Rematch: Hanretty vs. Powers II

posted at 7:34 pm on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

A million thanks to the bete noire of Fox haters, the high priest of Olby critics, Johnny Dollar, for hooking us up with the clip. I dropped an A-bomb on KP yesterday so I don’t want to risk overkill, but I find it a tad ironic that she’s suddenly concerned about illegals who are posing “a violent danger against us.” She didn’t seem so concerned about the immigration status of violently dangerous illegals like Jose Carranza last week when she hosted H&C. But then, what do I know? I’m just a “nativist” racist.

Update (Bryan): Kirsten dropped a howler toward the end of that segment that just begs for a bashing. She said, and I quote:

“I don’t think the fact that Mexico has problems has anything to do with this.”

Oh really? The conservative estimate (which is really a low-end best guess) is that we have 12 million illegal aliens in the US, the vast majority of which are from Mexico. So, say, there are 9 million Mexican citizens living in the US illegally. Mexico’s total population is a little over 100 million. So the current low-end best guess we have is that about 8 or 9% of Mexico is actually living in the US illegally. That’s roughly twice the population of Maryland, which has 10 electoral votes.

That’s a lot of people. Why are they here?

Well, Kirsten would do well to read up on places like Nuevo Laredo. Google it, please. It’s home to a former Ford motors plant. It’s also the scene of a drug-driven civil war. That war has abated a bit lately, thanks in part to a cease-fire between a coupe of the cartels (and I’m sure the fact that the cartels could bring about a sort of peace that the government couldn’t must make the citizens there feel peachy), but it’s still dangerous. Here’s a taste of the way it was:

Detectives here suspected the cartels from the beginning, but it would be months before all the pieces came together.

On June 8, 2005, this is what they had: Two apparent executions in broad daylight, hours apart and across town from each other.

The day’s second victim, Cesario Antonio Carrera, 28, was lured out of a car dealership where his Mercedes was being worked on and shot several times at close range, police said.

It was done by Sinaloa Cartel thugs, sources familiar with the investigation said. Though unrelated to the first slaying, the accidental timing had officers speculating from Day 1 that something bigger was afoot.

More interesting circumstances marked the first killing, on the city’s northwest side. Police found Bruno Alberto Orozco Juarez, 24, a former Nuevo Laredo cop, shot dead — his shirt stained with blood, a gold chain with a Virgin of Guadalupe pendant around his neck and handcuffs locked on his right wrist.

Oh, wait. This all sounds like it happened somewhere in Baghdad, but it happened in Laredo, not Nuevo Laredo. The latter is in Mexico, the former is in Texas. The two cities are across the Rio Grande from one another. The drug cartel hitmen crossed into Texas to do their work, thanks in no small part to the undefended border. Their handiwork in Nuevo Laredo included street battles, assassinations, the works. If memory serves, the city had a police chief last less than a week from appointment to being gunned down on the streets.

After reading up on this drug war, which isn’t limited to the sister cities by the way, perhaps Kirsten could ask herself “If I was working at the Ford plant in Nuevo Laredo, would the violence there make me think about heading across the river, past Laredo, and somewhere where there are a few less AK-47s on the street?” Any sensible person would answer “Yes.” And because the border is undefended, nearly any sensible person from one side can find a path to the other. And because sensible people can do that, so can all sorts of other people, and not just from Mexico.

The fact that Mexico has problems, up and down its politics and economics, has EVERYTHING to do with the illegal immigration problem. Everything. It’s foolish to claim otherwise.


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

We could probably stand to be a bit nicer to KP, as irritating as some of the liberal doublethink she’s been engaging in is. And ragging on her looks is pretty crummy, let’s focus on substance. I kinda wouldn’t mind her dropping by to defend herself, particularly on some of the blatant doublethink Allah’s called her on.

Things like railing against Giuliani for his pro-choice stance while being a big Clinton loyalist.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Seriously, Allah, I’m amazed Powers would still give you the time of day after the comments that are routinely made about her on HotAir. You control the tone and also maintain the power to delete posts. So, the buck stops with you.

Blake on August 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Exactly.

Confusing, to say the least.

PBoilermaker on August 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Seriously, Allah, I’m amazed Powers would still give you the time of day after the comments that are routinely made about her on HotAir. You control the tone and also maintain the power to delete posts.

I also have 15+ posts and 45 or so headlines a day to write, not to mention endless RSS feeds and e-mails to check. I don’t see every comment. I don’t see most comments, in fact: the Mitt thread is almost at 500 and I haven’t looked in on it since about 10 a.m. I’ve defended Kos on this very site when O’Reilly’s gone after him about dKos comments because I know how hard they are to police and how unfair it is to attribute them to the site administrator. In fact, Powers has also defended Kos on the same grounds. If you guys want to be jerks and insult her, I’ll try to catch them but at the end of the day, I’m not your babysitter.

And incidentally, Blake, most of our commenters have been rather notably positive about Powers dating back to last year. Before her sudden turn to the left this past month or two, she was received decidedly warmly. Remarkably so, in fact, given that she’s a lefty and Michelle’s sparring partner on the Factor.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Yeah really, KP’s good looking enough (though I prefer dark hair, no offense KP), I don’t really see where going after her looks is appropriate or even makes sense. She hands us enough to criticize her with, we don’t need to take the low road.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:31 PM

So, the buck stops with you.

Instead, how about some of that hallmark conservative quality: personal responsibility?

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:35 PM

And incidentally, Blake, most of our commenters have been rather notably positive about Powers dating back to last year. Before her sudden turn to the left this past month or two, she was received decidedly warmly. Remarkably so, in fact, given that she’s a lefty and Michelle’s sparring partner on the Factor.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM

I think Blake meant -your- comments about KP, but I could be wrong.

When she “disappoints” you, you let loose on her in a hurry and the stuff you say would strain any normal, real relationship.

PBoilermaker on August 30, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Blake on August 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM

So you want AP to make a subjective call as to whether a post is “offensive” or not? Geez, the guy has to rest sometime.

Agreed that posts about how someone looks are really childish. It’s KO’s type crap where as a last resort just call someone ugly or make fun of them. Idiocy.

KP happens to be cute, and a liberal. Hell, I can live with that. As a matter of fact, so’s my lovely wife.

The question is what has happened to make KP take a sudden sharp turn to the far left? Personally, given our affection for her here, I think she owes us an explanation.

BacaDog on August 30, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Instead, how about some of that hallmark conservative quality: personal responsibility?

There’s an idea. Sure beats “Some of us are jackasses, and it’s your fault.”

I think Blake meant -your- comments about KP, but I could be wrong.

No, I don’t think he meant my comments. Obviously I’m not going to delete the stuff I post. And I’ve never, ever knocked Powers for her looks. As for the harshness of the posts, yes, some of them are pretty cutting but they’re on the merits and she’s a big girl. Did you read the op-ed of hers calling certain amnesty opponents who shall remain nameless “nativists” and, basically, racists? She can give as good as she gets.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Just to go along with what Allah said, its tough to patrol a site with a skeleton staff, plus writing and finding good stories and dealing with everything else. I can say, even just finding good stories to put on a site is difficult, and I mostly focus on fluffy junk posts, Allah and crew have, you know, real stuff…with substance, plus fluffy stuff. Even just writing my little crapblog, I have a much greater respect for what Ace and the Hotair crew and Michelle (the sites I usually read) do on a daily basis.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Sure beats “Some of us are jackasses, and it’s your fault.”

Well we’re all just victims really. I need to call John Edwards or Al Sharpton to find out why, but I’ll let you know.

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

True…now where’s our handouts?

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM

First of all, I haven’t read all of the posts, but I don’t remember seeing anything mean about KP’s looks. Maybe I missed a post, somewhere.

It’s off topic

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM

If you say so. But I think that most men’s interest in KP is her looks and not what she’s saying.

and gratuitously mean, not to mention absurd.

It’s mean, for sure, but I don’t think it’s gratuitously mean. As to absurd, that’s a question of taste. Everyone who shows up regularly on TV knows that their looks are going to be dissected, especially if their looks got them there. You don’t want that in these comments, fine. I assume, though, that that means that you also don’t want anyone mentioning how good-looking she is, either, since that also takes away from her political ideas and arguments.

It’s a fortunate man or woman indeed who’s so attractive that they can afford to take digs at Powers’s looks.

?? What the heck is that supposed to be about?

Just keep away from that subject. It’s needlessly hurtful.

It’s your playground.

But you didn’t answer my question, would she get much ink here if she were not good-looking? And does keeping away from that subject mean that no one should mention how good looking she is, either?

progressoverpeace on August 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

But you didn’t answer my question, would she get much ink here if she were not good-looking? And does keeping away from that subject mean that no one should mention how good looking she is, either?

progressoverpeace on August 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Uh, I’d say yes, given that she’s regularly facing off with Michelle. I think part of the deal with all the KP highlights was just Allah goofing around, playing that forbidden love cliche type thing.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

I was referring more to posts that appeared yesterday and earlier today – this thread seems tame compared to it. It just seemed to leave the realm of disagreement with her and just dissolve into a mess. And of course most all of the comments about her looks were positive as usual. But I do think a few were pretty mean – but like I said, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure I am wrong in some of my analysis and probably some facts. I haven’t followed the entire KP storyline this summer.

Dork B. on August 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

And incidentally, Blake, most of our commenters have been rather notably positive about Powers dating back to last year.

I don’t think posting that “I’d do her” over and over again are the type of positive comments Powers appreciates.

Blake on August 30, 2007 at 11:53 PM

True…now where’s our handouts?

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Yours are usually in the Headlines section ;)

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Kirsten…LOL…god bless her bleeding liberal heart.

I certainly take issue with her statements regarding Arellan: Mistress of the Deportation but will admit that she doesn’t come off nearly as shrill here as Karen.

Hanretty needs to seriously back off on the triple lattes.

The Ugly American on August 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM

progressoverpeace on August 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Beyond that, there was a point where KP showed some rational thought, even when you disagreed, it didn’t feel like it was a big deal, but she’s fallen off the wagon somehow, over the past few months, where she would be moderate, has tacked hard left, and it just seems out of character to people who thought she was more sensible than she’s been acting lately. Which I think is part of why some people are being so hostile about this, they feel let down in some way.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Uh, I’d say yes, given that she’s regularly facing off with Michelle. I think part of the deal with all the KP highlights was just Allah goofing around, playing that forbidden love cliche type thing.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Well, if that’s true then I stand corrected.

progressoverpeace on August 30, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Yours are usually in the Headlines section ;)

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Too true!

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM

I don’t think posting that “I’d do her” over and over again are the type of positive comments Powers appreciates.

Here’s a sample thread from February of HA commenters reacting to KP’s vlog. Decidedly positive, decidedly light on the “I’d do her” comments.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:58 PM

I think we need to call a cease fire here…blue on blue all over the place for no reason.

And I’ve never, ever knocked Powers for her looks.

I know, I would never accuse you of doing that.

As for the harshness of the posts, yes, some of them are pretty cutting but they’re on the merits and she’s a big girl. Did you read the op-ed of hers calling certain amnesty opponents who shall remain nameless “nativists” and, basically, racists? She can give as good as she gets.

Yes, that is an example of why she really bothers me now. I’ll admit, I thought she was pretty reasonable for a long while, but the moment she started blindly promoting Hillary and the nutroot viewpoint in spite of her normally sound logic she lost all credibility, in my mind, as a reasonable voice. Her previously insightful and rational commentary was replaced by s string of illogical rhetoric. Much of it is showcased here on HotAir in grand fashion.

Unlike you, I don’t know KP, so when she sounds like a nutroot almost every time I see her on TV, I have no problem writing off what she has to say as just more garbage from the far left.

Disappointing? Definitely, but I can afford to not get too worked up over her transformation.

PBoilermaker on August 31, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Alright, this discussion is giving me a headache and its late, I think I’ve said all that needs to be said on my end, I’ll leave Allah to hash the rest of this out.

True…now where’s our handouts?

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Yours are usually in the Headlines section ;)

Spirit of 1776 on August 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM

And this made my night! Too damn funny. Anyway, I’ll be a good mooch and thank Allah & crew for all the handouts.

Bad Candy on August 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM

And the churches have them convinced that “God” has an opinion on illegal immigration, and I’m wrong.

Go figure.

Jaibones on August 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM

The churches have, in Nietzsche’s terminology, become the “sepulchers of God.” Since “God is dead” was proclaimed by liberal churches and the death of theology was championed (under the guise of “progressive thinking,” or “tolerance”) in the 60s, churches no longer teach or care about sound theology.

Thus, “preference” replaces “conviction,” and the relativistic winds of “opinion” replace any talk of theology.

Illegal immigration is wrong from a Biblical perspective, and is condemned in Scripture.

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:10 AM

So…then I’m all good on this? Excellent.

Jaibones on August 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Here’s a sample thread from February of HA commenters reacting to KP’s vlog. Decidedly positive, decidedly light on the “I’d do her” comments.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 11:58 PM

The Powers Saga goes back farther than February, Mr. AllahPundit. Are you going to force me to get one of those little counters and click off every “I’d hit it” post I find? Are you willing to swear under penalty of perjury that link, to the best of your knowledge, is truly an accurate sample?

Blake on August 31, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Karen Hanretty is definitely no slouch in the looks department.

Mike Honcho on August 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM

So…then I’m all good on this? Excellent.

Jaibones on August 31, 2007 at 12:15 AM

From somebody who doesn’t live too far from Mayor Daley (and yet is a huge Peyton M. fan), I personally can tell you that any church that advocates amnesty or encourages illegal immigration is not a Bible-believing church.

Sadly, most churches are not even Bible-preaching churches.

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:34 AM

The Powers Saga goes back farther than February, Mr. AllahPundit. Are you going to force me to get one of those little counters and click off every “I’d hit it” post I find?

Oh, I’m sure you’ll find some, although you’ll find 1/1000th as many of those as “Islam sucks” or “nuke Mecca” comments. You going to go count those up too, or are those kosher?

Mind if I ask why you’re trying to attribute other people’s comments to me on this topic but not on any other topic? It’s strange, although not as strange as the fact that you’re evidently seeing these objectionable comments when I’m not, and yet you do nothing to alert me to them. Why is that? If you see someone saying “I’d do her,” how about shooting me an e-mail so I can delete it? Or would you rather let it slide so you can complain later?

The worst comments, of course, are the ones that wish death on people, however obliquely or half-jokingly. Like in this thread, where you hoped Michael Moore would be doing a little human shield duty during his trip to Iran. And yet I let that slide. Maybe I shouldn’t have.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Damn, memory like an elephant, our Allah.

Alex K on August 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Allah,

are you a fan of Ayn Rand?

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Allah,

are you a fan of Ayn Rand?

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM

My motivation for asking was my curiosity in discovering why you are a Right-Leaning atheist instead of the all too common Left-Leaning atheists which I had as college professors.

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:43 AM

I’ve never read Rand, actually. I’m not sure if there’s any overarching explanation for right-wing atheism, but in my case I think both parts of it derive from cynicism, about human behavior on the one hand and the supernatural on the other.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Okay. Thanks for the reply.

Keep up the great work at HotAir.

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:46 AM

My aren’t we defensive. If you want me to count nuke mecca posts I’ll need a pay check. However, I seriously doubt they even approach the number of comments that are condescending and offensive to KP – she’s an idiot, she is ugly, I’d do her, on and on. You are the one who is holding yourself out as her friend, though a disappointed one. You think she would find these comments on your blog flattering? And you have no intention of deleting any post that I email you about. In fact, as this post of yours prove, you would just get defensive. And it’s not just a comment here and there, it’s threads with hundreds of comments criticizing her. Maybe if it was some one else, it wouldn’t matter. But you are the one claiming to be her friend. Also, do you have any idea how condescending telling someone you are “disappointed” in them is? It’s how you speak to a child. As to my comment that if MM goes to Iran he should act like a human shield, that’s your choice. Keep it or delete it. But, really, I don’t know why KP would put up with this stuff, if she does. Maybe it doesn’t bother her because she really doesn’t’ care about anyone’s opinion of her, including yours, period.

Blake on August 31, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Damn, memory like an elephant, our Allah.

Alex K on August 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM

No, he just did a search. I don’t’ have that many comments to sift through to find something faux incriminating.

Blake on August 31, 2007 at 1:00 AM

I’m not sure if there’s any overarching explanation for right-wing atheism,

Sure, the personal demand for logic and objectivity.

Completely unsupported by liberalism, Conservatism is much more suitable.

Speakup on August 31, 2007 at 1:02 AM

I loved Hanretty’s logic near the end, but I think she emphasized the drug issue a little too much. I would suggest fine tuning to emphasize corruption over just drugs. Admittedly this is slightly subtle, but corruption is a more accurate diagnosis, and people react as strongly against corruption as drugs.

thuja on August 31, 2007 at 1:05 AM

I’ve never read Rand, actually…

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Sincere apologies and begging for indulgence on the OT.

No presumption here to advise anyone what to do or what to read. A brilliant mind as yours, and one with a good heart, in addition to the cynicism, however, should consider not dying before reading “The Fountainhead” and then “Atlas Shrugged”, in that order, for many more reasons than atheism.

Rand’s Russian nature and brilliant mind will thrill you. She studied physics in her 70s. After page 100 I couldn’t put the first book down and life has never been the same. To be sure I was Randyan before I read her books – they just affirmed in powerful and unforgetful ways that there definitely are two major different philosophies, and that hers is the superior one. I don’t mean the religious, but rather the leftie/rightie one, or the free/independent or dumb/slave-like one.

The style is sometimes so good that I had to go back and re-read entire paragraphs. Love and hate of the characters are mesmerizing. Her imagination, wit and logic are near impeccable. Anyone who’s ever loved or yearns to will also be thrilled and disappointed, just like in life, except way more intensely. She was and remains a gift to the world. All 28+ year olds should read her, even if they disagree with her religion or other views. They should read her to remain free, in spirit and literally free people.

Entelechy on August 31, 2007 at 1:08 AM

To Drew on August 30, 2007 at 8:18 PM

Why exactly is Kirsten Powers viewed as a sane Democrat?

AP had a crush on KP, but he got over it.

slp on August 31, 2007 at 1:14 AM

Entelechy on August 31, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Hm, that sparks a tiny bit of interest in me, who was a dead fish otherwise. Most people on the net who talk about Rand do so with religious reverence, which turned me off before page1. And the people I know personally who are Rand fans are equally google-eyed and have completely miss appropriated both Plato and Aristotle, so I don’t really respect their intellectual insight.

Spirit of 1776 on August 31, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Speakup on August 31, 2007 at 1:02 AM

I agree. I am also a right-wing atheist. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean that they hate religious tradition and the culture that our Judeo-Christian background created. Until someone proposes a provably better way of raising kids I don’t see any reason to throw away what we’ve been doing.

Left-wingers tend to not be atheists, but religion haters, which is a huge difference. That’s why left-wing “atheists” love fantasy novels and movies. They just want a metaphysics different from their parents’ – because they think that their parents are so stupid. True atheists never talk about “morality” or “rights” and “wrongs”, since to a true atheist, such concepts do not exist.

As to my ideology, I base all my judgements on the progress of Man. Things that help Man progress (technologically/scientifically) are what I support and things that don’t I consider threats.

progressoverpeace on August 31, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Sorry, but I think this Hanretty chick (besides having a very dated bouffant curled under hairdo that makes her look like she’s from the Fifties–and like she is fifty) is completely ignorant. Powers walked into a huge hole by talking about Saul Arellano, an anchor baby. Clearly, this Hanretty woman is ignorant and didn’t have a clue about the entire anchor baby issue and why there are millions of them and we cannot open the door to them and their parents. Yet, she let KP get away with it, b/c let’s face it, she–again–doesn’t have a clue and is ignorant. Not exactly the spokeswoman I want for my side. But I’m sure she’d be a great spokeswoman for curlers, hairspray, and the like–things she seems to know way too much about. She and Sean Hannity would get along great–talking points Republicans with zero depth, true knowledge, or insight.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:21 AM

(besides having a very dated bouffant curled under hairdo that makes her look like she’s from the Fifties–and like she is fifty)

Lol. How ironic after all this thread on personal appearance.

She and Sean Hannity would get along great–talking points Republicans with zero depth, true knowledge, or insight.

Sigh. If only it were Schlussel and Colmes! Then all would be well I presume.

Spirit of 1776 on August 31, 2007 at 1:25 AM

PS–Although she mentioned the phrase “anchor baby,” she didn’t get into this, she missed the whole issue, and instead focused on Mexico, drugs, and insulting Powers. Completely clueless.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:28 AM

PS–Although she mentioned the phrase “anchor baby,” she didn’t get into this, she missed the whole issue, and instead focused on Mexico, drugs, and insulting Powers. Completely clueless.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Yes, KH didn’t do so well this time, even though KP was holding her chin out (speaking in a fight analogy, not about her actual chin) and KH mentioned Mexican drug cartels one too many times. But KH still did okay and I like having her argue for the conservative view.

progressoverpeace on August 31, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Curlers and hairsprays – “we’ve been Nancy Graced”.

Entelechy on August 31, 2007 at 1:32 AM

besides having a very dated bouffant curled under hairdo that makes her look like she’s from the Fifties–and like she is fifty)
Lol. How ironic after all this thread on personal appearance.

She and Sean Hannity would get along great–talking points Republicans with zero depth, true knowledge, or insight.
Sigh. If only it were Schlussel and Colmes! Then all would be well I presume.

Spirit of 1776 on August 31, 2007 at 1:25 AM

When you have an “old lady look” presenting our side versus youthful, hip Kirsten spouting liberalism, we’ve already lost half the battle. The only thing missing was the pearls. She has the Bay Buchanan look down pat. Sorry, but that’s TV. Presentation matters.

As for me and Colmes, while his views are anathema, Colmes is far smarter than Hannity (by a mile) and a far tougher debater. Sorry, my friend, but Hannity is empty calories. One thing’s for sure, I wouldn’t have gotten bogged down in personally attacking KP on a brief TV appearance. That’s never the way to win the argument, and always the way to take away from it. Hard to see how focusing on Mexican jobs and drugs has anything to do with the Saul Arellano issue. It’s only a fallback point for the ignorant. And not an issue in our control. Sending the parents of millions of anchor babies back to their native lands is within our control and bogs down our courts and services, a point she skipped over b/c she’s strictly a talking points chick. Even though she mentioned it, she glossed over the point about Arellano’s phony social security number and the terrorist issue KP mentioned. The fact is that Arellano used the phony SS# to work at Chicago O’Hare airport where she had access to secure areas. It’s dangerous to have illegal aliens who need money using phony SS#s at an airport, just after 9/11. Clearly this talking points woman didn’t know about any of that, and missed out, yet again, on another issue. That’s what you get when you have a person, ignorant of the story who reads a few basic articles, arguing your side.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:37 AM

One thing’s for sure, I wouldn’t have gotten bogged down in personally attacking KP on a brief TV appearance.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:37 AM

What attack? That she said that KP was offering emotional arguments? That was true and was not an attack. Most of the left is proud that their ideology is based on emotion. it makes them feel “more human”, at least in their minds.

Or did I miss some other “attack”?

progressoverpeace on August 31, 2007 at 1:39 AM

When you have an “old lady look” presenting our side versus youthful, hip Kirsten spouting liberalism, we’ve already lost half the battle. The only thing missing was the pearls.

Wow. Sorry the people you know are so superficial!

That’s never the way to win the argument, and always the way to take away from it.

Well maybe we’ll see what you consider a good argument. So far I’ve seen is a tired routine: a modified ‘smartest person in the room’ argument from you. You seem to have a pattern of insulting everyone, even stooping to the level of personal appearance or a slip of the tongue, or calling them ignorant when they are well-versed in their perspective on issues. All before you get to the point of your commentary. As if somehow that is going to elevate the value of your opinion. Admittedly it does appeal to a certain market niche of like-minded people.

Clearly this talking points woman didn’t know about any of that, and missed out, yet again, on another issue. That’s what you get when you have a person, ignorant of the story who reads a few basic articles, arguing your side.

Everyone thinks they know how to answer a question better than people do live. I’d hazard a guess that even you in your expertise have once wished you could redo and answer or came up with a better answer just a couple minutes later.

Spirit of 1776 on August 31, 2007 at 1:48 AM

The fact is that Arellano used the phony SS# to work at Chicago O’Hare airport where she had access to secure areas. It’s dangerous to have illegal aliens who need money using phony SS#s at an airport, just after 9/11. Clearly this talking points woman didn’t know about any of that, and missed out, yet again, on another issue.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:37 AM

That is not the issue. Illegals should not be here because they don’t belong here. Period. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It is an issue of sovereignty. To try and justify the US’ need to enforce border security and interior enforcement by terrorism arguments degrades the notion of sovereignty. This issue with illegals is one that is quite divorced from terrorism. The US should enforce its sovereignty, no matter what. To bring in terrorism as some needed backing for the US to be sovereign is a silly argument, since it only applies so long as the terrorist threat does. But sovereignty is much deeper than that.

progressoverpeace on August 31, 2007 at 1:56 AM

If you want me to count nuke mecca posts I’ll need a pay check. However, I seriously doubt they even approach the number of comments that are condescending and offensive to KP

You seriously doubt that the number of anti-Islam comments on this site exceeds the number of comments critical of Powers? Do you read the Islam threads, or do you just pop in now and then to issue another communique about How Friends Talk To Each Other? I’m tempted to invite our veteran readers to weigh in on your sense of the ratios but I don’t want to spin this off-topic nonsense out any longer.

And you have no intention of deleting any post that I email you about. In fact, as this post of yours prove, you would just get defensive.

I love being lectured about condescension by someone who tells me in the same breath what I would or wouldn’t do. Between that and your willingness to hijack threads — two in as many nights now — to hector me about how I’m supposed to interact with one of my own acquaintances, you have amazing gall.

I delete comments all the time when people e-mail me about them. Usually they’re of the “nuke Mecca” or racist variety, but as I say, you seem to find those copacetic. I repeat the offer: if you see an “I’d do her” or “she’s ugly” comment, e-mail me. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the response.

But, really, I don’t know why KP would put up with this stuff, if she does. Maybe it doesn’t bother her because she really doesn’t’ care about anyone’s opinion of her, including yours, period.

Maybe, or maybe she cares and deals with it by throwing grenades of her own about racism and nativism, as you’ll see if you follow the link to the USA Today op-ed that I’ve provided up top. Or maybe she deals with it in some other way. When I write a “let’s psychoanalyze Kirsten” post, you’ll be welcome to expound on it in the comments. Until then, I don’t want you hijacking another thread. You think I’m a bad friend; I got it. Got it loud and clear last night, too, when you were busy hijacking the other thread. I invite you to e-mail Michelle and let her know that good people don’t employ bad friends, but keep this tedium out of the comments from now on.

Also, please do be extra scrupulous about your own comments going forward. Normally I let people slide because I know we all tend to pop off and say things we don’t mean now and again, but since you’re hot to play comment cop for the site I’m going to hold you to a standard befitting your exalted state.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 2:05 AM

I’m tempted to invite our veteran readers to weigh in on your sense of the ratios but I don’t want to spin this off-topic nonsense out any longer.

Wrong by a factor of at least 10.

if you see an “I’d do her” or “she’s ugly” comment, e-mail me.

Ummm…let me just say that Karen Hanretty is a fine looking woman, and no, that is not a bouffant.

Pablo on August 31, 2007 at 4:01 AM

I’ve always thought that Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, was “hot.” I miss her show. I used to watch when it was on local TV, usually on Saturdays, though her big-screen movies were pretty stupid and awful. Is she still on TV somewhere?

Oh. Not the same Elvira? Never mind….

georgej on August 31, 2007 at 5:44 AM

Oh, here we go again:

Do I read every single post and every single comment? Nope. And obviously by your own words neither do you. Reading blogs is a slight diversion, not my job.

Do I have the time or interest to go point by point with you? Absolutely not. But, these Let’s Psychoanalyze Powers threads followed by all these condescending comments are bizarre by someone who claims to be her friend. What’s next? She going to start sending you secret messages through the television?

You flip out by any one criticizing you for anything. Okay, that’s your right. However, you don’t seem to think that Powers may not be so fond of seeing all this bizarre stuff written about her, either.

As to my comments. Delete them. I don’t care. As to me hijacking threads. Give me a break. I hardly post. Now, I’m off to bed.

Blake on August 31, 2007 at 6:04 AM

Woohoo! I for one am ecstatic that allahpundit has gotten over his infatuation of Ms. Powers. ‘Bout frickin’ time. My only hope is that he doesn’t develop a crush on some new pundit, and let us all know about it.

Kevin M on August 31, 2007 at 6:12 AM

…if you see an “I’d do her” or “she’s ugly” comment, e-mail me.

Ummm…let me just say that Karen Hanretty is a fine looking woman, and no, that is not a bouffant.

Pablo on August 31, 2007 at 4:01 AM

As always, Pablo, you got the words of wisdom.

They’re both good looking and I wouldn’t “do” either, but only because there’s someone I love far, far more. Besides, the doing comes after the knowing in my book.

Although Hanrety, with not only her looks which are truly much less important to me, but her attitude, could have been a strong contender.

Assuming, of course, she knew I was alive, which sadly, for her, she doesn’t.

KP?

I dunno. She apparently is pro-life and that’s my acid test. So even if we disagreed on other things, I wouldn’t discount her in the unlikely event we meet in an alternate universe.

But if what I’ve seen publicly is any indication it would be Hanrety in a contest by a country mile!

Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 7:20 AM

if you see an “I’d do her” or “she’s ugly” comment, e-mail me.

– AP

And as far as that goes, people here say Hillary is ugly (I don’t agree), FRED is ugly (tempted to agree, don’t really care), etc., and Harry Reid, just goes without saying.

So who cares if someone thinks KP is ugly? They’re in a minority, but why shouldn’t they express their opinion?

Or, to be consistent, are you going to warn me for criticizing Harry Reid’s looks?

Because if we have a criticizing others looks rule, that make sense. Not saying I would have one, but it’s defensible.

But criticizing our political candidates’ looks or their opponents is fine, but not Democratic pundits?

Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 7:23 AM

Blake,

But, these Let’s Psychoanalyze Powers threads followed by all these condescending comments are bizarre by someone who claims to be her friend.

Do you really think the blog would be enhanced by speech codes regarding certain people? Comments sections are for people to express their opinions, and those will be gooney from time to time, by their nature.

Pablo on August 31, 2007 at 7:51 AM

Spirit of 1776 on August 31, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Extremely well said.

SouthernDem on August 31, 2007 at 8:52 AM

Let’s have fun and bit of reality with these media stories.

Bathroom Solicitation – Next move is to legislate that all public restrooms have walls that go from the floor to the ceiling and who is going to pay for that? I know, let’s bring back pay toilets and have the p(l)ay station on the inside-getting in is free, but you gotta pay to flush.

How about starting the rumor that those urinals that appear to flush themselves is not done via magic or technology-there is a pervert behind the wall that checks to see if you’re done and flushes it from behind the wall.

Red Rover Let the Legal Come Over – Let’s just giver her son a legal U.S. passport and send him home to get his mother using the laws that allow him to sponsor a relative by going to the relatives country and make the proper petitions.

MSGTAS on August 31, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Attacks on personal appearance never have a place in debate. When you do that you have already lost, IMHO. Compliments on appearance are acceptable, however. That’s just polite (when it’s done politely. (“I’d do her” is not polite))

My biggest point on anchor babies is this. If an American citizen Mom gets thrown in jail for a felony, we don’t say she shouldn’t go because of the kids. It’s tragic, but the rule of law rules. The rule of law needs to rule on immigration. I’ve had my SS# stolen, and it’s no fun. We should enforce the laws we have… vigorously!

Ordinary1 on August 31, 2007 at 10:03 AM

I’ve never read Rand, actually. I’m not sure if there’s any overarching explanation for right-wing atheism, but in my case I think both parts of it derive from cynicism, about human behavior on the one hand and the supernatural on the other.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 12:45 AM

I’d actually attribute it to skepticism (which might be characterized as a form of cynicism, I suppose, though it’s a bit more precise). Propositions about paranormal events in the world are similar to propositions about the effects of government in the world in a number of ways. And though that might sound like snark, it’s meant quite literally. Supporting evidence for such beliefs can be similarly hard to come by.

Blacklake on August 31, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 2:05 AM

To the girls: Is it just me, or is it getting hotttt in heeere!!

Damn…. ;)

heatherrc77 on August 31, 2007 at 12:09 PM

This is what happens when hot chicks go bad. So sad. KP needs a “re-education” weekend with a responsible conservative. It’s just too bad no one would volunteer.

BTW. *** = B C ‘s please.

VikingGoneWild on August 31, 2007 at 12:20 PM

You’re all a bunch of racists. If you were properly schooled in the theoretical superiority of a Liberals Arts degree in Multiculturalism with a focus in Moral Relativism, then you wouldn’t be the gorilla-descended-ugly-America-racist-bigots that you apparently are.

“Ohhhh wail and cry” how could you tear a law abiding “illegal” alien Mexican woman away from her illegitimate-who-knows-who-the-father-is-but-pay-for-our-well-being-thru-your-Yankee-tax-dollars baby? Cretins.

Do you HATE children?

Think of the CHILDREN!!

Ahh….it’s good to play the Liberal. I feel, so, I dunno…superior with my anti-logic, anti-responsibility super-hero outfit on.

I’m going to go listen to NPR now.

Montana on August 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Not the whole point? Does someone who otherwise appears intelligent really believe this?

Altura Ct. on August 31, 2007 at 1:14 PM

ColtsFan on August 31, 2007 at 12:34 AM

The Catholic Church and significant parts of most liberal Protestant denominations (i.e., Espiscopal, Methodist and Presbyterian). Sorry to say it, but that’s real.

Jaibones on August 31, 2007 at 2:11 PM

AP, has KP indicated whether she takes your opposition to her policy position on this at face value? If so, why can’t she apply the same charitable interpretation to others?

DrSteve on August 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM

This is what happens when hot chicks go bad. So sad. KP needs a “re-education” weekend with a responsible conservative. It’s just too bad no one would volunteer.

BTW. *** = B C ’s please.

VikingGoneWild on August 31, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Responsible?

Considering the significant change in KP recently that might require a retreat seminar where everyone has to wear Clinton Halloween masks using all manner of aversion techniques for it to have a chance to work.

Speakup on August 31, 2007 at 3:18 PM

No need to divert anti-terrorism resources to finding Elvira Arellano, as Kirsten alleges. We knew all along where she she was during her time here in the US. No resources whatsoever were needed.

Elvira, si en verdad tu quieres estar con tu hijo, llevele contigo a Mexico, el pais maravilloso, como tu dijiste. Por tu culpa el no esta contigo.

(Elvira, if you really want to be with your son, bring him with you to Mexico, that wonderful country, like you said. It’s your fault that he isn’t with you.)

jimbo2 on August 31, 2007 at 3:55 PM

To all of those people saying nasty things about Kirsten: You are stooping to the same level as a lot of Democrats / Liberals, who call names rather than stick to the issues.

Some of you are downright obscene. You should quit calling yourselves “conservatives” if you are going to engage in such personal slurs against someone.

Here’s another thought: Kirsten is a lady, and it is totally un-conservative-like to talk to a lady in that way. Sorry, folks, I can’t sit here quietly when some of you are doing that.

Stick to the issues…

jimbo2 on August 31, 2007 at 4:10 PM

And needless to say, the very last thing anyone should be knocking Powers for is her looks.

Allahpundit on August 30, 2007 at 10:53 PM

I, for one, think Kirsten is very pretty.

jimbo2 on August 31, 2007 at 4:49 PM


When you have an “old lady look” presenting our side versus youthful, hip Kirsten spouting liberalism, we’ve already lost half the battle. The only thing missing was the pearls. She has the Bay Buchanan look down pat. Sorry, but that’s TV. Presentation matters.

Debbie Schlussel on August 31, 2007 at 1:37 AM

How many “youthful, hip” people do you think are actually watching Hannity and Colmes? My kids, both teenagers, hate watching programs which seriously discuss political issues.

On the other hand, people who do seriously think through the issues will probably be impressed by the fact that Hanretty was poised, well-groomed, and well-dressed. Kind of like you’d see in a bank or in an office environment.

Debbie, are you really that offended by her looks?

jimbo2 on August 31, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Oh Debbie Schlussel is just pissed that she’s not getting the attention or the book buyers of Ann Coulter.

wryteacher on August 31, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2