Thursday, July 05, 2007

Speaking of pandering, just a few days after the Democrats debated at Howard College, they gathered in Florida for a stop sponsored by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, this time the fight was over who was more Hispanic. Read this article and you will be able to do nothing but shake your head in amazement. Here is a sample of what was said:

Barak Obama: “"Nobody has been a more consistent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform than I have been. Do I believe fences make good neighbors and are the right approach? No, I don't believe that." (note: Obama voted for last fall’s measure to build 700 miles of border fence).

Joe Biden: "It's a race to the bottom—who out there can be the most anti- Hispanic," Biden said of the immigration debate. "Why is it we only view it through the prism of Spanish speaking people?"

Sen. Chris Dodd: "I'm the only Gringo in the Senate" to speak the language.

Dennis Kucinich: saying he believed all American children should learn to speak Spanish, gave his closing statement in Spanish while apologizing in advance for his accent.

Bill Richardson: He, too, spoke Spanish to the crowd, calling them "Mi gente, mi familia"—my people, my family. "I'm not running as a Latino candidate. I'm running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino," he told supporters.

All of these are equally sleezy (Edwards said something as well, but sleeze has become so common for him I decided not to include it). But the one who excelled in the sleeze was the most accomplished of all the panderers, Senator Hillary Clinton. She addressed a recent comment by Fred Thompson about Cuban immigrants. This is what Thompson said:
"I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."

Hillary was appalled, becoming pro-Cuban, anti-Castro overnight: "I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists.”

Like many others, I read this comment and immediately images of Elian Gonzalez, a Cuban refugee, popped in my head. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who ordered this child deported? Wasn’t it him in that photo of federal marshals bursting in the child’s home with guns raised, pulling him in tears away from his family? Wasn’t that the Clinton administration?

Maybe someone out there can refresh my memory, or better yet refresh Hillary’s memory. Of all the candidates, she is the least qualified to talk about fair treatment of Cuban refugees. In fact, the entire Democrat party has a pretty bad track record on this one. Cubans are the only immigrants that Democrats want deported, mainly because of their admiration of Fidel Castro and his “quality healthcare”, but also partly because the Cubans tend to favor the Republican party. They're the only immigrants that aren't interested in entitlements. After living under Castro's boot, they're just happy with their freedom, what an amazing concept.

The Dems would be wise to tread lightly here.

But what really caught my attention was Thompson’s reaction. He said in his blog that he was referring to Cuban spies, not refugees, and provided evidence that Castro and Chavez have been making “extensive” efforts to penetrate our intelligence system. He stated: “Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too. All of us should be rightfully concerned about Castro and his ideological pal Chavez sending agents and provocateurs into the United States through Mexico. I’m sure that Cuban-Americans share this concern as well.”

Thompson’s point is that we have no idea who is coming into this country. They could be spies, they could be refugees, they could be hard workers seeking a better life. We have no idea, and we won’t know until we gain a little control of things. I understood this, and so will the average American voter, but the Dems are hoping that immigrants won't understand it.

Hillary spun this into a cheap grab for Cuban-American favor, and it makes her look foolish, as did Thompson’s response. We still don’t know a lot about Fred Thompson, but he is slowly beginning to look like someone with a little character, which is rare these days in Washington. “Character” and “Politician” just don’t mix. Thompson’s initial statement may have been a little raw and unpolished, and it may not have been the most politically correct thing to say. But I like the fact that he didn’t back down from it, he didn’t let Hillary get away with her cheap shot, and he didn't get down in the mud with her. He basically told her to "grow up", and that alone has it's appeal. This upcoming election has too much at stake for any candidate to be engaging in petty, childish politics. There are bigger things to do.

Thompson redirected the politics du jour back to the issue, and Hillary was left without an answer for that issue, only her typical pandering. The hope is that voters will see through this nonsense. Democrats have managed to win over the black vote with shameless pandering and empty promises, and yet for some reason blacks continue to vote for them. I don’t get it. We’ll see if the Latino population is just as na├»ve and sheepish. I for one am tired of politicians behaving like politicians, and the recent events in Florida and at Howard College seem to be more of the same from these morons that want to be President. The Republicans are no better, mind you, but Fred Thompson emerged in my mind as someone who may be a little less prone to political behavior, or to put it simply…a no bull@#!$ kind of guy. If he keeps this up he will become a very popular candidate, and just may win my vote.

11 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

"Bill Richardson: He, too, spoke Spanish to the crowd"

You know, don't you, that Richardson actually IS hispanic?

John Washburn said...

Yes, I did, and I thank you for reminding us, but does that make any difference in this matter?

Would it be respectable if I addressed a bunch of Welchmen, spoke in a British accent and called them "my people, my family"? I think that is still pandering.

I actually like Richardson. He makes the most sense of any of the Dem candidates. But his Latino background does not exempt him pandering to Latinos

Dan Trabue said...

I don't find it objectionable to make your case to a group of peoples why you'd be a good person to represent their concerns. On the other hand, I do and would find pandering objectionable. There is probably a fine line there and I didn't see the debate in question, so I don't really know in this case.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some of these candidates were indeed pandering - especially Clinton.

Man with the Muck-rake said...

Looks like Mr. Trabue has an issue with Hispanics.

About your challenge:

Maybe someone out there can refresh my memory, or better yet refresh Hillary’s memory. Of all the candidates, she is the least qualified to talk about fair treatment of Cuban refugees.

Tell me, perhaps I missed reading about it, but did Senator Clinton propose some legislation in the Senate against Cuban refugees?

Remember, politics being what they are, she has to court those Batista-Cubans holled up in Miami- you know the group that holds hostage the Florida elections year after year.

So I'm not sure she wants to knock the Cubans on the head before the '08 election.

Robert M. said...

It does seem a little like pandering. I mean, okay, both sides do it to an extent, but it's till really annoying.

John Washburn said...

Muck-Rake, there was nothing recent between Hillary and Cuban refugees. What I was referring to was the Elian Gonzalez debacle in which Hillary's husband and his Attorney General forcefully deported a 5 year old boy at gunpoint, and returned him to a brutal communist regime. That's why Hillary has no moral authority to speak about unfair treatment of Cuban refugees (or any of the Dems for that matter, since the Gonzalez issue was just as partisan as everything else in Washington).

Dan Trabue said...

"Looks like Mr. Trabue has an issue with Hispanics."

Wha...??!!

Robert M. said...

Yeah, I disagree with you Dan, and even I don't know what that's about...

Perhaps he was referring to John mistakenly thinking you wrote this post?

John Washburn said...

Robert, I hope you're not insinuating that I was being anti-Latino. I may be against illegals, but I have nothing against the Latino culture or the people who come here legally. You probably weren't saying this, but I just wanted to be sure

Man with the Muck-rake said...

and returned him to a brutal communist regime.

I believed he was returned to his father. Let's not extrapolate to fit our personal political agenda.

John Washburn said...

Muck-rake, that's right, I forgot how much you people adore Castro, and you say I have an agenda?