Spokesman: Tancredo doesn’t believe North American Union conspiracy theory

posted at 1:49 pm on November 30, 2006 by Allahpundit

This is going to break some hearts. Sorry, kids. Although if it’s any consolation, I think he’s lying through his teeth. Emphasis mine:

Today, I picked up the phone and buzzed Carlos Espinosa, Tanc’s media guy on the Hill and asked him about this story. He said that Tancredo’s comments were taken out of context and he specifically said that he Tom Tancredo did not believe in the North American Union conspiracy. Carlos then added that Tancredo, “believes Bush wants to open up the borders, but he doesn’t believe he wants to combine the US, Canada, and Mexico and create a unified currency.”

Taken out of context? Here’s how WND reported the original statement. Emphasis mine again:

Tancredo lashed out at the White House’s lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.

“I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …

“And they would just tell you, ‘Well, sure, it’s a natural thing. It’s part of the great globalization … of the economy.’ They assume it’s a natural, evolutionary event that’s going to occur here. I hope they’re wrong and I’m going to try my best to make sure they’re wrong. But I’m telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that.”

Which context, precisely, was that bolded part taken out of? John Hawkins elaborates further by e-mail: “According to his media guy, he was just trying to make the point that things were kind of moving that way in general, not that he thought Bush was actually working on it.”

So Bush isn’t actually working on it … but it’s “something in [his] head”?

I think what we have here is a climbdown.

Meanwhile, the sniping between Tancredo and Jeb Bush continues. Tancredo fired back at Bush’s criticism of his comparison of Miami to a “Third World country” with a letter accusing Bush of being naive about immigration. To which Bush responded by calling Tancredo “a nut.” Stay tuned!

Update: Look what Slublog found on the ‘Net. IT’S ALL TRUE!

mexamca_thumb.jpg

northamericanunion.gif


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Because tomorrow, when I go to register my car, I’m going to change my party registration to independent. It’s obvious people like me are not welcome in Tancredo’s Republican party.
Slublog

I completely understand and I’ve had the same thoughts myself. BUT I hope you reconsider that. The 08 primaries are going to be crucial. I think we need to stick with the Party and push the “mob mentality” back. Is there such a thing as Blue Dog Republicans? It’s time to take the Party back from the fringe. Otherwise we are doomed to Hillarycare, Obamakumbaya, UNoneworldgovernment, and 4o’clock tea with Iran and NK!

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 9:57 PM

I still plan to vote for Republicans (mostly), but can’t in good conscience be a member of a party that tolerates and in some ways celebrates a person like Tancredo and that includes people who use words like “w****ck,” celebrate bogus studies on crime by illegals, and generally demonize the Hispanic population of this country.

My great-grandfather, Jose Atanacio Gomez Perez, crossed the border into Texas and got married, raised a family and paid taxes. The rhetoric used by some on this site, and by others in the party, really hits home for me.

I honestly believe Tancredo is the Joseph McCarthy of the 21st century. He’s absolutely right on the need to control illegal immigration, but completely wrong in his approach and words.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:09 PM

Slublog– Well, Tancredo doesn’t use slurs or demonize ethnic groups. That’s not to say he doesn’t necessarily approach the issue poorly, but it’s not the same thing as the ugliness you’re accurately identifying elsewhere. You’re right to decry that ugliness, but strong words on this subject have a tendency to get blurred together with that ugliness, even when those words are coming from people who can’t fairly be said to use slurs or to demonize ethinic groups.

Alex K on November 30, 2006 at 10:21 PM

Alex K – I agree, but Tancredo does little to disassociate himself with groups that use his name to spread their own hatred. He has the potential to be a strong voice in the immigration debate, but his rhetoric about ‘third world countries’ and the ‘north american union’ tend to overshadow some of his proposals.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:23 PM

“w****ck”

Tancredo is out there talking about woodchucks now? I’m webraged!

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 10:25 PM

To clarify – I don’t think speaking of the NAU is a racial slur.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:25 PM

Tancredo is out there talking about woodchucks now? I’m webraged!

Heh. They are a menace.

Along with bears.

And squirrels.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:25 PM

Slu– Right, of course, I get that you’re critiquing two things: saying stuff that’s tactically problematic in a credibility way (NAU), and saying stuff that’s both tactically problematic and inherently offensive (slurs).

Between those two is stuff that isn’t necessarily wrong (like that we’re importing third world poverty; I don’t know much about Miami but parts of SoCal are certainly getting there) but can too easily be expressed in a way that is impolitic.

As for Tancredo’s associations, that’s a fair point, but also a sticky one: a politician can’t go around rejecting every creepy group that shares his position on something because then you start validating any kind of guilt-by-association line of attack. But it’s true too that this cause isn’t going anywhere (at least not as quickly and effectively as it should) without, I hate to say it, real sensitivity from its public faces.

Alex K on November 30, 2006 at 10:37 PM

I honestly believe Tancredo is the Joseph McCarthy of the 21st century.

I love the analogy! In this allegory, who is the new Stalin and who are the new Rosenbergs?

I doubt we’ll find anything analogous with the “sanctuary cities” back in those days.

…Say, if a city declared itself a “tax sanctuary city” where the residents wouldn’t have to pay federal taxes, would Bush and the federal government confront this city?

Bush should release a list of the federal laws that cities may ignore before some city gets itself into big trouble by ignoring some federal law that Bush likes.

Perchant on November 30, 2006 at 10:41 PM

As for Tancredo’s associations, that’s a fair point, but also a sticky one: a politician can’t go around rejecting every creepy group that shares his position on something because then you start validating any kind of guilt-by-association line of attack

Politically, I think you’re right. You can’t list off people you disagree with. However, I think Tancredo could do more to avoid the perception that he is an immigration basher. Honesty, his comments on Miami and ethnic enclaves were just stupid. Miami is full of Hispanic conservatives, and he just helped irritate them.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:45 PM

Crap. I meant “immigrant basher.”

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:48 PM

Blah. Meant to say “immigrant basher.”

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 10:54 PM

With the Republicans, you will at least get enforcement or a wall.

Huh?
What world are you living in? So far, none of the Republicans who actually matter have any intention of doing either of the two.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 11:00 PM

Which party do you think will be more open to the idea of a wall? The Democrats, or the Republicans?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:03 PM

And I’m living in the same world you are.

Do you think we could have a civil conversation? Without the implied ad hominem?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:06 PM

My great-grandfather, Jose Atanacio Gomez Perez, crossed the border into Texas and got married, raised a family and paid taxes.

And that explains everything. “My Great Grandfather was an illegal alien so I don’t see anything wrong with it.”

It’s funny that you’ll notice that most people against the three strikes law happen to have family members who are criminals.

I married into a Hispanic family and none of them support illegals. They came in the LEGAL way and they expect that everyone else should too. Sorry Slublog, but if your Great Grandfather came across illegally … he’s a criminal.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 11:06 PM

Which party do you think will be more open to the idea of a wall? The Democrats, or the Republicans?

None of the current “leaders” of either party.
That’s why we’re in trouble.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 11:09 PM

Well, I’ll take that as a “no” to my question.

Thank you, Gregor, for affirming my decision to leave the Republican party.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:09 PM

And Gregor, if you think I’m in favor of illegal immigration, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:11 PM

Plus, did I say that my great-grandfather was an illegal alien?

I don’t believe I did. Why did you assume otherwise?

I’m well aware that many Hispanics, including myself, see the need for stronger immigration laws. My point is that the rhetoric espoused by many Republicans is more likely to alienate potential allies than accomplish the goal of enforcing current immigration laws.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:22 PM

Slublog, I apologize if I misread your posts. It seemed like you were calling Tancredo supporters immigrant bashers. It also sounded like you used your Great Grandfather coming across the border as a defense for illegal immigration.

I read your comment about the “rhetoric used by some on this site” and the only “rhetoric” that I’ve seen is by those claiming some of us are “nutjobs.”

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 11:22 PM

Is Miami a Third World country? Technically, no. Neither is Detroit. Can any city in a First World nation be a part of the Third World? Probably not. I wouldn’t want to live in either Miami or Detroit, however. If Miami is the wave of the future then the future looks bleak.

tommy1 on November 30, 2006 at 11:23 PM

Gregor – I don’t think all Tancredo supporters are immigrant bashers, but I think some of them are, and the Congressman should disassociate himself (as much as possible) from those people who are. I also think he should refrain from misusing the “third world country” designation to describe American cities.

The rhetoric of which I speak is that of pro-enforcement supporters who use slurs and specious arguments to bolster their point. Hispanic conservatives do exist, and I’m one of them. I’d prefer it if my fellow conservatives didn’t refer to Mexicans as “w-backs.”

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:27 PM

The Dems want to return to the STATUS QUO!!!

The status quo is already here. Reps, Dems – on the immigration issue it makes no difference whatsoever.

Because tomorrow, when I go to register my car, I’m going to change my party registration to independent. It’s obvious people like me are not welcome in Tancredo’s Republican party.

That’s funny. I’m thinking of leaving the Republican Party and becoming an Independent as well – but for the opposite reason. Reps are losing people like me because they’ve drifted away from Reagan conservatism, the principles contained within the Contract with America, and most recently their refusal to take border security seriously.

They are truly adrift at sea.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:29 PM

That’s funny. I’m thinking of leaving the Republican Party and becoming an Independent as well – but for the opposite reason.

Heh.

Republicans – bringing people together. In total disgust for them.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:31 PM

I also think he should refrain from misusing the “third world country” designation to describe American cities.

Maybe, but let us at least be honest about the effects that illegal immigration tends to have on our cities. It definitely doesn’t cause them to look nicer and more “First World.”

tommy1 on November 30, 2006 at 11:32 PM

Oh Boy! We moved over to the Hot Picks column which makes certain we’ll break 300 comments.

The issue would go away if Bush exercises his Constitutional responsibility and stops the hemorrhaging at the border by enforcing existing law. If Bush is impeached, I would love to see this criminal negligence listed among the Articles of Impeachment.

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 11:34 PM

Which party do you think will be more open to the idea of a wall? The Democrats, or the Republicans?

In our lifetime? Neither, unless our next terror attack is traced to an illegal border crossing.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:36 PM

In our lifetime? Neither, unless our next terror attack is traced to an illegal border crossing.

I don’t think that would do it either. Look at us just 5 years after 9-11. Fighting a War on Terror against an enemy we won’t even name aside from evildoers.

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 11:41 PM

I’d prefer it if my fellow conservatives didn’t refer to Mexicans as “w-backs.”

Maybe I missed it but did someone in this thread actually write this slur?

Slublog, this may be an opportune time to chill at this point because you’re beginning to read like a moonbat lib and I know you’re NOT one of those.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:43 PM

I’ve seen that slur in two other threads.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:44 PM

Republicans – bringing people together. In total disgust for them.

This where we all sing “Kumbaya”… :)

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:45 PM

I don’t think that would do it either. Look at us just 5 years after 9-11. Fighting a War on Terror against an enemy we won’t even name aside from evildoers.

It’s quite pathetic, isn’t it…?

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:47 PM

Kumbaya my friend.

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 11:49 PM

This where we all sing “Kumbaya”… :)

Sounds good to me.

Can we burn Trent Lott’s hairpiece in effigy as well?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 11:49 PM

If this amnesty/guest worker plan is passed, it is basically all over. The political will to enforce our borders will only grow weaker with time, not stronger as some apologists seem to imagine. The idea that somehow, after another amnesty that will eventually admit the legalization of 12 million people here already (and 30+ million total once relatives get in door by being related to a newly made citizen) and millions upon millions more who will obtain residency by getting anchor babied into American life, our politicians are going to be more inclined to do something about our borders is ridiculous. The complete opposite will be true. Future amnesties will be more easily obtained.

I think many of our politicians are basically tired of the same old batch of Americans and their Anglo-American cultural restraints of limited government that simply have no parallel in Latin America. Our Republican Party’s lack of commitment to restraining government spending or to responsibility in general has never been so obvious. I think they’ve decided they want more of the “client-based” relationship with the American people that exists in nations south of the border. So many of our elected officials have decided to elect a new people who have little appreciation of, and often open resentment towards, our nation’s traditions and culture.

tommy1 on November 30, 2006 at 11:50 PM

Can we burn Trent Lott’s hairpiece in effigy as well?

LOL! I don’t know, it looks lethal. He must’ve picked it up at a Devo auction or something. We should probably stand back… way back before igniting it. “Burning Man” comes to mind.

I’m outta here… Lock you doors and have a pleasant evening.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 11:54 PM

Excuse
me, something stinks.   But why did Congressman To Tancredo co-sponser
the following resolution if he didn’t ever believe there would be a North
American Union?

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage
in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Superhighway System or enter into a North… (Introduced in
House)

HCON 487 IH

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 487

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not
engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and
Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 28, 2006
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr.
TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not
engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and
Canada.
Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade
deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired
by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation
of NAFTA;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the
United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American
Union;
Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance
from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the
United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose
a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act
collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs,
illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums
and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the
United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That–

(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

(2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with
Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any
other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

byteshredder on November 30, 2006 at 11:59 PM

Good Grief!!

Status guo?

Because of the alternative!!!

We are in a freakin’ WAR with insane Islamofascists that want to kill us!!

The Dems want to return to the STATUS QUO!!!

Well the Republicans seems to be shrinking away from that too.
I am not going to go so far as to change parties. I am not into hissy fits and stomping off with my ball and going home.
I will say the Republican party needs an overhaul and alot of old blood needs to be run out. The next few election cycles may be miserable, but our team needs to rebuild and of that I am most certain.

Sammy316 on December 1, 2006 at 12:01 AM

I’d prefer it if my fellow conservatives didn’t refer to Mexicans as “w-backs.”

There are morons in every group. If you stick around to call them out they receive the spotlight that they seek. Let them reflect their own poor character flaws, ignore them, and move on.

I’ve seen that slur in two other threads.

Not this one. Moreover, we also observed where AP will whack accounts of those that use racial slurs in a post. I believe its being handled.

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 12:15 AM

I’d prefer it if my fellow conservatives didn’t refer to Mexicans as “w-backs.”

Absolutely no excuse for that. I agree 100%.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 12:16 AM

I appreciate those sentiments.

Time for me to get offline and hit the rack.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 12:28 AM

Interesting discussion took place on this thread tonight.

Here a bit of news on the ‘heated’ topic – Ms. Pelosi’s spokesperson said today that the ‘amnesty bill’ will not be on the democrat agenda; however, the minimum wage one will be.

The John and Ken radio show bantered the idea around and apparently the Democrats who won ran mostly in parallel with their conservative counterparts on being against such a bill. Apparently the Lefties are not united to pass such a bill in 2007 and in 2008 it would be too hot a potato for an election year.

On the other hand, the new Senate minority leader is gang-ho for it and even said something like “the democrats can push it and blame it all on Mr. Bush because he’s not running again” – what arrogance toward his constituents.

Slublog, welcome to my party, ever since I became a citizen. It was for me always the only honest one to be registered with, given the choices. The two major ones are way too snooty and righteous and take their constituents for idiots or for granted, or both.

Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 12:37 AM

Ms. Pelosi’s spokesperson said today that the ‘amnesty bill’ will not be on the democrat agenda; however, the minimum wage one will be.

When this debate begins, hopefully there will be some conservatives in congress pointing out that the liberals have no desire to enforce employers who employ illegals to pay minimum wage, the Democrats want to create even more demand for illegal alien labor with their wage fixing scheme. They protect the employers who pay sub-minimum wages to their employees.

Senator Sessions conducted a hearing on the effects of illegals on the wages of working citizens and the economists agreed that illegals drive down the wages of all workers but the liberal economists offered that this could be remedied by setting artificially mandated minimum wages to offset the devaluing of the wages brought on by illegals. Contemplate that cycle and you will behold the perfect Marxist recipe.

If the illegals were sent packing, the common worker would be able to play employers against each other like a Cy Young pitcher. Their labor would have real value and artificial wage fixing would be a thing of the past. Prices would rise a little, that increase going into the pockets of the working class, therefore narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor.

Perchant on December 1, 2006 at 1:25 AM

Sheesh! It goes on and on….

You’ll note that I have NOT participated in this thread, because my opinion hasn’t changed from the last time.

So, I’ll just channel Chief Joseph and say, “I will SPP no more, forever.”

georgej on December 1, 2006 at 2:15 AM

You’ll note that I have NOT participated in this thread

So, I’ll just channel Chief Joseph and say, “I will SPP no more, forever.”

you just did.

SilverStar830 on December 1, 2006 at 2:45 AM

Good to see we are back on topic. Besides ad hominem attacks, do the haughty purveyors of logic have an explanation for intracontinental superhighways, the SPP, and an arrogant refusal to seal the border?

Valiant on December 1, 2006 at 7:42 AM

Where can I make a contribution to this guy’s Presidential campaign?

honora on December 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM

[Allahpundit]

Also, I will stick to my prediction that it won’t be long before you hear Tancredo making it very clear that he does in fact believe the theory. I wonder if the three of you will then issue the same apology, or if you will simply say it’s somehow evidence that Tancredo is “a nut.”
Oh, I totally think Tancredo believes it. I hope I made that clear in the post. That’s what I meant by “climbdown” — not that he’s changed his mind but that the issue’s too fringe for the moment for him to tout.

There’s a flipside to that coin: namely George W. Bush believing in the idea he is accused of, while not supporting the pursuit of the idea at the moment.

I realize that there’s an asymmetry in that comparison – Tancredo’s issue is ostensibly believing that something will happen, while Bush’s issue is ostensibly wanting it to happen – but there we are. The two are complements of each other.

Regardless of what Tancredo said or didn’t say, I’m convinced he believes that George Bush and like-minded individuals want to unify the countries in some alarming way. (Whether it is worth speculating on George Bush’s motives or better to label Tancredo a conspiracy theorist is a different question…)

RD on December 1, 2006 at 10:22 AM

You really know how to get em’ going AP. The debate between Cliffhanger and Slublog was great.

I hate to agree with you, but you are probably right. He “stepped in it” so to speak and is backing away. Even though I’ve already stated that Tancredo is most likely wrong on this NAU thing; I do believe his heart is in the right place.

Anyone here who has a problem with Tancredo calling an American city out as “third world” needs to take a trip to the border, and then promptly shut up. Is Miami a “third world” city? I don’t know, never been there, probably no more than Houston is. That means it depends on what part of town you go to. There is NOTHING un-American about calling something what it is. Instead of making excuses and indulging in politically correct nincompoopery while debating things THAT DO NOT MATTER; how about addressing the damn issue? Don’t tell us how the Dems are not going to protect us while you guys know that Bush is right there beside them happy as he can be that they won so he can get his amnesty bill through. Commenters here have marginalized and misdirected. Bots.

Cary on December 1, 2006 at 10:23 AM

[Gregor]

… read your comment about the “rhetoric used by some on this site” and the only “rhetoric” that I’ve seen is by those claiming some of us are “nutjobs.”

Well that just shows you haven’t been reading very closely at all have you! The actual claim was that some of us were “nutbags“.

(Sorry ;-)

O.M.Golly.You.Nutbags.

RD on December 1, 2006 at 10:30 AM

The actual claim was that some of us were “nutbags“.

So, the poster was only slagging the men?

EF on December 1, 2006 at 10:35 AM

You need to lay off Tancredo. Whether his comments about a unified continent and currency were taken out of context or not, he is still clearly not as nuts as McCain, Frist, et al.

He is on the right side of the argument…the side Bush & company clearly aren’t supporting.

BirdEye on December 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Gee does this make Little Italy and Chinatown and large areas of Louisiana un-American third world too?

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Nice try. Last time I called my pharmacy and had to press 1 for English, I didn’t hear them speaking Italian or Chinese on giving instructions. I heard Spanish.

I also have never seen marches by illegal Italians or Chinese wanting open borders.

The word you don’t seem to understand is “illegal.” I could care less if there is an enclave of Italians or Chinese, as long as they came here legally (which the majority do). The problem I have is when I see my community taken over by illegals and the local and federal government bend to their demands.

moonsbreath on December 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM

The word you don’t seem to understand is “illegal.”

Actually, I’ll bet she does understand the word.

She just disagrees with you.

Funny how that works.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM

Apples and Oranges moonsbreath. Tancredo wasn’t talking about illegals when he insulted Miami. He even admits that he’s not visitied Miami in years. He was talking out his ass. Typical Tancredo style. It plays well to the mob mentality.

And if you bothered to read my comments on this thread you’d had found that I do understand what illegal is.

I don’t believe that insulting LEGAL Hispanic AMERICANS serves the goal of curtailing the problem of border security.

But it sure serves Tancredo’s goal of keeping his name in the news.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 12:33 PM

If you want to visit a third world country, come to Los Angeles. Our Mecha, La Raza, http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Villy-Treasonous-Mayor.html actually gives speeches in Spanish even though we passed an English only proposition for all State Business years ago. Her holds dual citizenship with Mexico even though that is against the law too.

We have had over 80 hospitals go bankrupt because Illegals use the emergency room as their personal Doctors office and refuse to pay for their services.

We had the best education system in the USA back in the 1960′s and 70′s. Now we are ranked last or near dead last. 70% of the kids that attend LAUSD cannot graduate and probably are functionally illiterate.

In order to find a job today in Los Angeles you have to be bi-lingual in Spanish or forget about it.

The City of Maywood has been taken over by the Mexican mafia and the justice department had to come in throw out the Mayor that was elected by Illegals. His first act was to ban the police department for enforcing any laws against Illegal Immigrants.

I have watched my state go from a great place to live to a third world cesspool. This is what Tancredo is talking about in Miami even though I have never been there I know what is happening here in California.

The political corruption that keeps Mexican citizens poor and uneducated is being exported to California.

ScottyDog on December 1, 2006 at 12:44 PM

Sorry the link did not work

If you want to visit a third world country, come to Los Angeles. Our Mecha, La Raza, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa actually gives speeches in Spanish even though we passed an English only proposition for all State Business years ago. He holds dual citizenship with Mexico even though that is against the law too.

We have had over 80 hospitals go bankrupt because Illegals use the emergency room as their personal Doctors office and refuse to pay for their services.

We had the best education system in the USA back in the 1960′s and 70′s. Now we are ranked last or near dead last. 70% of the kids that attend LAUSD cannot graduate and probably are functionally illiterate.

In order to find a job today in Los Angeles you have to be bi-lingual in Spanish or forget about it.

The City of Maywood has been taken over by the Mexican mafia and the justice department had to come in throw out the Mayor that was elected by Illegals. His first act was to ban the police department for enforcing any laws against Illegal Immigrants.

I have watched my state go from a great place to live to a third world cesspool. This is what Tancredo is talking about in Miami even though I have never been there I know what is happening here in California.

The political corruption that keeps Mexican citizens poor and uneducated is being exported to California.

ScottyDog on December 1, 2006 at 12:48 PM

Texas Gal,

Miami is a sanctuary city for illegals so the city itself is ignoring our federal laws. It’s not the illegals that made Miami an outlaw sanctuary city, it’s the citizens there who don’t like the law so they feel they can refuse to enforce it, just like George and Jeb refuse to enforce it.

Once a city breaks from the nation like this, it’s nuts to defend the Americanness of that city.

Perchant on December 1, 2006 at 12:53 PM

Wow!

The inability to read my words and comprehend their meaning is fascinating on this thread.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 1:03 PM

The inability to read my words and comprehend their meaning is fascinating on this thread.

No, there are simply many of us who think you are completely clueless on this topic. Just because we don’t agree with you doesn’t mean we are not listening. Geez! it sounds like the Dems excuse for losing Presidential elections every year.

“We just aren’t getting our message out.”

No. People just think your message sucks.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 1:21 PM

Interesting.

It’s almost as though, with the right message, we might be able to get Hispanics on our side.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM

It’s almost as though, with the right message, we might be able to get Hispanics on our side.

LEGAL Hispanics are already “on our side” on the issue of illegals. Most of them anyway.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 1:35 PM

But a lot of them didn’t vote our way last time. Why is that, do you think?

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:37 PM

Well, I say “our” way, but I’m no longer a registered Republican.

Independent conservatism.

Catch the fever.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:38 PM

But a lot of them didn’t vote our way last time. Why is that, do you think?

Same reason most others did. They’re sick and tired of our laws being ignored. They’re sick and tired of Bush claiming to be conservative when he’s not.

They hold the Republicans responsible for what Bush is failing to take care of.

Same reason many of the same readers of this blog were vowing to vote for independents or straight Democrat just a month ago. Everyone is sick watching disrespectful, law breaking, American haters marching up and down our streets, flying our flag upside down, and lowering our wages.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 1:44 PM

That’s part of it. But the other? The rhetorical excesses of some on the pro-enforcement side are a turnoff. It makes the Republican party, and conservatism, unattractive.

I’m not suggesting we all put on a happy face. “Compassionate conservatism” has been a disaster. But we have to figure out a way to sell the policy without demonizing illegals.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:48 PM

Crap. Hitting “tab” takes you right to the submit bar.

Gotta remember that.

Anyway, some Hispanics feel that at times, the criticism of illegals tends to have an anti-hispanic flavor.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:49 PM

By the way …

Most Hispanics are Catholic. My guess is that they are also not too happy watching

- Christianity being forced out of our schools and lives
- Homosexuals forcing their way into our kids textbooks
- Record spending from false conservative leaders
- Abortion on demand not being taken care of (especially parental notification)
- and Republican corruption most likely didn’t help either

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 1:50 PM

RE: Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM

Rod Fernandez, shop manager at Karl’s Custom in Mesa, is a Hispanic who voted for the anti-immigration propositions.

Notice how the media frames the context – kind of implying a Hispanic is against his own!

Fernandez said the issue is not about race, but about playing by the rules.

“I’m not against Hispanics from Mexico,” he said. “I’m against them coming out here and getting all the benefits I have that I’m entitled to because I’m a taxpayer.”

Notice – Mr Fernandez has correctly framed the context of the conversation around Americans (law abiding citizens), not Chicanos, Hispanics, Hispanic-Americans, Latino-Americans, … or ethno-diversity multicultural hyphenated-American trash.

I need some custom work on my pickup. I think I need to stop over at Karl’s Custom and see what they can build for me.

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 1:53 PM

Interesting you bring up framing. I think that’s what is needed on the pro-enforcement side – a way to sell the policy without demonizing illegal immigrants or engaging in anti-Hispanic rhetoric.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:55 PM

The rhetorical excesses of some on the pro-enforcement side are a turnoff.

Those “rhetorical excesses” to a good percentage of conservatives … are simply “stating true facts.”

What are some examples of what you would call a “rhetorical excessive” statement?

The NAU? Miami being a third world country?

Reality would show both to be more truth than rhetoric. The only evidence on the other side is a few people telling John Hawkins what he wants to hear on the phone.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Miami being a third world country?

Honestly, yes. I think that was not a particularly helpful statement for him to make.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 1:58 PM

Slublog, I understand what you’re saying but we both know that it doesn’t really matter how anyone “frames” the dialog. Those who are against it are going to claim racism as loud as they can. You know that as well as I do. They do it on purpose. Tancredo could give a speech that says nothing about race at all. He could spend the entire speech talking about laws, security, and the safety of all Americans and within five minutes there will be thousands of claims that his speech was nothing but biggoted hate speech.

“We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works.”

– Alfredo Gutierrez, political consultant, as quoted by Richard de Uriarte, The Phoenix Gazette, March 14, 1992 (quoted in The ProEnglish Advocate, 1st quarter, 2002)

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 2:03 PM

So now we actually have conservatives wanting our candidates to be “politically correct” rather than speak truth.

What made Reagan, and even Bush so popular initially … was that they spoke bluntly and truthfully. Now we want Tancredo to hide what’s going on so as not to offend anyone?

Sad.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 2:09 PM

Those “rhetorical excesses” to a good percentage of conservatives … are simply “stating true facts.”

Amen. In today’s self-esteem psycho-babble, calling a duck a duck is considered offensive. Hence, political correctness thrives.

You may find it offensive Slublog, but I desire to live in a land where the existing laws are enforced. I don’t need more laws on the books to ignore.

You can build your wall, but if we don’t crack down on the employers, santuary cities, etc., a wall will be useless.

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Oh, my aching skull…

Yes, you’re absolutely right. Impolitic language and causing deliberative offense is the absolute best way to sell the pro-enforcement view with the American people! Forget marketing, forget convincing! Let’s just go out there and speak truth to power!

Cripes.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 2:15 PM

Forget marketing, forget convincing! Let’s just go out there and speak truth to power!

Truth – when told bluntly and supported by facts – is the ultimate “marketing and convincing” tool. Reagan proved that. It fails however, when you mix it with a blend of political correctness and timid hesitancy that allows the liars and slanters (MSM and race baiters) to drown it out with noise.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Who said anything about deliberate offense? No one. Truth and directness, I am all for it. Modern marketing is nothing short of spin doctoring. From your previous post, I recall you were against the deceit of a metaphorical mickey.

Pray tell us how to package the message so that it will be palatable to the masses.

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Fine.

Focus the message and make incrementalism your friend.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM

No. People just think your message sucks.

Then why don’t repeat back to me what you preceive my message to be.

I’m with Slublog, my aching skull.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 2:35 PM

I post the nutbag comment when all beery, spell everything wrong, forget I did it, and don’t come back for two days. Niiiicce.

Sorry, AP.

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Texas Gal …

Your message seems to be that you think Tancredo is a racist nutbag and that anyone who feels Miami is like a third world country is somehow insulting all Hispanics.

You also seem to think that LEGAL Hispanics voted against Republicans because they want amnesty for illegals and because of people like Tancredo who you feel are against all Hispanics, rather than the possibility that they are actually pissed off that Bush ISN’T DOING ANYTHING TO STOP ILLEGALS.

Many people think you are way off base on all three counts.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Truth and directness provides focus. Piece of cake.

Incrementalism is an area where

timid hesitancy

is bred. It can create a challenge, but maintaining focus can help to mitigate.

Now. What is the palatable message?

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 2:50 PM

I’d rather err on the side of believing Tancredo than Bush. Sorry AP. What’s so nutty about Tancredo’s statement? The Mexicans have worked hard to undermine our sovereignity, and Bush has done nothing.

PRCalDude on December 1, 2006 at 2:53 PM

Don’t take my silence as evidence that I don’t have an answer. It’s just obvious that the words of Texas Gal and I are summarily dismissed upon arrival.

So pardon me for not wasting my time.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 2:58 PM

Can I cut in?

Gregor, my nutbag epithet was direced at those/Tancredo who seem to believe in this North American Union bs. And, no, 60-80% of HotAir commenters probably don’t believe that.

As for the larger issue of illegal immigration, Tancredo has a lot of fans for “speaking truth to power” or whatever idiotic slogan we’re using today.

Saying Miami looks like a third world country is just stupid, and doesn’t add anything to any conversation, and Slu is dead right to say so. Positive, construction commentary and policy don’t need to be denigrated as “politically correct”; that’s backwards. Senslessly insulting huge segments of our country is not just bad politics, it’s nasty and uncalled for.

This issue is a classic opportunity to stay on a positive and constructive path, and we’re f**king it all up with some of Tancredo’s more insane rhetoric.

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:01 PM

constructionive commentary

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Don’t take my silence as evidence that I don’t have an answer.

Partner, I ain’t going to play into your pity party.

The “w-word” issue is resolved. A couple folks have helped with rhetorical excess. Gregor has even volunteereed his perception of Texas Gals’ position. I suspect she in turn will clarify.

Methinks you have no message.

AZ_Redneck on December 1, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Assume what you want. Fine, you win.

Go you. Yawn.

I actually just spent some time trying to find a very long comment I wrote with such a message, but have thus far been unsuccessful.

Methinks you should stop trying to read minds.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 3:10 PM

my nutbag epithet was direced at those/Tancredo who seem to believe in this North American Union bs. And, no, 60-80% of HotAir commenters probably don’t believe that.

You just called me a nutbag. And I disagree. I would bet that AT LEAST 60% of HotAir readers believe the NAU is real, and probably more than that. When we can get a poll up (limited to registered users) we’ll be able to find out if that’s accurate. If so, you just called a huge percentage of readers nutbags.

Saying Miami looks like a third world country is just stupid, and doesn’t add anything to any conversation

I don’t know what you base that on. I’ve been to Miami many times and I believe the comparison is completely fair. I don’t really care if it’s politically incorrect or just plain mean to say so or not … but Miami DOES look and feel like a third world country. Saying that it’s stupid to believe that makes me think you’ve never been there before. If that’s true … then you are commenting out of ignorance.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:14 PM

One interesting note to those who like to throw around the “nutbag” label …

In order to believe that the NAU theory is that of nutbags … you have to believe that there are US Congressman in office within our government that are not only nutbags, but are somehow unable to be convinced that the NIU isn’t real, even while being members of the same administration that is accused of favoring it. Tancredo is not the only member of our government who is believing in this.

Also, you would have to believe that there are members of the Canadian government who are also complete nutbags, since several members of the Canadian parliament are also ranting about this.

And … you would have to believe that the Mexican Ambassador is a complete lunatic, being that he has publicly called for “the completion of the North American Union by 2010.”

This is not some conspiracy theory such as 9/11 where it’s created by a couple of teenagers on youtube.

But go ahead …

We’re all nutbags. I’d also love to get Michelle’s take on it, but I realize she would not be able to comment because she realizes that to do so would label her a … “nutbag.”

Probably a smart move.

But from her writings I am guessing that she would not discount it.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:31 PM

Gregor,

I have been there many times, although not recently. Miami is a fairly typical American city with a solid infrastructure, a contentious political scene, and a higher than typical immigrant population.

How does this make Miami like a “third world country”?

Calling you a nutbag was intemperate; sorry. I happen to believe that you folks who believe Bush is masterminding the NAU have let your worst instincts get the better of your thinking, and that deep down, even you guys don’t believe this. I think the whole story is rhetorical excess.

As for the 60 – 80% poll, bring it on. I think I read that AP was trying to get one up but was having trouble. He’ll do it, and I am game. I think you’re wrong, by a lot. So, here’s the wager: we do the poll, you end up with 60% and I post my I’M A BUSH DUPE on the spot. Fair enough?

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:34 PM

Your message seems to be that you think Tancredo is a racist nutbag and that anyone who feels Miami is like a third world country is somehow insulting all Hispanics.
You also seem to think that LEGAL Hispanics voted against Republicans because they want amnesty for illegals and because of people like Tancredo who you feel are against all Hispanics, rather than the possibility that they are actually pissed off that Bush ISN’T DOING ANYTHING TO STOP ILLEGALS.
Many people think you are way off base on all three counts.
Gregor

Tancredo presents himself as a racist because he does not separate himself from the anti-immigration crowd who clearly come off as racists. If he is truly about illegal aliens and not immigrants in general, then he needs to make his position clear. He often interchanges the words illegals and immigrants when he speaks on this issue. Is he intentionally blurring the lines or does he see them as the same? For some reason he refuses to do so and has embraced those who fall in the anti-immigration camp, perhaps to enlist their assistance, but regardless of the reason, he paints him as a racist by association and since he set himself up as the media spokesperson for the House Republicans on the issue of border enforcement, he allowed racism to be introduced into the debate. That’s what I’m against.

But you’re right I do feel his third world comment about Miami was insulting to the Hispanic community and completely unnecessary. It does nothing to further the cause and only serves to alienate the Hispanic vote. And even if it didn’t, why would if be a good idea to risk it? Insulting people you need on your side in a debate is not a very intelligent strategy.

No. LEGAL Hispanics wanted both enforcement and a Temporary Worker Program that allowed Mexicans to come here and work and then go back home. That possibility was continually shut down by the border enforcement only proponents. What harm would have come from including a Temporary Worker Program as an element of the border enforcement plan? By doing so we would have been able to hold on to the gains made in the Hispanic vote and potentially increased that gain. Hispanics that voted against Republicans on the immigration issue didn’t vote against Bush. Bush was not on the ballot.

When Bush addressed the Nation on May 15th, he clarified his immigration plan and made a distinction between a Temporary Worker Program (as I described) and an Earned Citizenship program. That’s what they heard and they understood the Temporary Worker Program was NOT amnesty.

And you’re right, I’m not in the Tancredo Fan Club. I believe in the long run he defeats our purpose.

Texas Gal on December 1, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Okay, finished the work report that was kicking my butt, so here goes:

I think we need to let guys like Gingrich make the case on immigration. His view is sober, controlled and bonus! doesn’t demonize illegals.

And as for the focus/incremental approach, I tried to find the post, but gave up. Here’s a short summary.

Focus – message discipline is like a triangle with a circle in the middle. The circle represents your message and each point of the triangle is a supporting argument for that message. If you want to influence policy, keep the message simple and repeat it over and over again.

It’s the contract with America approach.

Personally, I’d like to do that again. conservatives should agree on their immigration goals, then draft up a five or ten point list of policy proposals that will get us there.

Example:

1. Build a wall.
2. Remove the incentive to hire illegals.
3. Tighten up entitlement programs
and etc…

Incrementalism is basically doing one thing at a time. This is a huge issue and if we throw out too much, we’re going to end up freaking out Congress and the electorate. So like eating an elephant – take it one bite at a time.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Huh. I lost a line there. Let me try again:

So, here’s the wager: we do the poll, you end up with 60% support, and I post my I’M A BUSH DUPE on the spot. Fair enough?

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:37 PM

you have to believe that there are US Congressman in office within our government that are … nutbags

Wait…this is a trick question, isn’t it?

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:38 PM

take it one bite at a time.

Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 3:36 PM

What you said.

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Gregor, sorry! I am not retarded, I just keep trying to use a symbol that is erasing my text. Third Try:

Wager: we do the poll, and if the people who believe in the NAU conspiracy get more than 60%, I lose, and post “I’M A BUSH DUPE. If you get less than 30%, you post “I’M A NUTBAG”. (Shouldn’t have been that hard.)

Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 3:42 PM

Miami is a fairly typical American city

Huh? Not even close.

So, here’s the wager: we do the poll, you end up with 60% and I post my I’M A BUSH DUPE on the spot. Fair enough?

Totally fair, and I have already previously posted that I would admit I am wrong if it turns out that I’m in the small minority. But the poll would have to be limited to registered HotAir readers and I’m not sure that’s possible. Otherwise … I know from experience that it would get bombarded by votes from “referred” readers who have been alerted by others to help slant the poll. I don’t want that from either side. I truly want to know an accurate number.

Gregor on December 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3