Palin hits Huntsman for dumping on Arizona’s immigration law in front of China

posted at 6:27 pm on May 17, 2010 by Allahpundit

A nice example of Palin’s highest use to the right at the moment. It’s not as a campaigner; the jury will be out on that until after the midterms. It’s not as a pundit; her Fox News segments are fun, but not much more. What she can potentially do that no other righty can do, Limbaugh and Beck included, is push stuff onto the media’s radar that they’d otherwise ignore. The story about that girls basketball team in Illinois being forbidden to travel to Arizona only really went national after she talked it up. Now this:

AZ’s pro-border security law invokes apology to China(w/its human rights violations)by U.S. State Dept;Surely Ambassador Huntsman disagrees?

Presumably a Facebook post about it is in the works; if it isn’t, it should be. The idea of State voluntarily introducing Arizona’s law into a discussion of human rights abuses with China may well be the single lowest moment on foreign policy that the administration’s had since The One was sworn in. Even Marc Ambinder, writing about Palin’s challenge to Huntsman, managed to choke down his bile towards conservatives to admit that it’s all but indefensible (“comparing China’s regular and brutal and unapologetic detention of political dissidents to the temporary detention of citizens caught without papers is … a tough case to make”). Never mind that, in poll after poll, 60 percent of the American public supports the law; never mind that Arizona’s law was made necessary by the federal government’s own abdication of its border duties; never mind that the Arizona statute is child’s play compared to China’s own immigration policies. The demagoguery simply will not stop, even when the audience is authoritarian communists. To have State bring the Chinese into this is actually much worse than having unhinged leftists scream about looming Nazism in Phoenix, because to some extent the Nazi crap is standard political discourse now. As disgusting as it is, it’s almost always empty rhetoric and everyone knows it. Not so here: Evidently there are elements at State that consider this law a transgression so ominous that they actually feel compelled to apologize to a totalitarian regime for it. And yet there’s been practically nothing said about it anywhere; even Ed’s post earlier barely cracked 100 comments. This should be a Category Five shinolastorm on the right, yet as far as I know, not a single reporter even raised it with Gibbs at today’s presser. As a wise man once said, where’s the outrage?

That imbecile Posner should be fired immediately and both Hillary and Huntsman should be asked to explain, in exquisite detail, why a law that’s not even being enforced yet should be offered as some sort of diplomatic sacrifice to the Orwellian heroes in Beijing. Exit question: Seriously, what have they done on foreign policy that’s more loathsome than this? Honduras, maybe?


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

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2