Lemme guess, he confused Ford and GM too.

What part of this am I missing? Sandoval's answer seems like an honest response to the question. As far as I can tell, it doesn't imply support for or opposition to the Arizona law and, frankly, it doesn't seem insensitive or callous.

What bothers me is the station not being willing to show or release the video so people can decide for themselves.

Good luck with that minority outreach program, Republicans.

Also, so much for those claims that there's nothing racist about the Arizona gestapo law.

CONTEXT.IS.EVERYTHING!!!!! Didn't we learn anything from the Shirley Sherrod business? What did Sandoval say next? Something like, "They're the lucky ones, but kids who do look Hispanic might not be so lucky?" Or "Kids who do look Hispanic probably shouldn't travel there?" He did in fact give an honest answer to a specific question, and did not say that kids who do look Hispanic deserve to get harassed.

What does Sandoval think should happen to children in Arizona who do "look Hispanic"?

The better question is, "what does Sandoval think will happen to children in Arizona who do look Hispanic?".

I mean, it certainly can't be any kind of racial profiling, because Republicans have repeatedly insisted that that will never happen, and that that's just scaremongering from the Democrats. Right?

It's not necessarily what he thinks should happen to people who do look Hispanic, he doesn't say that -- it's the implication that he fully understands that notwithstanding the protests to the contrary, this law is aimed at and will be used to target people who do look Hispanic. And perhaps, the additional implication that since his children don't look Hispanic he's not particularly worried about the bill. Cold comfort to people who might otherwise be inclined to support him because he shares their background.

I'm going a little wide on this one, but here it goes: There is a DVD entitled CRUDE, A Joe Berlinger Film. Berlinger is being sued by Chevron to release ALL of his footage, including what was edited out of the final cut, because Chevron doesn't like what he said about them and they want to look for evidence of misuse of the material (I'm paraphrasing). What is to prevent the full release of this video of the good judge's statements, via lawsuit? The First Amendment seems to be at issue here. But, the Judge seems to think it does not apply to him and "Univision, however, is declining to release the tape, claiming (as most media organizations would) that it is work product." It seems that Chevron's position is that "work product" is subject to their scrutiny, without making specific citations of what they are looking for.

So, does the First Amendment apply to this situation, and does a lying (as opposed to sitting) judge get to control the free press?

I don't think it's an embarassing statement. I'm hispanic, my parents are my sister is. My sister and I are less dark than our parents. If your skin is less brown you have less obstacles that is simply a fact. It's not crazy that if you look mostly white you will be more likely to be left alone. And that's not even forgetting the legacy of Spanish rule with its classes (peninsular spaniards, full blooded New World Spaniards, half breed Spaniards, mutts, full Mesoamerican Indians).

What I think is going on with Univision is not that it's a gubernatorial hopeful it's that he's a hispanic gubernatorial hopeful. You're brown and you deal with it, but a lot of us would just rather be white because that's easier and more advantageous.

THAT's why they don't want to air it. It's not a topic you'd want to discuss in private let alone by a standard bearer like Sandoval.

What's the scandal here? That he acknowledged the racist roots of SB-1070? Oooh. Scary.

I wonder what Arizona wants to do about the families of hispanics who have fought and died for this country, will they put them in tent city prison too?

DH Walker touches on the important part of this: Sandoval pretty clearly acknowledges exactly what us dirty hippies are complaining about - that people will be targeted because of their appearance.

But that's okay - it says in the Constitution that it's okay to do that. I mean, it must say that somewhere in there, seeing as how our Republican friends are always going on about the Constitution with such vehemence.

What's the scandal here? That he acknowledged the racist roots of SB-1070?

Um, yes? Considering how many on the right insist that there are no racist aspects to SB1070 (when they're not inadvertently admitting that there are, I mean).

Am I wrong to think that if he were a Democrat the tv would be showing this non-stop 24 hours a day?

Thomas Jefferson's kids by Sally Hemings were allowed to run away from the plantation as soon as they reached 17 or 18 years of age.

They were all literate, and most had some vocational schooling. Can't accuse Thomas Jefferson of entirely neglecting his brood of bastards. They merged into Northern society quite successfully as white people.

They "passed" as white because they were mostly white. As was Sally herself.

She was the one slave Jefferson freed in his will. The rest were were sold off by his legitimate daughters to pay off his massive debts.

Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson was one of our "founding fathers"?

No wonder we are so screwed up!

Sandoval's answer seems like an honest response to the question. - DRF

Sure, if you're prepared to admit that SB-1070 is about racial profiling.

And if were nothing but an innocent little 'honest response', why would Sandoval feel compelled to deny it happened?

hi, this is me again. my name is Myeca Joanna Mendoza Bacani. My favorite is Charli. I live in New Zealand. I was born in Santa Rita Guagua Pampanga Phillippines. Just like Kathleen.