Illegal Immigration:Democrats Advocate Anarchy

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION:
Today's race in California to replace crooked Cunningham should be an interesting one with ginormous implications for upcoming races. In today's Political diary (WSJ PAID Only), John Fund writes;

A split is taking place in last-minute media coverage of today's special election for the California House seat vacated by disgraced former Congressman Duke Cunningham. Major media outlets have completely ignored the controversy over Democratic candidate Francine Busby's answer to a question from a Spanish-speaking man who wanted to know how he could aid her campaign. "You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help," Ms. Busby told the man. She now claims she misspoke and intended to say that those under 18 years of age could still volunteer for the campaign.

Misspoke? You don't need to be a registered voter? That is very,  painfully clear.

Even though virtually unreported by mainstream outlets, the comment has created a firestorm in the district because it was caught on tape. The Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and local talk radio have all played the audio clip of the incident.

Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, thinks the comment will have a major impact in a race that polls late last week showed effectively tied. "Francine Busby really stepped in it," he says. "Apparently having someone trail a candidate with a video recorder isn't a waste of time after all."

Should Republican candidate Brian Bilbray win by a larger than expected margin, many will speculate that the Busby booboo was a big factor. Southern California talk show host Hugh Hewitt says the statement wasn't "a gaffe so much as a stunning bit of clarity about Democratic indifference to the rules." He notes that it was only ten days ago that every Democratic U.S. Senator voted against an amendment by GOP Senator Mitch McConnell to require photo ID at the polls in federal elections, despite polls showing 80% of American support the concept. Expect a lot more discussion about voter fraud as a campaign issue regardless of the outcome of today's vote.

I wouldn't call it indifference as much as anarchy. Rule of law is what separates us from the savages. What kind of party is that?What's next canvassing at prisons? Electioneering in crack houses?  We need a second party. The Democrats are done.

UPDATE June 7: Bilbray Maintains Lead Over Busby For 50th District Seat

Comments

[dventimi]

Prove that what she meant was not that people can still volunteer to help her campaign even if they lack whatever documentation is required for voting.

Regards,
Dave

[Laptop_Ron]

On the other hand, Ms. Busby's little slip might actually help her win. We ARE talking about California here.

It might also be interesting if it's so close they have to review the ballots. Just to see how many people 'without papers' voted. Then again, maybe they wouldn't be able to tell. I dunno.

[dventimi]

Further, whether you implied this or not, because of the imprecision of your headline "Democrats advocate anarchy" one might infer you mean that all Democrats advocate anarchy. Suppose one Democrat (Francine Busby, perhaps) advocates anarchy. Prove that this supports the generalization that all Democrats support anarchy.

Further still, suppose Francine Busby actually does believe non-citizens can vote, which it again must be stressed is not the only or even most probably interpretation of her admittedly artless phrasing. You make the mistake of not including reasons other than supporting anarchy that she might believe this. For instance, she could genuinely--and wrongly--believe non-citizen voting is within the law.

An aside: why is there so much unbelievably bad logic on this website?

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

Fuuuuuurther still,

If we accept the proposition that believing oneself or others are not bound by the rule of law constitutes evidence of advocating anarchy, does President Bush not advocate anarchy if he violates the requirements of the FISA law, or if his "signing statements" challenge laws banning torture?

I guess if I am to remain consistent with what I wrote earlier, I must admit the possibility that Bush does not advocate anarchy, but genuinely is wrong.

Regards,
Dave

[wxjames]

Dave, here's the problem; before you stands a steep rock face and a voting machine. You have no safty rope, and no climbing harness.
You must either overcome your fear of falling to your death, or if you are truly ready to mature, vote republican.
Can you do it Dave ? Many of us have, and none of us has fallen to our deaths. We are still free, still mature, still informed, still human and civilized.
One rule Dave, you must be a citizen of voting age to vote. You can climb up and fall down no matter who you are.

[dventimi]

Wxjames,

Ok, I'm in front of the rock face, and there's a voting machine. Wait, does the rock face go up, or down? Am I at a cliff? Then, is the voting machine floating in the air? That's kinda weird, but I'll go with it. Now, why is it again I have to vote Republican in order not to fall? Man this is really freakin' tripendicular. You...are blowing my MIND, Wxjames.

Right on.

[tazzerman2000]

I'm amazed....

Here's the definition of Anarchy:

1) Absence of any form of political authority.
2) Political disorder and confusion.
3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Anarchy comes from politicians who are more concerned with pandering to a new base of voters (illegal or not) than they are in actually protecting the sovereignty of this nation.

Evidence of: Complete lack of political authority..

Anarchy comes from a population who are so deeply infected with BDS that they refuse to see the true enemy within and without. The 'people' are more concerned with who becomes the next American Idol than they are about who or what is happening in Washington or the world around them The 'people' have been blinded by multiculturalisim and a false definition of good/evil along with a 'moral equivilance' given to everybody and everything.

Evidence of: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

The bad 'logic' comes from people who would replace intelligent discourse/discussion with hyperbole and rhetoric, cherry picking soundbites, data and factoids to back up their specious claims....

Evidence of: Political disorder and confusion.

Hmmm.... it sounds pretty much right on the mark to me my friend.

[dventimi]

Tazzerman2000,

I don't see how politicians responding to the demands of some among their constituency (i.e., "pandering to a new base of voters")--such as Bush responding to the desire among religious voters to "protect marriage"--displays a lack of political authority.

I don't see how writing that people are ill with a medical disorder--such as "infected with BDS"--when in fact they are not, is intelligent discourse.

I don't see how implying that most American citizens literally care about a TV show--such as FOX's "American Idol"--more than they do about civic issues is not hyperbole.

I don't see how highlighting a careless phrase by one politician--such as Busby's clumsy construction--in order to characterize an entire party is not "cherry-picking".

In short, I don't see how you are "right on the mark" about anything.

Regards,
Your friend,
Dave

[tazzerman2000]

Dave,
See comments below.

Tazzerman2000,

I don't see how politicians responding to the demands of some among their constituency (i.e., "pandering to a new base of voters")--such as Bush responding to the desire among religious voters to "protect marriage"--displays a lack of political authority.

That's just it. Is there a part of the ILLEGAL that's not understood here? ILLEGAL as in NOT a constituency. These people are NOT American citizens. I never said that a politician can't pander, that's their job if I remember correctly.. I'm more concerned with the complete lack of honesty coming from the left in regards to the whole issue of illegal immigration.

Hey, I'm the grandson of immigrants. Please, show me someone in this country who isn't either an immigrant or the offspring of immigrants. My problem is with the ILLEGAL nature of this invasion (yes, I use the word invasion) and the politicians I see pandering to them like they ARE constiuants. The triangulating going on is amazing and is very MUCH a symptom of the lost of political control and I might add, desperation.

I don't see how writing that people are ill with a medical disorder--such as "infected with BDS"--when in fact they are not, is intelligent discourse.

It's not, but then again, neither is BDS. I do apologise. :)

I don't see how implying that most American citizens literally care about a TV show--such as FOX's "American Idol"--more than they do about civic issues is not hyperbole.

Oh, well... here's an arguement that will encompass many more hours than I have available. American Idol (on FOX or whatever) is just a simple example. I could go on and on about our TV culture and the "Anarchy" it's causing in this nation. I do NOT believe for one second that I was engaging in hyperbole here. In fact, even though I might be guilty of painting with a fairly broad brush, I'd venture to say that I've understated the case :)

I don't see how highlighting a careless phrase by one politician--such as Busby's clumsy construction--in order to characterize an entire party is not "cherry-picking".

LOL! OMG.. Tell me your not seriously saying this??? Do we REALLY want to get into a discussion of who characterizes whom with what on a daily basis? Need I point out the lefts attempt to demonize every single person who isn't in lock step with them as a Hitler or a facist?

In short, I don't see how you are "right on the mark" about anything.

Honest people can disagree, no doubt. I try to see all sides of an issue and make up my own mind. That's one of the many reasons that I'm a registered independant and always will be.

I find Busby's remarks a bit more disconcerting then you and I'm NOT so quick to dismiss them as just a 'careless phrase' or a 'clumsy construction'.

Are they the end of the world? Certainly not. Do they point to some possible issues in both her campaign and her overall political philosophy? You betcha!

If I was a voter in the CA-50, she would have gotten my attention for ALL the wrong reasons...

Regards back at ya.

-Alan

Regards,
Your friend,
Dave

[dventimi]

Alan,

W.r.t. "pandering", originally you wrote "illegal or not", so I took you to mean that a person's immigration status is irrelevant when they are being listened to by a politician. Also, in the case of Busby, I do not believe a person allowed to volunteer for a campaign without having to demonstrate his voter elligibility, is being pandered to.

Hypotheses about the (complex and varied?) opinions of a nation of people require a substantial effort, careful sampling, and honest statistics to become anything more than hypotheses. I am aware of no such program dedicated to discover if, in any general sense, Americans are more concerned about who wins "American Idol" than they are about such civic issues as, the war in Iraq, the cost of health-care, and rising energy prices (for example). It was reported more "votes" were cast for the final episode of "American Idol" than were cast for the last Presidential election. However, it is easier to vote for that show, via phone or computer from the comfort of ones home, than it is to vote in a governmental election. Also, "American Idol" permits people to vote more than once. Therefore I regard this piece of data as inconclusive. I also hypothesize (without evidence) that people enjoy the sense of control they experience when voting on "American Idol", and which perhaps they feel they lack when voting in elections.

I did not write that the Left does not cherry pick. I was pointing out that the Right DOES also cherry pick. It would require substantial effort and analysis to judge who does it more often, and I do not believe anyone has embarked on such a program.

I believe there are at least a few politicians in every "bin" across the political spectrum from left to right, who have escaped being compared to Adolph Hitler or described as fascist.

I am not asking you to dismiss Busby's remarks as careless, only to admit that they are inconclusive. They constitute weak evidence from which to conclude that, "Democrats advocate anarchy" as the original poster wrote.

Incidentally, I don't deny Busby may be a deffective politician with a deffective philosophy, and perhaps now a dismal chance of winning.

Regards,
Dave

[dventimi]

P.S. I am grateful for your concession that assigning people a disease "BDS" is (probably) not intelligent discourse.

[Laptop_Ron]

According to one news article on this...

'After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: “You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign).”'

So, I dunno. Was it a Freudian slip (she knew how she sounded, since she immediately corrected herself), or did she really misspeak?

She does support Bush's amnesty plan (which isn't called that, of course), but all in all, short of being able to read her mind I can't really tell what she meant.

[Laptop_Ron]

Heck, while I'm trying to be fair, this isn't as much a party issue as it is a political issue.
I think we have enough republicans stepping off the cliff on this (in the Senate anyway) to almost make this non-partisan idiocy.
We have some legislators (mostly in the House) that are willing to do their damn job and help secure our borders, while we have too many others that just see cheap labor and potential voters in their next elections.

Some want to do their job, while some want to keep their job. As I see it, anyway.

[tazzerman2000]

Dave,

Sorry for the delay in response. Life get's in the way of my blogging sometimes.

All politicians pander in one way or the other. It comes with the territory. My point here though is that Busby is 'targetting'/pandering to a large segment of our population who are here illegally in hopes of 1) garnering their support (both legally and illegally it seems if in the future they can actually become full citizens) 2) garnering the support of those immigrants who are already here and can/do vote. Of course, both sides of the aisle are doing the same thing, are they not?

Regarding my comment about American Idol: I don't have the exact stats but I to have heard the report that you mention about more people participating/voting for American Idol than in the last election cycle.

I agree, it's much easier for them to vote from the comfort of their homes. I think this points to much needed reforms in the actual way we conduct both federal and local elections, don't you?

Of course, simply increasing the number of voters does NOT necessarily mean that the population is actually more knoweledgable and engaged in actual issues does it?

Further, it would seem to me that the object here is really to find better/smarter candidates for office. Do you agree? People who can craft legislation that actually works. People who are involved in governing for more than just themselves. People who have a broad world view, know history, understand where we've been and have a clear sense of purpose regarding where we are going. I hope you can agree on that?

As a side note, I struggle with the concept of term limits mightly. Somedays I'm ALL for them, especially when I see the likes of Ted Kennedy spewing forth, other times I say we already have term limits, they're known as elections:)

All that being said and getting back to the actual topic at hand, I have to agree somewhat with you in that the title/headline of this post WAS a bit over the top in declaring that the Dems are advocating anarchy.

I would have to say that in order to be fair, the headline should really read:

Illegal Immigration: BOTH parties are advocating anarchy and the loss of US soveriengty while attempting to cultivate possible new voters. :)

Is that better ? :)

-Alan

[tazzerman2000]

Dave,

Sorry for the delay in response. Life get's in the way of my blogging sometimes.

All politicians pander in one way or the other. It comes with the territory. My point here though is that Busby is 'targetting'/pandering to a large segment of our population who are here illegally in hopes of 1) garnering their support (both legally and illegally it seems if in the future they can actually become full citizens) 2) garnering the support of those immigrants who are already here and can/do vote. Of course, both sides of the aisle are doing the same thing, are they not?

Regarding my comment about American Idol: I don't have the exact stats but I to have heard the report that you mention about more people participating/voting for American Idol than in the last election cycle.

I agree, it's much easier for them to vote from the comfort of their homes. I think this points to much needed reforms in the actual way we conduct both federal and local elections, don't you?

Of course, simply increasing the number of voters does NOT necessarily mean that the population is actually more knoweledgable and engaged in actual issues does it?

Further, it would seem to me that the object here is really to find better/smarter candidates for office. Do you agree? People who can craft legislation that actually works. People who are involved in governing for more than just themselves. People who have a broad world view, know history, understand where we've been and have a clear sense of purpose regarding where we are going. I hope you can agree on that?

As a side note, I struggle with the concept of term limits mightly. Somedays I'm ALL for them, especially when I see the likes of Ted Kennedy spewing forth, other times I say we already have term limits, they're known as elections:)

All that being said and getting back to the actual topic at hand, I have to agree somewhat with you in that the title/headline of this post WAS a bit over the top in declaring that the Dems are advocating anarchy.

I would have to say that in order to be fair, the headline should really read:

Illegal Immigration: BOTH parties are advocating anarchy and the loss of US soveriengty while attempting to cultivate possible new voters. :)

Is that better ? :)

-Alan

[dventimi]

Alan,

I one post you achieved remarkable consensus with me. Remarkable, if not complete, which is probably too much to ask of either of us.

I agree that political pandering occurs on both sides and all across the spectrum. I only wished to show, by pointing this out, that people on the "right" cannot automatically assume the moral high ground on this issue.

I agree that our democracy could be improved with some kinds of election reforms. Exactly WHICH kinds is the subject of a different albeit rich and fascinating discussion, which we won't be having here. Term limits also would be an interesting issue to explore.

I agree that simply increasing the number of voters does not enhance the quality of their votes. I believe voters are more engaged than they often are claimed to be, though less informed than they should be.

I agree that having smarter, more involved, more honest, more selfless, more broadminded, "more better" candidates, is a worthy goal. We need better leaders.

And, I would agree that your headline would be fairer than Pamela's. Fairer to Democrats, but not fair enough to either Democrats or Republicans, because I don't believe either has members who advocate anarchy or diminished sovereignty. I also believe many politicians--perhaps Bush himself--waded into this thorny issue not to woo more voters, but to make some progress on a really really really difficult problem.

But anyway...

Alan, I very much do appreciate your posts, and it's not because we happen to agree on a few things. If we agreed on practically nothing, I would still admire your posts. You seem to try to write with a higher level of thoughtfulness and civility than what is common, in my experience. I will now confess my real agenda while climbing onto a soapbox:

BEGIN RANT
More worrisome to me than the issues of the day (which are very worrisome) is the exuberance with which people abandon reason for emotionally satisfying responses. No evidence that liberals are aiding terrorists? It doesn't matter, because it feels good to say that they do. No evidence that conservatives are pitiless corporate stooges? It doesn't matter, because it feels good to say that they are. I'm not advocating for centrist bipartisanship. Sometimes that's called for, but often as not, one side is objectively wrong on an issue, the other side is right, and centrism is just not enough. I'm just advocating for rational, logical debate, guided by evidence, that advances in modest, incremental steps. Ditch the personal attacks, the overheated rhetoric, and the angry invective. Ditch the hyperbole, the unsupported assertions, the hearsay, and the guesswork. Of course you won't be surpised if I tell you I suspect more of this comes from the Right than from the Left, but please don't take issue with that. It's just a suspician. I have no real evidence to back it up, and I could be wrong. If I am, I wouldn't resist changing my mind. And anyway, whichever side does it more, it's probably only by a smidgen. The point is, between both sides it happens too much.

Of course, I'm guilty of all these things too, but at least I try not to be, and if someone validly points out that I have, I try to make amends.
END RANT

Anyway, thanks for a decent discussion. I'll see ya' in the funny papers, Alan.

Regards,
Dave