![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Racist, Distorted and EffectivePosted on Nov 1, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—A contemporary Willie Horton has turned up in the Democratic presidential campaign, and so far he is winning. No such person sat in the Drexel University auditorium during the Democrats’ debate on Tuesday night. But the candidates, especially the unprepared front-runner, Hillary Clinton, should long ago have recognized that Republicans and a shrill conservative chorus intend to make Hispanic illegal immigrants the Willie Hortons of 2008. Horton, an African-American, was the poster child of the 1988 presidential campaign. He was a convicted murderer given a weekend furlough from prison during the administration of Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee. Horton did not return, and 10 months later he raped a Maryland woman and brutally assaulted her fiance. Republican mastermind Lee Atwater, political godfather of today’s Karl Rove, used Horton to play on the fear and racial animosity that so often are great motivators of the American electorate. The Horton ad campaign conducted on behalf of George H.W. Bush’s candidacy was decried as racist and distorted. But it worked. And it became emblematic of how to run a devastatingly effective negative campaign. The current Republican war on illegal immigrants could be as potent a wedge issue as race and crime were in the 1980s. It exploits people’s fear that invading waves of Hispanics—you never hear anyone talk about building a fence along the Canadian border, or rounding up Eastern Europeans who’ve slipped in—are overrunning neighborhoods and schools, robbing legitimate workers of jobs and somehow diminishing the American dream. It is not only that Clinton was caught flatfooted and evasive during the debate when she was asked if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to grant driver’s licenses to the undocumented. It’s that other candidates are buying into the dangerous premise that they, too, must talk tough on immigrants. Chris Dodd piously announced that obtaining a driver’s license is a “privilege,” not to be granted to those here illegally; Joe Biden, in a post-debate interview, also said he was against granting licenses. The position is absurd. This means these candidates believe it’s better to have unlicensed drivers on the roads than it is to have illegal immigrants do what everyone else must do before barreling down the interstate: demonstrate basic driving skills and knowledge of traffic regulations, and drive a car that’s insured and inspected. Clinton, for all her equivocation, got the answer partly right. Noting that New York has several million undocumented workers, she said: “They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds.” Barack Obama was clearer in endorsing the licenses outright. “There is a public safety concern,” he said. The dust-up over the license issue has dominated post-debate coverage. In the political horse race narrative to which the media is addicted, Clinton was outpaced. But there is a larger lesson for Democrats. They must turn the conservatives’ pounding of immigrants back upon them, because it is a rant and a political tactic—not a policy. No Democrat running for any office should fail to demand answers to some basic questions: What, exactly, would conservatives do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who are now here? Would they round them up and deport them all? Who would execute the raids? What would this mass deportation cost? One think-tank estimate, based on deporting 10 million, puts the price as high as $230 billion. How would this expense be met? Does the candidate favor a special, anti-immigrant tax to be paid by law-abiding Americans? (Now that would prompt some intriguing responses.) And what of the estimated 3.1 million children of illegal immigrants who have been born in the United States? They are American citizens, entitled to every protection enjoyed by those whose hot rhetoric so excites the airwaves. The options are for these children to leave and live in a country that is not theirs, or break up families so children may remain here. So much for the family values of the family values crowd. The disaster of immigration policy is federal, but it is no longer enough for Democrats to blame President Bush for failure to achieve a comprehensive solution. The public lashes out with ill-conceived punishments it can mete out at the local or state level—and with astonishing debates about whether drivers who already are on the road should be properly licensed and insured like everyone else. Democrats must rebut these fantasies with facts. Otherwise they will spend the coming year living uncomfortably with an updated Willie Horton. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Cashing In on Terror Next item: Giuliani's Secret 9/11 Testimony Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Conservative Yankee, November 9, 2007 at 5:59 am # 112337 by cyrena on 11/08 at 7:41 am “I’ll correct you if you’re wrong about facts.” Your errors are far too glaring for me to take ANYTHING you say seriously. The “English” may have settled these United States, but there were non-english folks here settled first. The Dutch, the French, and in the oldest city, (St. Augustine, Florida) in the United states, the Spanish.
By Conservative Yankee, November 7, 2007 at 5:17 am # 112027 by cyrena on 11/06 at 8:53 pm If you don’t care for the way I write. Please do us a favor and don’t read my posts. I’m not doing a documentary or a thesis here, and I’m surely not attempting to please historians (who gave us Custer as hero, Lincoln as second coming, and the stupid idea that the first English settlers came here for “religious freedom.") I’m not defending the Dutch, and I surely do not know where you obtained the information that most slaves were not imported directly from Africa. You might want to write a book if you can prove that point. Of course we don’t “Know” anything about how “Mongolian” (your designation) folks arrived here, and the “theory” I mentioned is just one of literally scores. So dismount that high horse, and do a re read. You bemoan the “ignorance” in others, but seem blind to some of your own. Accept the fact we know very little when speaking of “wider knowledge” Your habit of attempting to make other posts look dis jointed as in “What are you talking about here? Are you talking about St. Croix, in the Virgin Islands?” I clearly stated the French settled St. Croix Island in New England. I also said that was 16 years before the Pilgrims. That point was to refute your claim “The English settled New England.” That statement is demonstratively false.
By Conservative Yankee, November 6, 2007 at 5:55 am # “I frequently marvel at all of the indignation and hate directed at Clinton for his part in NAFTA and the WTO, without ever acknowledging that this assault against the American worker began way back at the beginning of RR’s years, but I certainly remember it.” Actually the “assault on the American worker” is an ongoing assault that predates Reagan by at least 100 years. The railroads assaulted the farmers, the urban areas stole workers from the rural areas, the south employed a system of slavery which they sold to the poor whites in spite of the fact that slavery was contradictory to their interest. Truman railed against Taft Hartley, but signed it and used it 19 times. By the early 80’s (when Reagan capped PATCO) The Unions (I support unionization and come from a union family) had been taken over by a selfish (organized crime in some instances) influence which got fat and lazy on the backs of union workers. The union leadership needed a lesson, and PATCO was it. Unfortunately instead of fighting back, the fat lazy Jabba-the-hut union leaders took their ill-gotton gains and folded. It was not until the successful UPS strike of the late nineties that I saw there was still life in the Union movement. It is time for workers to move in and take it back wholesale. Clinton and Reagan are not to blame for the demise of unionism, but like Truman and Nixon before them, their policies did nothing to help the US workers. “So, everybody needs some history lessons here. I’m not averse to having ALL ya’ll go back to your ‘country of origin’,” Columbus was Italian. He sailed for Spain, as Henry Hudson was English, and he sailed for the Dutch. Columbus never reached the mainland of the North American Continent. Recent historians now believe the Chinese sailed to what is now the western United States long before the Spanish. The oriental look of several South Western tribes might be explained by this theory. New England was not first settled by the English, but by the French who arrived in 1604 (On St Croix Island)16 years before the Pilgrims. The Scandinavians (Vikings)hunted this land for generations before the French arrived. The Dutch settled New York before the British. one of my ancestors (Abraham Teller) was tossed off the Half Moon for being Obstreperous (a family trait to this day) in 1608. he settled where Spuyten Duyvil Creek is today, took a native for his wife, and the rest is history. My question for all you open borders advocates is this: Exactly how many folks should we allow into this country? What is our “quality of life” based on? Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to have no where to roam free? must we tar, pave and develop every inch of these united states? and finally what space in line should these “illegals” take with respect to the 2 million folks who legally immigrate here annually?
By Nancy, November 5, 2007 at 4:46 pm # I was a democrat until I found out so many of their leaders is attempting to advance their new world order by supporting open borders among other things; which is nothing but a war on the American worker. If you think you can convert all the American people to attacking itself and it’s people while selling your souls and our country to foreign interests, I think you might end up falling into the pit you have digged for us. Clinton as well as Obama voted against ‘English’ only and they want to LEAD this county???? Don’t make me laugh. Nothing funny about it...u call me a radical, and you speak truly. I have the blood of my forefathers running thru my veins and u don’t have a clue how ‘RADICAL’ I and others like me can get. Those of us who are true-blue Americans. I have a feeling you crooked corporate punks will be finding out. You don’t have an ounce of loyalty to this country. Crooks never stop screaming their innocence; never stop telling their lies...when u argue with fools u become like them. I’m thru with you and ur propaganda conversation. Let the Karma begin.
By Conservative Yankee, November 5, 2007 at 10:36 am # 111753 by Dominick J. on 11/05 at 7:39 am “We need to get out of the stanglehold the GOP has gotten us into and Hillary is the person to do just that.” Can you explain to me how voting for a woman who has said publically that she can’t promise we’ll be out of Iraq by 2013, who has no faith in US workers, who has done next to nothing for real folks while a member of the US Senate, who continually resists the need to Impeach Bush, who has backtracked on health care, and the environment and who has advocated for the release of real terrorists. please tell me how this queen-of-status quo is going to get us out of anything? I’ll listen. and with all due respect, you know NOTHING more about me than what I KNOW about you....which is nothing!
By Conservative Yankee, November 5, 2007 at 5:50 am # 111691 by Dominick J. on 11/04 at 9:25 pm “SHE (without him) is a co-chair of the India Caucus.” NOT this: “I said Hill-the-business-shill was co-chair of the India Caucus” You see a difference between these two statements? I remember what I wrote, and I stand behind both (which I see as a single) statement. To clarify Hill-the-business-shill is a cochair of the India Caucus without bill. No sense talking with you, you can’t even remember what you wrote. Good, I don’t need to speak to you… Pretty thin gruel if you ask me. BUT what you may want to flesh out is differences between The ex-mayor, and the ex-Walmart board member) And you are correct about one thing, I will vote for Guiliani, Huckabee, Paul, or anyone who runs against the annointed queen of slime.
By Conservative Yankee, November 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm # 111648 by Dominick J. on 11/04 at 4:13 pm Typical troll thinks there are only Republicans and Democrats. I never said I was voting Republican, only that I would rather vote for hummm well anyone other than another scum-sucking Clinton. Actually I may support Kucinich. AND My facts are 100% CORRECT I said Hill-the-business-shill was co-chair of the India Caucus… Where she works to get H-1b visas for Indian Nationals .... What’s she the Democratic Senator from Punjab???
By Conservative Yankee, November 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm # 111586 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/04 at 8:50 am “Most of the “baggage” that people usually complain about is actually his.” SHE (without him) is a co-chair of the India Caucus. SHE (without him) was the Walmart board member who said nothing about that company’s treatment of its workers Oh and BTW you Hill-the-business-shill trolls are not fooling anyone. Better put some sand on the floor so the Business shill can re-gain her footing. This immigration thing is going to sink her.... and I for one will be happy about that. Spell C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E- T-O-O-L sort-of-like what we have now!
By Nancy, November 4, 2007 at 9:29 am # Just curious Inherit the wind; who do YOU work for? Are you an economic hit-man for a corporation, or do you work for our CIA to create such propaganda? Or are you an illegal alien of whatever country? Or sleeping with one? Or maybe you’re just a troll...passing wind. Ok, so your kind of people couldn’t get by calling me and other loyal citizens ‘rascist’ so now you’re using bigot. You make me laugh. How many people of color have you tried to help or taken under your wing in the past year, wind? I’m sure you must have many fine examples of how you have worked for the cause of POOR AMERICAN CITIZEN MINORITY GROUPS. I’m holding my breath in anticipation. And BTW; would you be willing to take a cut in pay to help them?
By Conservative Yankee, November 4, 2007 at 5:11 am # 111463 by Inherit The Wind on 11/03 at 4:48 pm “I would just say that someone (and there are many cases in New York) who was brought here as a small child or an infant, and raised here as an American, gotten an education, even a college education, MAYBE… BUT the dream act goes further and allowes these “Anchor babies” (Their term not mine) to import their entire families after attaining legal citizenship. So what do we really achieve? People must stop viewing this situation as a “warm fuzzy thing to do” and begin to view it as a business transaction, BECAUSE no matter how people feel, it IS a business deal, and natural born citizens, and legal immigrant workers are getting the shitty end of the stick. Actually ITW I would have guessed you would have looked at this “deal” closer… Are you not the person (maybe I have someone else in mind) who said “I would like to keep some of my own money.”? |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article