Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Mitchell getting praise from the far corners...

of Republican wingnut-land...

I'm pretty sure that's never a good thing.

Nativist Tom Tancredo, in an interview from that voice of civil discourse and enlightened reason (that's sarcasm folks), the Stop The ACLU blog -
Q. Many are of the opinion that the Democrats took over both Houses due to ignoring the important issue of border control. Do you believe this played a major part or is this issue more complicated?

A. In 2006, many Democrats that defeated Republicans had immigration platforms as tough as mine. Consider the many Democrats in 2006 that ran on border enforcement and no amnesty platforms. Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler defeated an incumbent Republican with such positions as: “Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers approximately $70 billion a year in financial assistance for welfare benefits, health care, education and domestic crime-fighting. I do not support granting amnesty to people who have broken the law.” J.D. Hayworth — I know you all remember him — was defeated by Democratic Harry Mitchell, who has this on his website: “Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to secure its border. In Congress, I’ll make it a top priority to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and stop illegal immigration.” The list goes on and can include Montana Senator Jon Tester and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. Democrats won because Republicans ignored the issue for too many years.

Actually, the praise is based on more than a little revisionism mixed with selective memory. Good ol' JD didn't lose because he was too moderate on immigration; while CD5 does have a Republican registration advantage, the Reps in the district tend to be less from the 'cross and book burning' wing of their party, and more from the 'corporate interests before human interests' wing of it. They aren't the types to let a little bigotry interfere with a steady supply of cheap labor.

No comments: