I think you’re a little bit fuzzy on the whole cause and effect thing. Go back and read the article again.

Big S on January 18, 2008 at 3:15 AM

Colts fan: Milton Friedman argues that you cannot have open borders(open immigration is interchangeable term) AND government welfare in the form of social security, medicare, and medicaid. They essentially are in conflict with each other. Open borders would allow people to come and go as they please. Federal law cannot allow this because of the social welfare supports the federal government is required by law to collect in the form of FICA taxes and to disperse through its various agencies and departments.

Friedman is a liberal as per the definition up until the end of the 19th century. A liberal was an advocate for free markets, capitalism, and supporting policy that would limit the power of government to provide the greatest level of free flow of goods, services, and people.

gabriel sutherland on January 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the clarification above.

1) South Carolina law prohibits the use of push polling through phones.
2) The official Huckabee campaign is not conducting the push polls.
3) The group that is conducting the push polls, Common Sense Issues, Inc, officially supports electing Mike Huckabee for President.
4) Common Sense Issues, Inc has received donations from individuals that have also contributed to the Huckabee for President. The donations to CSI, Inc have been made a few weeks after the same individuals donated to Huckabee for President.

Questions.
1) Is this illegal? No. Proving coordination between a 501(c)4 like CSI and Huckabee for President is nearly impossible.

2) Isn’t push polling into SC just free speech? Yes. However, it is rather shallow to thumb your nose at South Carolina state law with one hand and with the other hand ask South Carolinans to vote for the candidate CSI, Inc supports.

Friedman is a liberal as per the definition up until the end of the 19th century. A liberal was an advocate for free markets, capitalism, and supporting policy that would limit the power of government to provide the greatest level of free flow of goods, services, and people.

I believe illegal immigration is an example of open immigration. Thus, rewarding illegals contributes to the expansion of the welfare state.

Any future amnesty definitely will increase the welfare state.

The great economist, Milton Friedman, argued that you can’t have open immigration without an increase in the welfare state.

I think you’re a little bit fuzzy on the whole cause and effect thing. Go back and read the article again.

Probably not. I’m in the market for a reluctantly pro-choice, pragmatic, tax-cutting security hawk who will stand against the expansion of the welfare state while getting control of Executive Branch and all of its departments in order to make them work for the benefit of the country, and not against its interests (see: anonymous leaks from the State Dept.) I’d like better border (and port!) security, but would not mind some kind of amnesty down the road. This may put me out of step with HotAir readers, but I’m pretty well within the mainstream of the Republican Party on most issues. I’m sick of the attempted excommunications by self appointed arbiters of “true conservatism”.

Big S on January 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM

Any future amnesty definitely will increase the welfare state.

The great economist, Milton Friedman, argued that you can’t have open immigration without an increase in the welfare state. Milton Friedman later admonished the Wall Street Journal over its liberal amnesty and immigration views.

There have already been 7 amnesties granted to law-breakers since 1986.

Clearly, amnesty (”path to USA citizenship”) has been shown to be a proven incentive to increase more illegal immigration.

Maybe it is time just to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Substance comes in many forms. Most just don’t like the kind Fred is selling.

Big S on January 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM

I don’t believe this. Most people when they see Fred see an old dude that can’t possibly have the energy to be President, and that’s the real reason. I’ve seen reactions from kids and unsophisticated people when they listen to him speak for the first time and that’s what you get. I’ve heard “but McCain looks younger” from many. In NH McCain won among people who have diametrically opposed views, so much for substance.

I’ve really come to see this election as a referendum on the American people. We say we want a candidate with substance – we say we don’t want gotchas and soundbites. We say we want a conservative who tells it like it is. So here’s Fred, with white papers and plain talk and a refusal to pander. And people can’t be bothered. If he loses, especially to Huckabee or McCain, then we deserve what we get.

Laura on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Substance comes in many forms. Most just don’t like the kind Fred is selling.

I’ve really come to see this election as a referendum on the American people. We say we want a candidate with substance – we say we don’t want gotchas and soundbites. We say we want a conservative who tells it like it is. So here’s Fred, with white papers and plain talk and a refusal to pander. And people can’t be bothered. If he loses, especially to Huckabee or McCain, then we deserve what we get.

Laura on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM

I love this country because it gave me everything I have. But a long time ago I figured out that it’s strength is the respect for fair play and relative orderliness. It’s not the collective intelligence of it its people. While many of the smartest people in the world come from the US, simply put, the country is full of idiots.

The people supporting McCain/Huckabee are the ones that allow the MSM to tell them who to vote for. They don’t know how to reach an informed decision by doing a little research.

The MSM agenda is to set up a GOP candidate that will be an easy win for the Dims.

SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Some day I’ll track Fred down and just ask him why the heck he didn’t use more theatrics. I would just hit all of these jokers so hard in the media, it’s easy to do. Fred’s campaign actually picked up the term I first used for Huck, “court jester” that I had inserted into three different blogs and and call to a radio station. They are still using it today, but why not go for the jugular?

Check this:

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/NEWS0206/80117105/-1/RSS05

stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Yes read the article and learn about those “Christian values”. Huck supporters are behaving like cultists and they will hear no wrong about their cult leader.

People who listen to what he says rather than looking up his record. I forget what station it was, interviewing people leaving a McCain rally and they ALL were raving about how tough he was on illegal immigration. I threw up in my mouth a little bit at how many ignorant people will be voting in 2008. It’s one thing to vote for him because you agree with him – I can at least respect that – but to be so completely ignorant of his history… it’s nauseating.

Laura on January 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM

It is nauseating. I don’t believe either he or Huck can win the nomination, but they can force Fred out. I guess that will leave only Mitt as a viable candidate.

The MSM agenda is to set up a GOP candidate that will be an easy win for the Dims.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/NEWS0206/80117105/-1/RSS05

Who the hell can support McCain?

People who listen to what he says rather than looking up his record. I forget what station it was, interviewing people leaving a McCain rally and they ALL were raving about how tough he was on illegal immigration. I threw up in my mouth a little bit at how many ignorant people will be voting in 2008. It’s one thing to vote for him because you agree with him – I can at least respect that – but to be so completely ignorant of his history… it’s nauseating.

I want Thompson. I could live with Mitt. I won’t be happy with a Rudy win, but I would not be so freaked out as I would with a McLiar or a Huckascam win. I trust and respect Rudy. I just differ on the issues with him.

Ditto. Fred’s got my vote, and all the cash I can spare. I can vote for Romney if I have to, even though I think his health care plan is a nightmare. I can vote for Rudy if I have to, even though I have some serious differences with him. But I will cross party lines to vote against McShame and the Huckster. I would rather have a Dem in office than either one of them.

“Fred Thompson’s optional flat tax (two rates: 10% and 25%), is the simplest and best reform in the field. Thompson and Giuliani are also the best in the field at explaining how taxes affect an economy. They understand incentives and aren’t cowed by Democratic arguments that tax cuts favor only “the rich” and produce deficits.”

“Mike Huckabee is the most unusual, combining an anti-corporate message with the most radical reform of all — the so-called FairTax, or a 30% national sales tax that would replace all federal income and payroll taxes. We have our doubts that such a root-and-branch upheaval could ever pass Congress, even if it did survive a Presidential campaign.”

Stick to real issues Hucks, and spare us all your political ambivalence. For all intent and purpose he is the product of all his liberal deeds. No one else to blame for his GOP insurrection but himself, and all these underhanded tactics during these primaries, covert poll pushing, trying to play candidates against one another show us his true cowardice. For a Christian who invokes the Lord’s Name for his own personal gain and who relies on the ignorance of voters to help him get the nomination, he is a lousy politician at best and has yet to significantly prove otherwise.

I’d prefer Thompson, I could tolerate Mitt, I might be able to swallow Rudy, but I think that’s probably it for the GOP field (not counting Tanc or Hunter as likely). Paul and Huck are no-gos for me.

snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM

McLiar is a no-go for me as well. But my preferences are the same as yours.

I won’t vote for Rudy, McLiar or Huckascam. And Paul is so far out in left field it is laughable he is allowed on the same stage as the rest.

I want Thompson. I could live with Mitt. I won’t be happy with a Rudy win, but I would not be so freaked out as I would with a McLiar or a Huckascam win. I trust and respect Rudy. I just differ on the issues with him.

He’s a no-go for me, too, but he’d probably be a whisker above Huck and Paul. Practically zero, while they’re in negative numbers.

snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM

I consider him worse than Huck. Huck is willing to pander and say anything that will get him elected, but just signing the no legalization pledge will make it very difficult for him to get the full Amnesty through, even if that’s what he really wants. As everyone knows, McCain is obsessed with Amnesty for whatever reason, and would find a way to make it happen no matter what.

The formation of an underclass of hispanic immigrants is one of my major concerns when it comes to immigration; I’m afraid the Romney/Thompson “attrition by enforcement” plans may result in the formation of just such an underclass when they do not succeed completely.

The attrition plan will work extremely well IF you institute employer sanctions. A couple of multi-year sentences imposed on some CEOs of companies knowingly hiring many illegals, and NOBODY will hire them. I don’t know if you heard about the delegation from the Mexican state of Sonora trying to get Arizona to slow down the repatriation of illegals, because even today it’s working pretty well. The remaining underclass will be just a bleep on the radar screen compared to the existing, fully legal second generation of the recent Hispanic immigrants.

That’s pretty much how I feel, other than McCain is a definite no-go,
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Whoops. Forgot McCain.

He’s a no-go for me, too, but he’d probably be a whisker above Huck and Paul. Practically zero, while they’re in negative numbers.

The sheer size of the Hispanic communities in the western states coupled with a sort of self-sufficiency, historical connections to Mexico, and lack of any imperative to integrate, and also coupled with the chain migration that will follow will create a permanent underclass, a permanent Democratic majority, and a back-breaking demand for social services. Size matters in this particular area.

Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM

I guess that’s the key issue. In NYC, different immigrant groups have their neighborhoods, but generally do a great job at integrating with the rest of the city. My guess is that it’s due to the highly competitive nature of life in NYC, and the need to keep up with everyone in order to succeed. In the long run, I think a move towards individual ownership of healthcare and retirement assets, rather than welfare-based programs, would help to foster such competition nationwide, while removing the likelihood of a ponderous burden due to the cost of social services. The formation of an underclass of hispanic immigrants is one of my major concerns when it comes to immigration; I’m afraid the Romney/Thompson “attrition by enforcement” plans may result in the formation of just such an underclass when they do not succeed completely.

I’d prefer Thompson, I could tolerate Mitt, I might be able to swallow Rudy, but I think that’s probably it for the GOP field (not counting Tanc or Hunter as likely). Paul and Huck are no-gos for me.

snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM

That’s pretty much how I feel, other than McCain is a definite no-go, and Rudy is just SO hard to swallow with his ambiguity on the illegals. I just can’t figure out why people care so much about Fred’s lack of a maniacal drive for power as if it was a missing good trait.