See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 9:32 am, Ken said:

   This is big for Mr Waffles. Lots of Conservatives and moderates are having a real problem with Dubya’s fiscal and social leftishness. Those on the fence could lean Kerry, and fall off the fence if they were convinced Kerry would repeal prescription give-aways and leave the tax cut alone (not bloody likely). He did finally say something right, though.

   I myself will hold my nose as I vote Bush. As Dennis Miller pointed out, I’d rather have a strong defense than have my stump bandaged by government health care.

2. #2
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 10:12 am, Marshall said:

   Michelle - the number I come up with is 2.8%. As in the percentage of Hispanic votes in the 2000 election, not counting Texas, California and Florida.

   According to the Federal Election Commission, there were 105,405,100 votes cast in the 2000 Presidential election, which would mean that approx. 5,586,470 votes were Hispanic (5.3%). But the total number of votes from Texas, California, and Florida makes up over 50% of this number at 3,214,087. So by taking the remainder of Hispanic votes (2,350,913) and comparing to the rest of the votes cast (82,068,497), you can easily see that the non-Texas, California, Florida Hispanic vote is about 2.8%.

   Sources:
   http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
   http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2000/cb00-125.html

   Do I get the prize?!

3. #3
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 10:21 am, Marshall said:

   I would also say, and I hate to admit it, but this is the first thing that John Kerry has done right. Bush has left his right flank exposed with his pandering to the Hispanic community and business owners who exploit illegals.
   Didn’t the California recall election teach you anything Karl Rove?!! Schwarzenegger ran against a Hispanic and trounced him! Stop trying to think Bush can carry California. He lost to Gore by over a million votes there. Texas is a lock for the President, but Florida is where it’s at (again) this year.

4. #4
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 10:22 am, King of Fools said:

   The most troubling thing about immigration policy is that doing what has to be done is political suicide. The issue is only heightened by the fact that the critical mass of illegals (and those sympathizing with them) increases as action continues to be delayed.

   Are we past the point of no return yet? How long until we get there? And finally, is there any hope of a white knight to show up and do what needs to be done, regardless of the consequences to his own political career?

5. #5
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 10:53 am, Marshall said:

   Michelle - I screwed up. For some reason I used Florida instead of New York. Probably some kind of Freudian-slip.

   Anyway, here are the revised numbers using California, Texas, and New York:

   Texas, New York, and California Hispanic votes total an esimated 3,513,224. Taken from the total Hispanic votes of 5,691,875, that would equal 2,178,651. Compared to the remainder of the electorate (81,209,608), you are now looking at non-Texas, Califonia, New York Hispanic voting percentage of 2.7%.

   Sorry for the brain fart.

6. #6
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 11:02 am, Chrees said:

   The Sister Souljah moment I want to see is a candidate giving the same speech as Bill Cosby’s.

7. #7
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 11:06 am, La Shawn Barber said:

   And don’t forget Jeb Bush’s disguised race pandering plan of guaranteeing college admissions to the “top 20 percent” of every Florida high school graduating class. That’s as unfair as preferences because it still discriminates on the basis of race. A subpar high school produces subpar seniors, who are in the top 20 percent of their subpar class. Colleges will have to reject some students to accomodate the lesser qualified.

8. #8
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 11:40 am, Michelle Malkin said:

   Marshall’s logic and numbers look right. Unless someone else proves him wrong, he wins the prize.

9. #9
   On July 2nd, 2004 at 11:44 am, Ith said:

   I told my Dem friends last night that I’d finally found one thing I could give Kerry points for. Though I know he’ll flip flop on the issue if he’s elected.

   The Hispanics I know here in CA who came here legally are as much opposed to illegals as I am, but all the attention is paid to the La Raza types. I wonder if it really would hurt getting the Hispanic vote if a candidate took a firm stand against illegal immigration?

10. #10
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 1:18 pm, Marshall said:

    As a matter of fact Ith, I think a strong immigration stand would help Bush. Conservatives who cringe at his immigration policy (like me) would have nothing to complain about, and as you’ve said, legal immigrants would sway his way as well.

    But even more important than the politics of it, is the fact that a strong immigration policy is the right thing to do, especially in a post 9/11 world. Political influence be damned.

11. #11
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 1:55 pm, Carolus said:

    Can anyone here imagine what would happen if a major candidate went to an all white organization called “The Race” - one which essentially advocates the ethnic cleansing of an entire region and whose primary loyalty is to another country?

    This really is Kerry’s “Sister Souljah” moment.

12. #12
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 2:14 pm, rightwingduck said:

    I’m sorry. I refuse to tip my hat to Kerry. How can I respect any position that will change 10 times in the next 5 days?
    If he want’s to court the Hispanic vote he should have at least one dark skinned butler.

13. #13
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 2:20 pm, Marshall said:

    RightWingDuck - right you are to be suspicious of Kerry. But maybe this will get Bush to move towards a stronger immigration policy. Although he shouldn’t need this kind of motivation.

14. #14
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 3:37 pm, Brainster said:

    Robert Robb has a column in the AZ Republic today saying that Kerry proposing a bill that would give legal residency and a pathway to citizenship for illegals (which Bush’s proposal does not). And qualification for drivers’ licenses has always been a state matter, so in a sense this is an expansion of the federal government’s role, not exactly something that surprises me from Kerry.

15. #15
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 3:41 pm, Brian said:

    Mrs. Malkin,

    Your son is beautiful. Thanks for sharing the picture.

    In this post, you give Kerry way too much credit. Perhaps you should have placed an emphasis on Kerry’s sneaky position on this. It is very easy for him to take a stance against driver’s licenses for illegals, because he has ZERO power on the issue. Licenses are a strict state issue.

    Kerry has total deniability on the whole issue. If elected, he can just say later, in true Kerry-esque fashion, “I am against them but it is up to each state to decide and I am powerless to stop it,” similar to how liberals have all of a sudden discovered “state’s rights” when it comes to gay marriage.

    You give him credit for pulling a typical Kerry. This was no Sister Souljah moment. It was business as usual.

16. #16
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 3:42 pm, Jack Kendrick said:

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0702robb02.html

    Michelle,

    Did you miss John Kerry’s speech to La Raza where he promised in the first 100 days of his Administration to push through legislation granting a mass amnesty to all illegals who had been in the country for 5 years?

    John Kerry is against drivers licenses for illegals because they are unnecessary. He plans to make all the illegals into citizens and then they can get a license and register Democrat.

17. #17
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 6:27 pm, Andrew S. said:

    FWIW–I think when Scott McConnell refers to Tennessee as a “border state”, he means “border between north and south, and thus, potentially winnable by the Democrats”. At least, that’s what I hope he means, because Tennessee sure ain’t anywhere near Mexico or Canada.

18. #18
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 6:35 pm, Thom said:

    Your slip is showing. Tennessee is a border state because it is on the border between North and South, and therefore on the key political fault line in America. Keep your [sic] to yourself. The author is right.

19. #19
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 6:45 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

    Thom, I stand corrected. Thank you!

20. #20
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 7:13 pm, kitchen cabinet said:

    Reagan won California in 1980 and 1984.

21. #21
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 9:01 pm, Museum Curator said:

    No shock here. Is there any side of an issue left that John Flippin Kerry hasn’t taken yet?? I try to get this point across to people with the Museum of Left Wing Lunacy that he’ll say and do anyhing to get elected. It’s all about the power…

22. #22
    On July 2nd, 2004 at 9:20 pm, Sanja Ivanchukov said:

    Michelle,

    I may well have my wires crossed here, but I recall reading elsewhere, perhaps yesterday, that Kerry has already said much the opposite in yet another speech to yet another audience. Even if not, I very much doubt that this little hat-trick is going to convince anyone who has been watching that John Forbes Kerry is anything other than exactly what he looks, sounds and smells to be.

    When W does something boneheaded we all blame Karl Rove anyway, when will Bush get it through his head that piecemeal pandering does NOT work for Republicans. He would do so much better with hispanics (who are as diverse a group as it gets) by bypassing the usual suspects and appealing to the same values and aspirations as most americans. Everything I have read that deals with the subject in detail states that hispanics (for the most part) are social conservatives and believers in free market capitalism. Unlike our african-american brothers and sisters they tend not to be the beneficiaries of decades of pavlovian mental conditioning pull the “D” lever for massa’ no matter what.

    Those groups that loudly claim to speak for them do not share their values. For instance, I have it on good authority that both La Raza and MALDEF were conjured into existence in 1969 with Ford Foundation money and have been sustained with it ever since. Like so many other lefty minority organs; they may have the Main Stream Media at their beck-and-call but when it comes time to put warm bodies in the street they turn out to be paper tigers. Does anyone remember Martha Burk and the Battle of Augusta? With the entire old-line feminist establishment behind her and the NYT in her hip pocket she could barely gather a handful of demonstrators (not counting the “Iron My Shirt” guy). I as well recall Ward Connerly’s editorial in The Wall Street Journal last year of attending the annual NAACP gathering and reporting that the attendees were almost exclusively middle-aged government employees.

    Some say that hispanics are knee-jerkedly in favor of unrestricted immigration, but others say hispanic citizens and legal residents know damn well who’s keeping their wages down and why the public health system in the Southwest is collapsing and who is filling up the jails and penitentiaries. I confess I haven’t read “Mexifornia” yet but common sense would tell most people that a two-tier society cannot stand.

    p.s. I keep your immortal saying framed above my desk: “Capitol Hill is where Abercrombie & Fitch meets the hair club for men.” Hee! Hee!

23. #23
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 12:29 am, StinKerr said:

    This LEGAL immigrant and naturalized citizen is strongly against illegal immigration. Whether they are fence climbers or tourist/student visa overstays, I want to see it stopped.

24. #24
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 1:06 am, Stoob said:

    Tennessee is my home state (GO VOLS!) and I am surprised to hear that it is considered a “border state.” What about the states below it? Do they belong to Mexico, now?

25. #25
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 1:37 am, John said:

    Good news on the economy, but did you see MSNBC? This was their headline

    “The disappointing jobs report suggests the economy is cooling, making life easier for the Fed but harder for Bush’s campaign.”

    If you read the article, you’ll see that every economist and analyst quoted said the report was good news. They cited the fact that the numbers represent steady growth, and in fact the Fed may not need to raise rates again in the short term. This is good news for all of us.

    So how does MSNBC manage to take a positive story on the US economy, and state in the headline that this is bad news for Bush? The implication is that Bush’s economy is now faltering, despite the fact that the news is clearly good, if not quite as good as analysts had expected. If the extreme bias of CNN and MSNBC wasn’t evident before, this little example sealed the deal for me. These news outlets are not merely distributors of news, they are passively campaigning for John Kerry. The sad part is that most of the readers of those sites aren’t even aware of the bias.

26. #26
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 7:30 am, James Kotthoff said:

    Illegal immigrants are criminals. Regardless of the reason be it economic, political or any other lame excuse. The only true fact is that by entering this country illegally or overstaying a visa they are violating the law and ANYTIME you reward law breaking you encourage others to break the law. I want to see a simple and moral response…deport all illegals and be done with it. I realize that will be unpopular with left wing liberals and racist organizations ( Yes I said racist) like La Raza and Rainbow/Push but oh well. we are supposed to be a country based on laws well lets start enforcuing them.
    And before anyone freaks out any oragnization that advocates special treatment based on race or any other limited criteria is as bad as any other. I am not a fan of groups like the Arayan Nations but in reality what is the difference between them and La Raza? Only the limited segement of the population they advocate for.

27. #27
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 3:55 pm, Tom Maguire said:

    CNN has the same driver’s license story, but includes the flip-flop:

    Kerry spokesman David Wade said Wednesday that Kerry thinks it is a state responsibility to decide who gets a driver’s license. Wade said Kerry would not support any federal efforts to stop states from giving them to illegal immigrants.

    So Kerry has an opinion, but no intention of turning that opinion into law.

28. #28
    On July 3rd, 2004 at 8:24 pm, Terry said:

    You wrote, “Update II”, to keep it short.
    Well Ms. Malkin, you caved, your wrong.
    Your a fool.
    Nothing good comes from bad(or evil).

    If Kerry were really serious, he is a Senator, he would sponser a bill and announce it on the Senate floor, to build a wall across the 1,930 border.
    Then he would go down to the border and symbolicly shovel the first dirt to start to build the wall.
    You KNOW HE IS LYING. So why do you praise him, give him honor?
    Bush will go to the right and after the election, BREAK HIS PROMISE.
    And you encourge this by praise.
    AND IT IS EXACTLY THIS PROMISES THAT ARE BROKEN IS WHY SO MANY AMERICANS HAVE NO FAITH IN ANY GOVERNMENT AT ALL.

    Anyone who takes any promise, in regards to fiscal discpline or immigration, by Bush or Kerry is a fool.

    In this column Ms. Malkin, you blew out a candle.
    sincerely, former Republican, now half and half Libertarian,(domestic yes, foreign no)
    Terry Josiah

29. #29
    On July 4th, 2004 at 12:48 am, ic said:

    Couple of days ago in another speech Kerry said he would find a way to legalize all the illegal immigrants within 100 days of his presidency. He flipped already.

30. #30
    On July 5th, 2004 at 11:08 am, EddieP said:

    James Kotthoff

    Your deportation scheme has a minor flaw. There are estimates of up to 11 million illegals here now. How do you propose to round them all up, detain them, have INS process them and actually get them back across the border? That’s 220,000 busloads at 50 per bus. Meantime you’re trying to seal the border against new entrants. Regards

31. #31
    On July 5th, 2004 at 12:41 pm, Scaramonga said:

    EddieP:

    It could also be that your analysis is simplistic. If the US suddenly got serious about enforcing its immigration laws and actually started arresting illegal aliens and processing them for deportation, many of the illegals would be given the option to leave on their own. Many would when considering the alternative of forced deportation and long terms of incarceration while awaiting their deportation hearings. Many others would leave because their whole premise of coming and staying was based on the belief that they could get away with breaking the law without being arrested and that would no longer be true.

    But the part of your statement which misses the point you attempted to make was in fact the assumption that we should not enforce our laws because the logistics are daunting. We just sent several hundred thousand US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan along with weapons, supplies, and other systems and equipment with what looks now as relative ease. It does not look undoable to those who provided the logistics on that operation. And we don’t have to open up long supply lines to support the deportees either.

    Bottom line is that we either should enforce the immigration laws or repeal them. I do not support repealing them, so all we have left is to enforce them.

32. #32
    On July 5th, 2004 at 2:23 pm, sinanju said:

    Quite true Scaramonga. It is a now-familiar trope to toss off the comment “How can we possibly round up and throw out 11 million illegals?” It is hardly necessary to send troops with fixed bayonets into the barrios and colonias. All that is necessary is to start enforcing the law on employers to demand proper identification and levy hefty fines when the law is broken, also to place INS agents at the usual chokepoints: Social service agencies, Hospital emergency rooms, schools, etc. as well as checking the immigration status of non-english speakers arrested for anything from murder to moving violations. Over time, the illegals will leave on their own as the benefits to coming here dry up. Actually enforcing the law, of course, requires hefty political cojones on the part of you-know-who (who seems to have sold his soul on this one already). If this happens gradually, I do not believe it will cause economic collapse in agriculture, construction, etc. I have read that prices for produce and certain other services would go up by a certain amount (certain limosine liberals may have to pay more for housekeepers, cooks, nannies and pool cleaners). There are still places in this country where there is no such work that “americans will not do” wages will simply have to rise naturally from an artificially low level. “Cheap labor” may benefit the employer in the short run but the country as a whole has to pay through the nose in everything from higher health insurance premiums (or no hospitals at all in some areas), taxes at all levels and crime, crime, crime. Being against illegal mass immigration does not make one a racist or a John Bircher. It is a matter of national survival.

33. #33
    On July 6th, 2004 at 9:15 pm, Peg Manninng said:

    Vis-a-vis t-shirts, is there any site that sells Anybody but Boxer shirts?

34. #34
    On July 7th, 2004 at 1:37 pm, c fox said:

    I think people are only fooling themselves about this issue. He (Kerry) doesn’t want driver’s licenses because I have heard him say, instead, that he wants to give illegals citizenship(in exchange I’m sure for the vote)…then they can get their own licenses.

35. #35
    On July 15th, 2004 at 4:43 pm, womens health said:

    it’s something to think about. I’m stock research not sure if I will follow through with san francisco my urge or not. If I do, it must of course college and university be done relentlessly. I can relate, as online dating I feel myself distancing myself from master this tedium, far more interested in the breast shifting time signatures in the song webshots I’m listening to (three of three followed florist