Skip to comments.
W's Live Speech Thread
| my favorite headache
Posted on 01/07/2004 11:29:59 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
Press conference starts at 2:45 EST....get the prilosec out...we are going to need it.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; illegalimmigrants; immigrationreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100 ... 1,581-1,591 next last
Am I on drugs or did this thread have a different title earlier, something about being "sold out"?
You're on drugs, but yea, the title did change ... :)
posted on 01/07/2004 2:07:55 PM PST
(This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
To: LinuxRocks; tubavil
I think that tubavil is being a little histrionic with his statement. Neither Hillary or Dean can be referred to as honest. They both have made statement flip-flops. The most egregious of Dean's flip-flops were detailed by the Carpetbagger in Sept. here:
1. North Korea
In January, Dean said on CBS' Face the Nation that he approved of Bush's policy towards North Korea and agreed with the president that the approach will be successful.
"I concur with most of the president's policy on North Korea," Dean said, to the surprise of many Democrats and supporters who had criticized Bush's approach. "We have substantial differences on Iraq, but I like the idea and I believe in the idea of multilaterals. And the president's pursuing a policy in cooperation with the Chinese, the Russians, the South Koreans and the Japanese, which we ought to see bear fruition."
Just one month later, Dean flip-flopped without explanation, describing Bush's North Korea policy as "incoherent, inconsistent and dangerously disengaged."
2. Social Security retirement age
At a candidate forum hosted by the AFL-CIO in August, Dean faced criticism from Kucinich for considering moving the Social Security retirement age. Dean responded forcefully that he wanted to "tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
In 1995, Dean praised then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) for recommending changing the retirement age to 70. At the time, Dean said, "I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track." A month later, Dean said "moving the retirement age to 70" was a way to help reduce the deficit and balance the budget.
Far more recently, in June 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68."
3. Public Financing and Campaign Spending Limits
In March, Dean promised to raise a fuss if any of the other candidates decided to abandon spending limits and skip public financing.
"It will be a huge issue," Dean said in March. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.... [I've] always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in." As recently as June 7, Dean wrote to the Federal Election Commission that he will abide by spending limits in the primaries.
Last month, Dean said his campaign was "exploring" the possibility of opting out of the public financing system because of his success in raising money and his desire to spend more in the primaries than his opponents. He said he "didn't remember" making earlier promises to the contrary and said his campaign was free to "change our mind."
(Actually, Dean's flip-flopped on this issue twice. In addition to the recent conversion as a presidential candidate, Dean also did a reverse on spending limits while governor of Vermont. In 1997, Dean helped create a system whereby statewide candidates would agree to a spending cap and participate in public financing. At the time, Dean vowed that the bill would "change the way campaigns are run" in Vermont. When it came time for Dean to run for re-election in 2000 under the campaign finance system he helped create, Dean rejected public financing and exceeded the spending cap by 300 percent.)
4. U.S. trade standards
In August, Dean told the Washington Post that China and other countries could get trade deals with the United States only if they adopted "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the United States. When a reporter from Slate asked if he meant just general "standards" or "American standards," Dean insisted that he would demand that other countries adopt the exact same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the United States.
Last week in the DNC debate in Albuquerque, Dean shifted gears and said he doesn't believe that our trading partners have to adopt "American labor standards," saying that international standards would work.
5. U.S. policy on the Cuban trade embargo
Dean, up until fairly recently, was one of many politicians from both parties open to easing trade restrictions with Castro's Cuba. He admitted as much in response to a question from a reporter last month, saying, "If you would have asked me six months ago, I would have said we should begin to ease the embargo in return for human-rights concessions."
According to an Aug. 26 article in the Miami Herald, Dean has "shifted his views" on Cuban trade now that he has "surged to the top of the race" for the Dem nomination. Dean said he believes the U.S. can't ease Cuban embargo restrictions "right now" because "Castro has just locked up a huge number of human-rights activists and put them in prison and [held] show trials."
6. "Regime change" in Iraq
In March, before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Dean sounded a lot like Bush on the possible war, suggesting that disarming Saddam Hussein, with or without the United Nations, should be America's priority.
According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper, when Dean was asked to clarify his Iraq position, Dean said that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
When the U.N. chose not to enforce its resolutions, Bush followed Dean's position and launched a unilateral action against Iraq.
Since then, Dean has held himself out as someone who has opposed the war all along.
7. Death penalty
In 1992, Dean said, "I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives."
In 1997, his position was beginning to "evolve," but he insisted, "I truly don't believe it's a deterrent."
In June 2003, however, Dean had abandoned his earlier beliefs. He said, "As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer."
8. Repealing Bush's tax cuts
A year ago, Dean started out saying he'd repeal all of Bush's tax cuts. Asked about how he'd pay for increased spending in health care and education, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, Dean "doesn't hem or haw" when answering the question. "'By getting rid of the President's tax cut,' Dean says. Not freezing it, mind you -- getting rid of it. All $1.7 trillion worth."
But Dean has not been consistent. In July 2002, Dean said on Meet the Press, "[T]here's a few little things I wouldn't repeal. There are some retirement investment pieces I wouldn't repeal, although I would have to add some so that lower-income workers could help pay for their retirement, not just people like me."
Dean offered a still-different position March 2003, saying his tax policy would be to "repeal the president's tax cuts for people that make more than $300,000, with a few exceptions."
In May 2003, Dean came full circle, saying that he's back to wanting to repeal "all" of the Bush tax cuts.
9. Troop deployment in Iraq
In August 2003, Dean said U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq. "It's a matter of national security," Dean said. "If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."
In last week's debate in Albuquerque, Dean completely reversed course, saying, "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home."
[note: this portion has been corrected and an earlier error has been deleted.]
10. Civil liberties in a post-9/11 America
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, while Dean was still governor of Vermont, he suggested a "reevaluation" of civil liberties in America.
Specifically, Dean said he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would "require a reevaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."
More importantly, Dean said he didn't have a position on whether these steps would be good or bad. When asked if the Bill of Rights would have to be trimmed, Dean said, "I haven't gotten that far yet."
In March 2003, Dean told The Nation's David Cord that he believes "portions" of the USA Patriot Act "overreach," but added, "I haven't condemned Congress for passing" the legislation.
On August 19, however, Dean accused Ashcroft of taking advantage "of the climate of fear and adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that go far beyond protecting our country and erode the rights of average Americans." He added that the U.S. should "roll back" the USA Patriot Act.
I'm not reporting all of this to help Karl Rove and the Republicans, so spare me your emails. The truth is the bad guys already know all of this. I'd hazard a guess that Rove has dozens of college students locked up in the basement of the OEOB, sleeping on cots, and spending their waking hours chronicling every word every Dem candidate utters. Rove and the RNC don't need The Carpetbagger Report; they have an extensive research operation that blows my little blog away.
The point, rather, is for those of us who want a new president in 2005. Rove may know all about Dean's flip-flops -- he's probably already started crafting the TV ads -- but it's Dem voters who seem unaware of the good doctor's policy problems. We need to consider whether this is a problem before we vote for our nominee. Do Dean's flip-flops mean that he lacks conviction? A problem with discipline? These are questions that Dems should consider before we settle on our choice as a party.
Just as importantly, should Dean get the nomination, we need to know what the GOP will be using against our presidential pick once the election season heats up next year. Hiding public truths in the hopes that the GOP won't notice isn't an effective plan for success.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:07:55 PM PST
Your #757 bears repeating:
"One of your arguments is that these present illegal or 'undocumented' workers pay taxes and hence deserve the benefits conferred on all taxpayers.
This is simply not true.
First recognize that the jobs these workers are performing are very low paying jobs yet most of these workers are are associated with families that are four times the size of the national average and that accounts only for nonworking family members.
For every $1 paid for by an illegal undocumented worker there are $4 used in social services by their spouses, children and parents. Most of these services are in the form of healthcare and education. Other drains on our social service budgets are in the form of legal, food and housing subsidies, and translators since these workers and their families seldom take the time to learn English.
Second, much of the pay that these workers receive in the USA is sent back to Mexico. This means in short that wealth is transferred out of the USA. Furthermore, these funds are used to make ready another group of 'undocumented' workers, and the cycle is repeated. Fifteen years ago The U.S. Government estimated the illegal population to be two million, now there are estimates of upwards of twelve million. It is a safe bet to conclude that this migration was paid for by American businesses.
What we have here is simply a transference of the impoverished class of Mexico (mostly) to North America. If everyone of them paid their way there would be virtually no opposition to their presence. But the evidence is overwhelming that they do not in fact pay their way.
Lastly, Americans today have a problem with these uninvited guests. That problem is that many of these uninviteds are not loyal to America and they have no motivation to adapt themselves or their children to American values.
I personally have witnessed the duplicity of their leaders, their alterior motives. They know there is political power in numbers. They know that political power is key to landing jobs, contracts and special rights. To that end, they are motivated to increase their numbers and to keep themselves culturally distinct.
I have met hundreds of legal immigrants especially from former Soviet bloc countries that have genuinely praised the USA for giving them an opportunity to live free. I have not seen a like response from those south of the border and that bothers not only me but millions of other Americans. "
posted on 01/07/2004 2:08:07 PM PST
(Hey, tlbshow up yours!)
I am desperately tring for some optimism on this issue, but nobody will give me an opinion-I am open to yours, tho
JMO, the debate has been poisoned by those who have no problem with Ms. Maria claeaning their toilet, but can't can't her speaking Spanish when she is on the phone.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:08:22 PM PST
Did you see the very short interview Shepard Smith did with the INS point man to the WH...Shep asked him what happens to those who do not register...the INS guy said *they will have a certain amount of time to do so, and if they don't take advantage of it, they are going to be sorry they missed the chance*....there's more to this than meets the eye...more enforce of current laws.
Yes there is but don't expect the naysayers to notice. There are reasons this problem is never addressed seriously and they are economic. And one can blame employers for low wages but these same people would be screaming if they saw those wages translated to higher prices for fruits, vegetables, etc. So, you start here, address a reality that benefits the entire country as well as the immigrant worker. It's a win-win. No more excuses for illegal workers, no more excuses for illegal hiring and a complete data base to boot.
"Catholics aren't Christians
My wife and daughter, who are both Catholics, will be amused when I tell them your sentiments...
You should have your proctologist perfom a headectomy on you!
posted on 01/07/2004 2:08:29 PM PST
by Mad Dawgg
(French: old Europe word meaning surrender)
No, it's not. Amnisty is permanent. This is for a 3 year period only and then you have to go home. You can re-apply but you must have a job that fully provides for you. You can only have your family here if you can provide for them financially. BIG difference.
This IS a permanent amnesty for previous transgressions of U.S. immigration law. True, nobody is given a free pass to violate the law in the future, but this policy permanently absolves every illegal immigrant for his past infractions.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:09:21 PM PST
I think you nailed it.
Comment #1,069 Removed by Moderator
People are over-estimating how many will apply...those who already have jobs or has a job waiting...this was also a warning to businesses NOT to hire unregistered people. Most of these people are going to be scared to register because they know the gov will be keeping tabs on them...but if you or a business is caught without the greencards....adios.
Like someone said, by the time Congress gets done arguing about this it will be 2006.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:10:51 PM PST
(Mike...we are entering the home stretch)
"This is a Republican forum. First we have to beat the Dems before we can purge out RINOs."
Only as it was hi-jacked 2 years ago.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:10:59 PM PST
Catholics aren't Christians.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:11:14 PM PST
( You can twist perception, reality won't budge. -RUSH)
You may have jumped to a conclusion about salvation. Careful!
And you, my friend, seemed to have jumped to a conclusion about Christianity!
No more excuses for illegal workers, no more excuses for illegal hiring and a complete data base to boot.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:11:37 PM PST
(Happy Birthday Houston Area Texans!)
there's more to this than meets the eye...more enforce of current laws.
Please, don't hold your breath while waiting for this to happen. I can already hear the stampede from the south of the border. As long as we keep rewarding these criminals with amnesty they are never going to stop coming. This is a travesty.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:11:41 PM PST
(I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.
Its smooth sailing once they reach that border. Like Bush is going to kick anyone out? PLEASE.
Comment #1,077 Removed by Moderator
To: txdoda; Hildy
He said this program requires these TEMPORARY workers to return to their country when the work is done.>>>>
One 'anchor baby' will end either parent returning to their home country.
We HAVE a winner!
posted on 01/07/2004 2:12:09 PM PST
(The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
To: sinkspur; All
The idea that any president of either party is going to round up 10 million Mexicans and drag them back across the border is comic-book-stuff. Won't happen. Ever.
I agree. But then, we don't need the resources to do that. We can pass just a handful of laws that would stop illegal immigration in its tracks. Indeed, we could actually see illegals moving back across the border on their own. No enforcement necessary. How you ask. How indeed. They are here because of economic advantage. Even the miserable stories of low wages and abuse we here from social justice advocates are not compelling. Why, because what they have here is better than what they left.'
Step one would be to give 12 months to all illegal aliens to voluntarily surrender and be registered with U.S authorities. Once registered and fingerprinted, they will be returned to their native home. Anyone that voluntarily comes forward, will be permitted future re-access upon an approved, proper application. (A one year waiting period will be enforced upon approval for penalty of illegal entry.)
Step two. After twelve month surrender period, the following laws are enacted:
1) Illegal entry into U.S. is automatic disqualification for citizenship
2) No immigrant here without legal status can use public transportation, public hospitals, public housing, or public schools. (national id card will be used)
3) illegal parents of legal children cannot stay. Parents go -- children will follow.
4) No driver's licenses for illegals
5) Firms/individuals hiring illegals face mandatory 5 years prison, permanent revocation of all professional licenses and right to conduct business or form or be a part of a corporate entity.
6) $500 per illegal tax credit. (No maximum. You report 100 illegal aliens, you have lifetime tax credit of $50,000
7) Deputize state and local officials to arrest and hold illegals.
These measures would eliminate about 98% of new illegal alien activity. They would probably thin current illegal ranks by better than 40% in the first year, with over 90% gone by the end of step two in year two.
Once out, we can streamline our immigration resources to permit additional, controlled immigration flow. (We can tag, identify, and register new immigrants and actually increase legal immigration.) Not to mention, of course, that we will still permit legal access and entry during this two-year, two step process.
When Bush's current joke of a two step amnesty plan to legalize and reward lawbreaking fails, we will need a real solution. And, I agree that right now, there may not be the political will to pass these restrictions and changes I suggest. But, there is great political will in this country for change. My guess is, it will be done after the next 9/11 style attack. Only, I fear it will be driven not by a smart focused policy, but by panic and rage.
Illegal immigration is a national security threat, it is dangerous to our political stability, it promotes worker exploitation, and it is, at least for now, still illegal.
We need to disincentivize, enforce, and start over.
3. Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic. Catholics aren't Christians.
Great... as if this thread were not devolving quickly enough. The moderators already have itchy trigger fingers where immigration threads are concerned; do try not to fan the flames.
posted on 01/07/2004 2:12:47 PM PST
by Charles Martel
(Liberals are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100 ... 1,581-1,591 next last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson