| |
|
Saturday, July 08, 2006
|
|
The Republican Juggernaut apparently has two positions on guest workers. One for non-immigrant audiences...
[Katherine] Harris declared in a letter to supporters this week that incumbent U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Tallahassee, is "weak on immigration."
Her reason: He favors a sweeping immigration bill offering millions of illegal immigrants and future guest workers a path to citizenship.
[snip]
"She does oppose amnesty and those who are here illegally being rewarded with an easier path to citizenship than anyone who comes here legally," spokesman Ingram said of Harris' stance.
[snip]
Supporters of the bill avoid using the term "amnesty," but hard-liners say that's what it is. Said Ingram: "You can call it earned citizenship or amnesty, but a duck's a duck."
The House bill, which Harris supported, generally is limited to border enforcement, with a 700-mile wall along the border as its centerpiece.
Another for Cuban immigrants.
Harris said ``Hola'' and ``Gracias,'' which are hello and thank you in Spanish, as she walked into the landmark Versailles restaurant, then began her short speech with a sentence in Spanish thanking those in attendance for their support.
[snip]
Afterward, she clarified with reporters her stance on the nation's immigration policy. Harris said she voted for a House bill that would toughen border security but did not support the aspect of the measure that makes all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges.
``I did not support felonizing and that will not be in the final bill whatsoever,'' she said, adding that she wants a temporary worker program.
(Via First Draft.)
1:58:35 PM 
|
|
Xeni Jardin:
"Taking a Limbaugh" has should become slang for "taking Viagra" in the adult entertainment world, according to this AVN article. Link (Thanks, Thomas)
(Via Boing Boing.)
"Taking a Limbaugh" sounds more to me like what Kinky Friedman calls "takign a Nixon." That is, taking a dump.
1:46:28 PM
|
|
But people on FoxNews would never think of such a label for Dear Leader.
Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally...
...But one Republican close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, predicted that Mr. Bush would ultimately abandon the idea of a path to citizenship.
Giving up, though, would doom the legislation in the Senate. Mr. Pence met last week with leading Republican senators, including Mr. Specter, John McCain of Arizona and Mel Martinez of Florida.
Bush is ultimately going to choose the "base" on this one - which means essentially beating any non-white over their "virtual" head. The "so-called" genius Karl Rove has completely botched this one. Hispanics are going to vote this year, their base has been energized by idiots like James Sensenbrenner -- and they are not voting Republican.
(Via Rising Hegemon.)
11:26:27 AM
|
|
The lead editorial spot in yesterday's 7/7/2006 Wall Street Journal is curious, even for that paper. The piece makes the point that since the states were allowed to set their own speed limits, often above 55 mph, safety on the highways has improved, with a 16% decline in the highway fatality rate per miles driven. It's good news. But to credit this decrease in deaths to increasing speed limits is strange. First of all, because something happens before something else, doesn't mean there's a causality effect -- at the same time, the number of autos without airbags has dropped, as has the number of drivers and passengers in cars who don't wear seat belts. I bet it'd be easy to find a greater correlation between more laws enforcing seat belt usage and decreased death rate, if the Journal had wanted to look. Secondly, as the Journal states, on highways, compliance with the old speed limit was very low -- "about 95% of drivers were exceeding the speed limit." So, if nobody obeyed the old laws anyway, how can repealing them have had an effect? Very strange.
But stranger still, was a kind of throwaway line in the piece. The piece notes that 43,000 Americans die on the road every year, "about 15 times the number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq." What an odd statement. Is it there to minimize the impact of those 2500+ deaths in Iraq? Or maximize the impact of the number of deaths on the highways. And for comparison's sake, couldn't they also have said "about 15 times the number of those who died on 9/11?" Doesn't that show that our reaction to 9/11 is out of proportion to the toll it actually took? Is that what the Journal is saying about those combat deaths in Iraq?
11:26:03 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Steve Michel.
Last update: 8/1/2006; 8:56:02 AM.
|
|
|
