in a close state. But in a national election? Hardly.

Other than being childish and naive, what else do you have to offer?

pale rider,

From http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

In 2004, turnout rates for citizens were 67 percent for non-Hispanic whites, 60 percent for blacks, 44 percent for Asians and 47 percent for Hispanics (of any race).

The over 65 y/o demographic is the whitest demographic in the U.S., so of course it had the highest voter turnout.

Remember, if blacks and hispanics had the same voter turnout as whites, the Republican party would be irrelevant today and the U.S. would be a defacto one party state. However, the incompentence of the Bush Administration along with changing demographics ensure that the Democratic Party will be the only relevant party in the near future.

At that point, middle class private sector whites, the group that votes the highest for Republicans, will have a choice of either voting in the Democratic Primary. yhe only relevant elections, or sitting at home and not voting. My guess, based or prevous history in the old south, is that they will start voting in the Democratic Primaries.

Look at the recent experiences of black Democrats in Mississippi trying to keep middle class whites from voting in the Democratic Primary. Also see how Cynthia McKinney was voted out of office twice.

The questions for progressives is how in the next 25 years they plan to lower carbon emissions in the U.S. below 1990 levels while allowing in 25 million more legal immigratns and an equal number of illegal immigrants?

You're a crackhead. 25 million? And THEY'RE the reason for climate change? That's a flight of fancy. What, do each and every one of them bring a coal burning furnace and a fifty foot smokestack with them when they sneak into this country? You've made a ludicrous connection between two things that aren't related.

Also, how do they plan to increasing take homepage for the middle class while allowing in 40 million or more immigrants. How do they plan to improve the education system while filling schools with non-english speakers? How can the U.S. create jobs, homes, and transportation infrastructure for 40 million immigrants while lowering carbon emissions? How can the U.S. expand healthcare coverage while adding 40 new million immigrants to the 40 million current immigrants to the roles of taxpayer funded education.

Whoa, son, whoa! 40 million? on top of 40 million? What happened to 25 million? You're completely unhinged. You must be on crystal meth. Slow down, stop tweaking, and ventilate your property. Ease out the side door slowly, and do not make a spark. Watch out for static electricity. None of the numbers you cite add up, none of them make sense, and nothing you state has any basis in fact. Economies grow with population, and public policy is based on that. But what you're beating the drum for is wildly unsubstantiated and insane.

It would be nice if progressives could reconcile their positions of the environment, healthcare and open borders. I just do not see how it works.

Where do those issues intersect with reality? They are furtive attempts by a one-issue group (the we hate brown people group) to try to demand all encompassing short answers to large public policy questions. The first place you start is to quit demonizing poor people. I know this is not going to register with you, but no where on the fact of this Earth can you find a way to blame poor people for every fucking problem there is. In fact, most of the time, poor people aren't the cause of these things. But, most of the time, they're the scapegoat for someone's terrified imagination.

It seems to be that the left had decide to support open borders because the Republicans are for closing the borders. It also does not hurt that virtually all of those immigrants will be future Democratic voters will have a huge appetite for government funded benefits.

Oh, so now we see that you're not really concerned about what's going on, you just don't want there to be a free handout for brown people. Are you afraid someone who's poor might get some help? Are you afraid someone might tackle the issue of poverty and do something to help people who are less fortunate than you? Like create jobs and opportunities for them, like education, health care, and better places to live?

Because if that's what scares you, your nightmares about what's going on are simply the asinine fears of someone who isn't going to be a part of normal human society anyway.

Just drop out now, motherfucker. The world will move on and leave you behind anyway.

Look at the recent experiences of black Democrats in Mississippi trying to keep middle class whites from voting in the Democratic Primary. Also see how Cynthia McKinney was voted out of office twice.

If you take a pillowcase, and cut out a couple of eyeholes, and decide to join up with forty or fifty like-minded folks, try not to show up with the percale pillowcase that has the flowery patterns. Trust me when I tell you this, the way to make a good impression when you and your friends go off to burn your first cross is to NOT be wearing something that makes you look as stupid as you really are.

I mean, really. The brown and the black people in this country aren't taking anything away from you that you haven't already pissed away by being the stupidest fucking idiot on the planet. Chances are, you weren't going to get rich selling metholated pork rinds out of the back of your Monte Carlo anyway.

DO tell us, Pale, why "comprehensive immigration reform" cratered in the Senate, losing support every day it was on the floor.

DO tell us why you refer to "calling something illegal" rather than, say, it ACTUALLY being illegal.

Kindly explain why you use the same meme as immigration opponents, blurring the line between legal and illegal.

While you're at it, kindly account for Luntz's role in the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, and the passage of Prop 187 by a solid margin that same year.

THEN -- when you've ever so carefully re-entered the earth's atmosphere -- DO tell us why polling done by Stan Greenberg, Mark Penn, and Peter Brown is consistent with the results from Luntz that you blithely dismiss.

The Americanist, upset at being destroyed again and again by simply explaining why he's wrong, asks:

DO tell us, Pale, why "comprehensive immigration reform" cratered in the Senate, losing support every day it was on the floor.

Trent Lott said it best--talk radio is the problem. Pretty bold statement. But, by and large, the majority in the Senate wanted some form of path to legalization, but the rabid right went thermonuclear and helped kill the deal. Same thing sort of happened with the Dubai ports deal. Had nothing to do with what was actually good policy or what the Senate wanted. They just didn't want to have to deal with the backlash.

DO tell us why you refer to "calling something illegal" rather than, say, it ACTUALLY being illegal.

Murder death driving is illegal, too. Or you could call it speeding. Or you could call it driving with the flow of traffic. Lots of things are illegal. Jaywalking is illegal. Are the cops throwing people through plate glass windows because of it? Are Federal Agents demanding papers at every street corner? But you're being pretty simpleminded today. Of course it's illegal. And if I want to influence people to oppose something, I'm going to give it the worst possible name I can think of. Illegal Murder Fucking Immigration works better.

Kindly explain why you use the same meme as immigration opponents, blurring the line between legal and illegal.

??? Are you taking hits off stupiddestroyer's meth pipe?

While you're at it, kindly account for Luntz's role in the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, and the passage of Prop 187 by a solid margin that same year.

I think I made that point when I stated that he is a proven serial liar and a dishonest partisan hack for the Republican Party.

THEN -- when you've ever so carefully re-entered the earth's atmosphere -- DO tell us why polling done by Stan Greenberg, Mark Penn, and Peter Brown is consistent with the results from Luntz that you blithely dismiss.

I dismiss Luntz because he's a serial liar and dishonest partisan hack. I never addressed any of those other people. That's a projection you made, based on the fact that you're now caught trying to use Luntz--LUNTZ!--of all people to back something up.

Talk about hitching your wagon to a dead horse.

I know, I know. We're all dummies and stooopid and you're here to tell us why. Yawn.

"I never addressed any of those other people. "

Yeah -- but I did. I cited very specific polling data from Greenberg and Peter Brown, which back up Luntz.

This is yet more proof of your stooopidity, Pale. Get it now?

Pale Rider,

You may want to review

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902092.html

The head of a Mississippi Democratic Party organization illegally suppressed white residents' votes, a federal judge ruled Friday in the first case filed by the Justice Department alleging that whites were subjected to voting discrimination based on their race.

You may also want to review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney#2002_primary_defeat

McKinney protested the result in court, claiming that thousands of Republicans, knowing they had no realistic chance of defeating her in the November general election, had voted in the Democratic primary against McKinney in revenge for her anti-Bush administration views and her allegations of possible voter fraud in Florida in the 2000 Presidential Election.

As the Republican party collapses, many former Republicans will begin to vote in the Democratic Primary. Not in 2008 but probably starting in 2012 and definitely by 2016 and later. The two main questions is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state and what effect will the former Republicans have on the Democratic Primaries.

Also, you totally avoided the question of how progressives plan to reconcile open borders, carbon emission reduction, free health care for all, and increasing the standard of living of the middle class. Any economist would tell you that they are competing for the same resources and thus cannot all be accomplished.

Oh, and Americanist? Quit while you're ahead today.

While you're at it, kindly account for Luntz's role in the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, and the passage of Prop 187 by a solid margin that same year.

Media Matters For America--

Discredited Republican pollster Frank Luntz, CEO and president of Luntz Research Companies, made four appearances during MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic (July 28 and July 29) and Republican (September 1 and September 2) National Conventions, touting flawed focus groups in three of his appearances. Not once during any of these appearances did any MSNBC anchor or commentator mention Luntz's partisan Republican ties or questionable ethical standards.

The overall results of Luntz's convention studies were not overtly in favor of either presidential candidate -- the focus groups' results for each convention generally favored each convention's featured party. But three of his four focus groups showed an institutional bias toward President George W. Bush. One Luntz focus group held during the DNC compared Gore 2000 voters to Bush 2000 voters. But he conducted three other groups (one during the DNC and two during the RNC) in which he compared Republicans' reactions to speeches to the combined reactions of Democrats and Independents. Furthermore, during his September 2 appearance on MSNBC, Luntz described those groups as "Republicans" and "Democrats"; but onscreen, they were identified as "GOP" and "Dem/Ind."

On July 28, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews described Luntz as "a great pollster," but as Media Matters for America has noted, Salon.com reported in 2000 that there is little reason to trust his polls. In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reprimanded Luntz for his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 Contract with America campaign platform. The Salon.com article described Luntz as "possibly the best example of what we could call the pollster pundit: someone who both purports to scientifically poll the opinions of the public, and then also interpret that data to support his own -- in Luntz's case, conservative -- point of view." Luntz has explained his own methodology as follows: "Say you poll on an environmental issue, and on eight of the 10 questions the numbers are in your favor. Why release the other two? It's like being a lawyer."

Matt Bai--

Lakoff informed his political theories by studying the work of Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who helped Newt Gingrich formulate the Contract With America in 1994. To Lakoff and his followers, Luntz is the very embodiment of Republican deception. His private memos, many of which fell into the hands of Democrats, explain why. In one recent memo, titled "The 14 Words Never to Use," Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls, grandly, the "New American Lexicon." Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates "drilling for oil"; he prefers "exploring for energy." He should never criticize the "government," which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack "Washington," with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. "We should never use the word outsourcing," Luntz wrote, "because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas."

In Lakoff's view, not only does Luntz's language twist the facts of his agenda but it also renders facts meaningless by actually reprogramming, through long-term repetition, the neural networks inside our brains. And this is where Lakoff's vision gets a little disturbing. According to Lakoff, Democrats have been wrong to assume that people are rational actors who make their decisions based on facts; in reality, he says, cognitive science has proved that all of us are programmed to respond to the frames that have been embedded deep in our unconscious minds, and if the facts don't fit the frame, our brains simply reject them. Lakoff explained to me that the frames in our brains can be "activated" by the right combination of words and imagery, and only then, once the brain has been unlocked, can we process the facts being thrown at us.

There's tons more, but why bother? I know I'm stoooopid.

But how many of those people behind the dials do you know, Kevin? Have you ever talked to one of those Republican voters behind the dials?

Also, you totally avoided the question of how progressives plan to reconcile open borders, carbon emission reduction, free health care for all, and increasing the standard of living of the middle class. Any economist would tell you that they are competing for the same resources and thus cannot all be accomplished.

Let's parse this a little more closely--

1. reconcile open borders,
2. carbon emission reduction,
3. free health care for all, and
4. increasing the standard of living of the middle class

You have taken four issues and thrown them together, in a way that dishonestly tries to show that doing ALL of them means we will fail. In reality, we have an entertwined economy that does all of these things and more.

A way to explain this, is to start with an illegal immigrant who has an idea. That idea stems from watching how grass clippings are just dumped into a hole after they've been collected. The illegal immigrant took a class in his school once, sponsored by the Peace Corps, which explained how to use grass clippings as mulch. So the illegal immigrant decides that the grass clippings will be used as mulch in planters on the flat rooftops of apartment buildings. This creates an opportunity for the company he works for to create green space on rooftops. They don't have to drive across town to dump the clippings in a hole anymore. Not only do they save money by recycling materials, they create new business by tending to the green spaces created on rooftops. Another company in town finds a way to make large planters out of the recycled burned crosses that the local chapter of the KKK, of which you belong, have left all over the place. The company where the illegal immigrant works grows in size and can now afford to purchase health care insurance for a larger number of employees who are able to pay the fines that allow them to get on the path to legalization. As the company becomes more successful in marketing its business to use grass clippings to fertilize green rooftops, the environmental impact of having more and more green rooftops helps reduce carbon emissions means that the once illegal immigrant can now branch out, and move to another city and expand the business he's helped create, becoming an entrepreneur.

Have you fucked off yet? Or did you forget to cut ear holes in that pillowcase?

Ah, you gotta love Digby. She says it better than I can.

-------------------
Only Time Will Tell
by digby

I tend to be a tiny bit of a skeptical sometimes, so I'm always relieved when I see clear evidence that racism plays no part in the immigration debate:

The chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas called Wednesday for state Sen. Denny Altes, R-Fort Smith, to apologize for e-mail comments attributed to the Senate GOP leader by a television station.

[...]

In the e-mail on the television station’s Web site, the message attributed to Altes states that he’s for “sending the illegals back but we know that is impossible.

“ We are where we were with the black folks after the revolutionary war. We can’t send them back and the more we p *** them off the worse it will be in the future. So what do we do,” the e-mail states. “I say the governor needs to try to enforce the law and sign the letter of understanding... and at least we can send the troublemakers back. Sure we are being overrun but we are being outpopulated by the blacks also. What is the answer, only time will tell.”

It's great to be living in a post racist society isn't it?
---------------

Pale Rider,

A second non-answer and the used of an anecdotal story to boot.

Everyone person who comes to the U.S. generates more carbon than they do in the country they came from. This is especially true for those poor individuals coming from Mexico and Central America. Those individuals require the use of more coal, natural gas, and coal in the U.S.

At the same time that John Edwards is proposing open borders, he is proposing decreasing carbon emissions. The question is how does the U.S. keep form building new powerplants, new transmission lines, and importing more natural gas if the progressives are planning to add tens of million of additional people to the U.S.

John Edwards also talks about two Americans and wants to increase take home pay and living conditions for the middle class. One way of doing this is to increase trade barriers. Of course this will raise the price o many products while giving the benefits to a few groups of workers. Yet, he proposes importing millions of low skilled workers. That means that progressives like John Edwards are proposing to increase prices while decreasing wages. The only people who will benefit are those who face little competition from immigrants such as government workers.

All of the Democratic candidates are proposing universal healthcare with some form of single payer. This means that anyone in the U.S. gets "free" health care. How can the U.S. provide them comprehensive healthcare without raising prices?

Also, can you get through at least one post without profanity?

> Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican base.
Dont tell me, tell republicans!

cragie,

They might have a toothbrush and a prayer mat, perhaps some gum. ... Sometimes, we have to torture them to get them to tell us where they have emplaced in the battlespace items which might injure our troops.

Fucking hilarious. Even funnier that people engaged this as if it were serious.

You got that right. Personally I think the perhaps some gum is genius.

People, embrace Norman as a parody and you will be entertained and a lot happier! Seriously. You ain't gonna get no satisfaction arguing with him.

Republicans:

• Hate those who aren't rich.
  
• Hate those who aren't white.
  
• Hate those who aren't Christian.
  
• Hate those who aren't straight.
  

All the while they are hypocrites and vultures, grabbing money from the government while whining about others who are actually in need of government help.

Kevin wrote: "Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican base."

No excesses of vicious depravity from Republicans will be surprising to those who have read the comments posted by Republicans on this site over the last few years.

Yo ho, yo ho, a wingnut's life for me.
We pillage, we plunder, we torture, and loot,
So cut my taxes, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot,
Start a new war, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a wingnut's life for me.
We extort, we pilfer, we filch, and sack,
So cut my taxes, yo ho.
Maraud and embezzle, and even high-jack,
Start a new war, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a wingnut's life for me.
We kindle and char, inflame and ignite,
So cut my taxes, yo ho.
We burn up the city, we're really a fright,
Start a new war, yo ho.

We're rascals, scoundrels, villains, and knaves,
So cut my taxes, yo ho.
We're devils and black sheep, really bad eggs,
Start a new war, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a wingnut's life for me.
We're phonies and liars who don't give a damn
So cut my taxes, yo ho.
Everything we do is really a scam
Start a new war, yo ho.

Just when one tries to attach anti-immigration sentiments solely to the right, along comes a self proclaimed "progressive liberal" such as Ed Schultz extolling Tancredo's hateful ad about terrorists and illegals being one and the same. Schultz states that immigration will be the key issue, especially for independents. Of course, Ed is sooo "progressive and liberal" that he opposes abortion and gay marriage.

Fine writing as usual, Pale Rider, but, perhaps if only you were more down to earth and in touch with the hoi polloi and used "cuz" more often? Might help more people feel all warm and fuzzy about your thoughts. Just stated this "cuz"........

A second non-answer and the used of an anecdotal story to boot.

You've been given multiple answers and you refuse to accept them. How is that my problem?

Everyone person who comes to the U.S. generates more carbon than they do in the country they came from. This is especially true for those poor individuals coming from Mexico and Central America. Those individuals require the use of more coal, natural gas, and coal in the U.S.

No, that's not true. A fat person uses more oxygen than a thin person when climbing the stairs. Therefore, the fat person puts more CO2 back into the atmosphere. Illegal immigrants are more likely to be thin than a fat, oversized, overfed and overconsuming American.

At the same time that John Edwards is proposing open borders, he is proposing decreasing carbon emissions. The question is how does the U.S. keep form building new powerplants, new transmission lines, and importing more natural gas if the progressives are planning to add tens of million of additional people to the U.S.

Wow, you linked another series of issues that have nothing to do with one another to a blatant lie about John Edwards. Since we can't reconcile your initial lie, nor can we figure out how to take the disparate ends of the argument you're trying to concoct out of thin air, how do we proceed? Please show me where Edwards said that we want everyone in Mexico to come across the open southern border and live here.

John Edwards also talks about two Americans and wants to increase take home pay and living conditions for the middle class. One way of doing this is to increase trade barriers. Of course this will raise the price o many products while giving the benefits to a few groups of workers. Yet, he proposes importing millions of low skilled workers. That means that progressives like John Edwards are proposing to increase prices while decreasing wages. The only people who will benefit are those who face little competition from immigrants such as government workers.

Sounds like another dishonest attempt to create something that isn't there. You feel that misrepresenting Edwards and what he has proposed allows you to make a point? First of all, Edwards is simply saying that our policies need to start taking care of working Americans. H