Cozy with La Raza

NumbersUSA ^ | July 23, '07 | Staff

[Politicalmom]

From a recent email I received while wrangling with NumbersUSA over their poor "report cards".

Looking at the links you sent me, I can see how you reached your conclusion. If it is any consolation, of the potential GOP front runners, Thompson remains has one of the better records on immigration- although his recent hiring of Spencer Abraham is cause for concern.

All the best,

Jeremy

[BlackbirdSST]

Carlos LaRaza Rove, ‘nough said. Blackbird.

[Czar]

Example #1 -- You admit this bill is a confusing mishmash of restrictions and benefits, to the degree that it is nearly impossible to classify the votes as "Yea" or "Nay". As you say "This amendment is a lose-lose and no matter how someone voted,...". No doubt the vote counters at NUSA found it equally confusing, but attempted to classify the votes as best they could. This does not prove your assertion that NUSA improperly classifies votes.

When you can produce the necessary facts coupled with specific cites to prove your charges against NUSA, I will look it over. Until then, don't waste my time with immaterial complaints and thinly supported assertions.

Example #2 -- You say this is "...one of the worst examples of misrepresentation of votes on their site (specifically Fred Thompson in this case)...", with a NO vote by Thompson categorized as a "Yes" vote. Yet, an earlier "procedural vote" of "Yes" was counted as if it were a final vote "For". Forgive me if I say I do not find this as egregious as you seem to. Again, procedural votes count and should not be ignored (see, e.g., the cloture votes on the most recent Senate bill -- of course they were counted because a procedural "Yes" vote for cloture was a clear signal that the voter was also a "Yes" on the bill itself). I find it hard to believe that NUSA properly counted the procedural "Yes" vote but failed to count the final "No" vote. It's possible, mistakes can be made, but it certainly wouldn't be deliberate. I just don't believe it. Again, you seem to be straining to build a case against NUSA. Example #2 won't fly.

Example #3 -- Again, you find a conspiracy at NUSA to count procedural votes. I see no reason why such votes shouldn't be counted since, in the majority of cases, they either favor or disfavor the actual bill. Although you cite no specific cases, I would agree that a mere move from one committee to another would not appear to be a good "counting" case for NUSA, unless there are known issues with particular moves. I find this example unpersuasive.

"Mr. Beck himself associates himself with liberal causes:"

Here is what your link reveals Mr. Beck said on that issue" "Even though most reviews of my book have described me and my work as liberal, I have sought to create an organization that is not just liberal or environmentalist but crosses all parts of the political spectrum.” Thus, contrary to your assertion, the statements you attribute to Mr. Beck were in fact the statements of the book reviewers to which Mr. Beck merely refers. Your attempt to convey the impression that Mr. Beck is a self-confesssed liberal smacks of dishonesty on your part.

"I can keep going adding bills and showing how they are twisting things for their own agenda, but people won't believe unless they find it themselves."

You haven't shown us much yet, despite a few hotlinks and a lot of your own "filler" prose which fails to support your "twisting" and "dishonesty" charges against NUSA.

"Question all; blindly follow nothing- even if it sounds good."

Good advice to follow, especially for those reviewing your post. It all sounds good but, on closer inspection, what you have served up is a lot of meaningless fluff with a few loosely related but mostly insignificant "facts" sprinkled around here and there.

If you want to make your case against NUSA, you will have to come up with a far more persuasive set of facts and specifics than what you have managed to so tortuously assemble here.

Really, mnehrling, thin soup--very thin soup indeed.

[nicmarlo]

You haven't shown us much yet, despite a few hotlinks and a lot of your own "filler" prose which fails to support your "twisting" and "dishonesty" charges against NUSA.

"Question all; blindly follow nothing- even if it sounds good."

Good advice to follow, especially for those reviewing your post. It all sounds good but, on closer inspection, what you have served up is a lot of meaningless fluff with a few loosely related but mostly insignificant "facts" sprinkled around here and there.

mnehrling, what you have put forth appears more than just a strained effort to contrive a "case" against NUSA. Not all evidence is created equal. But your "evidence" is flim flam at best and would never persuade even the most dim bulb.