Hillary Clinton Doesn't Care About Mexican People!

Terry McAuliffe - who parlayed his alliance with the Clintons into a Fellini-esque reign as DNC chairman - is currently a chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Liberal author/blogger David Neiwert thinks that's a problem, after hearing McAuliffe answer a question on immigration like this:

We've got to shut these borders down. These people shouldn't be coming in this country. We need to enforce our border protections. We have to do something for the people who have been here for years and have paid taxes -- you know, we're for the people who have been in this country and paying taxes and raising their family. But for the people who have not been here, who have been here illegally and have taken advantage of the situation, we need to have a plan to get them back to the countries they came from, and more important, which is the first thing John talks about, we have gotta shut these borders down. I couldn't agree more.

Hillary's PR shop quickly distanced the candidate from her strategist. Sure enough, she's a little left of McAuliffe on the issue, echoing his fears of Mexicans pouring through the black gates Arizona desert while supporting health care and services for illegal immigrants in the U.S. It's tempting to whack at McAuliffe, who's absolutely one of the slitheriest Democratic consultants to ever tie a Windsor knot. But he's a creature of polling, so expect more Democrats talking like this as they campaign in lily-white primary states.

Comments

[bartman]

"...Hillary Clinton's presidential bad."

Freudian slip, Dave?

[Pat]

I am not at all surprised. Neither am I surprised that Hillary will now do that great D.C. dance of the disingenuous by denying it without really denying it.

Having it both ways.

"Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports."

Here is a story about one of 'liberal' Hillary's financial supporters.Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch...Ugh! 5/09/2006

Her husband was a con man who butt humped the Democratic Party into a right-wing turn with his affable duplicity. And Hillary is definitely the woman running the show behind that man.

[wayne]

Bill was right wing?

[Herb Schaffler]

I think that Pat is talking about welfare reform.

[Old Hand]

I guess everybody not to the left of Noam Chomsky is right wing for Pat. Pretty mainstream opinion for American academia today, by the way -- at least in the humanities.

[Pat]

I am talking about the Jim Crow drug war that Bill Clinton built his career on. First as a prosecutor then as a right-wing pandering 'law-and-order' politican. John Kerry too. and now Hillary.

I am talking about that world record prison population of mostly urban poor and minorities. A prison population that cost Al Gore enough votes to lose in Florida. Enough votes to cost Kerry the national election in 2004.

Drug Busts=Jim Crow by Ira Glasser

I believe that the drug war was created by Richard Nixon, in collusion with the right-wing Dixie-crats, to neutralize and subvert the democratic empowerment of the Voting Rights Act, that was supposed to end Jim Crow, and the 26st Amendment. Laws that gave franchise to people who were in the in the streets opposing Nixon at the time.

Any American politician who supports the drug war is supporting the right-wing Jim Crow subversion of American democracy. This, specifically, is why I stopped being a Democrat in 1995 and have not voted for any drug war supporting politician since.

[Pat]

Don't believe all of the right-wing demagoguery about the Democrats being liberal.

The Democrats are not liberal they are just mischaracterized that way.

[joe]

I doubt any Democratic candidates are going to say things like "these people shouldn't be coming here" and "we've got to find a way to" deport all the illegal immigrants.

[Pat]

If you support the drug war you support Jim Crow. If you support Jim Crow then you are a right-wing racist.

Support for the drug war is support for right-wing racism in America.

[Pat]

joe | February 7, 2007, 9:07am

Of course not.

That is why Hillary has her trusted advisor say it then she keeps him around to show that while she is denouncing it she is still associating herself with the perspective.

Its a manipulative dishonest effort to have it both ways. Typical Hillary. Or typical Clinton.

[Dee]

"But he's a creature of polling, so expect more Democrats talking like this as they campaign in lily-white primary states."

To funny!!

[joe]

BTW, Pat, John Kerry didn't build his career on the drug war. He had a reputation as a DA for being judicious in his indictments, and endangered his career in a debate with libertarian hero Bill Weld by denouncing mandatory minimums for failing to distinguish degress of culpability.

[Dan T.]

Illegal immigration is a tough issue for Presidential candidates. How can you sound like a heartless bastard without sounding too much like a heartless bastard?

[Pine_Tree]

Pat,

Is there no such thing as a left-wing racist? Or does your definition of racist knee-jerkedly default to "right-wing"?

Maybe put another way, what about racism is inherently right-wing?

[Pine_Tree]

...and I'm not right- or left-wing myself.

I'm one of those nutcase anarcho-capitalists.

[ed]

McAuliffe, who's absolutely one of the slitheriest Democratic consultants

Nicely put. "Slitheriest." I believe that's on his resume as well.

[Xanthippas]

People like him are the reason it takes a failing war, corruption and a drowned city for the Democrats to win anything.

[Some James]

"But for the people who have not been here, who have been here illegally and have taken advantage of the situation, we need to have a plan to get them back to the countries they came from..."

Is McAuliffe saying that he wants to deport people who AREN'T in the US? And/or those who don't pay taxes? Somehow I think that's a remarkably low number of illegal immigrants...

[Rhywun]

Maybe he meant to say "But for the people who have not been here legally" but changed his wording in mid-sentence as poor public speakers are apt to do.

[ChrisO]

This is one reason why Hillary didn't want to announce her candidacy so early. Almost two years before the election and she's having to do damage control. One or two incidents like this don't mean much, but that shit adds up over time.

I can't wait to see where Rudy's random mouth attacks lead him.

[Pat]

TO: joe | February 7, 2007, 9:15am

Kerry didn't denounce mandatory minimums he denounced their lack of degrees of nuance.

Nuance. Kerry also pushed for shooting down American civilian aircraft on the border, in the 1980's, for the drug war. A policy that later evolved into the shoot-down over Peru of the American Christian missionary family.

He bragged, during the 04 election, of being one of the first drug specific prosecutors in the country.

He also originated the ill-fated idea of turning decommissioned military bases into concentration camps for pot smokers.

When Kerry was confronted by more radical VVAW members, who both used drugs and supported the idea of VVAW adopting a civil rights focus, Kerry left the group, returned to law school and became a prosecutor. A drug war prosecutor. Instead of joining the civil rights fight he joined the Jim Crow drug war.

Kerry put out the propaganda that the group was talking violence against politicians, hyping a silly hit list that had no support. The real issue of the meetings, when Kerry left the group, was joining up with the Civil Rights folks in the suburbs of Chicago. Kerry would not do that. Kerry just said no to VVAW taking up MLK's argument that civil wights and the war had a lot in common.

I can give you a dozen examples of Kerry's drug war career.

In Kerry's 2004 campaign he had Rand Beers come in from the Bush White House to advise him on drug policy and terrorism. Rand Beers is one of the worst right wing drug war demagogues in the nation.

[Pat]

TO: Pine_Tree | February 7, 2007, 9:56am

Silly. Off topic. Argumentative. And illogical.

The left fights for inclusion and respect for all people. The right fights for exclusion and contempt for some people based on arbitrary hate and intolerance.

[TLB]

Neiwert isn't "liberal", he's something else. I've also corrected his misinformation the few times I've paid any attention to his blather.

Question for Weigel: what's the opposite of a "lily-white primary state", and what similar term would you use to describe such states? Are you a Gramscian, Dave?

To keep this edition of the GreatImmigrationDebate simple, let me ask one question:

"Two Georgia marches for IllegalImmigration were organized with the assistance of a former MexicanConsulGeneral. One of those marches was led by two Georgia ElectedOfficials. Another march had an AccompanyingBoycott. In other words, a former MexicanConsulGeneral wanted his fellow citizens who are here illegally to take economic action against their local businesses.

Does Reason support these actions by this former MexicanConsulGeneral? Would Reason go as far as saying that U.S. citizens collaborating with him would be acceptable? If not, what does Reason suggest doing about this?"

[ChrisO]

The left fights for inclusion and respect for all people. The right fights for exclusion and contempt for some people based on arbitrary hate and intolerance.

You're smokin' some good shit there, my friend.

[joe]

The Mexicans are screwing with Lonewacko's space bar!

[tros]

Obligatory moonbat post:

Everyone that thinks undocumented Mexicans should be deported is a nazi. Human beings are still human beings with basic rights even though they don't pay taxes. I'm looking forward to the time when all of you bigotted motherfuckers (you know who you are) have to act unsincerely apologetic to keep your jobs.

[ChrisO]

Nations have the sovereign right to defend their borders, which includes deportation. Now as to whether deportation of 12 million Mexican laborers constitutes good policy, that's another issue...

Non-taxpayers have natural rights, but it's certainly a good question as to whether they deserve a say in the government, since they have no 'skin in the game', so to speak.

[Background info]

Let me try and clean up the earlier comment. Information on the MexicanConsul refered to above is available at the link. See item #1.

What's the libertarian position on this matter?

1. Collaborating with him would be fine.
2. Allowing him to do what he does would be fine.
3. Opposing what he does.

[ChrisO]

lonewacko, as long as consular officials were not directly attempting to manipulate the U.S. political process, then I see no recourse. In fact, it might be helpful because it shows where the Mexican govt. really stands on the issue of immigration--not that there's much doubt about that.

This is sort of "indirect" influence on our political process, which I'd characterize as a gray area. I would probably ask the Mexican govt as a favor to keep the guy on a tighter leash, but I don't think removing him from the country is appropriate for this.

I personally don't think that being libertarian requires espousing a pure "open borders" theory, though restrictive border controls hurt the cause of free markets and should be avoided.

[Godwin Alert!]

Everyone that thinks undocumented Mexicans should be deported is a nazi.