Basically, what some of you seem to be saying is that Chavez must have acted for her own benefit because she is a conservative, and all conservatives are bad people, while liberalism is the one only way of expressing compassion for others. Simply put, this argument is bullshit, and has no place in rational debate.
waterj, that argument is indeed bullshit, but you’re the only one stating it. It’s called a “straw man”.
You’re right that it has no place in rational debate, however.
I’m just glad she’s not going to be the Secretary of Labor. Nominating her to be secretary of labor is like naming Bob Dornan to head up a mental health task force.
Her nomination was a slap in the face to organized labor; I think (but cannot prove) that Bush was trying to punish the labor unions for endorsing Gore. She was a controversial choice, opposed by many prominent Democratic senators, & I think they were ready to pounce on anything that might derail the nomination.
Elvis, that is completely off-base. water2j is right on the money. This whole problem goes right to the heart of partisanship. When I first read of this story, jsut as it was breaking (before anybody had much chance to spin it), my impression was that Chavez had taken a woman into her home who needed a place to live. The lady did jobs around the house (most people who live in a house do that). Chavez gave her money to help her get on her feet.
Now, I agree that that is just as subjective and probably ignorant an observation of the facts as everybody else’s. There is no way we can get the picture behind what we see on tv and read in the papers.
But, and this is a huge but (no Lopez jokes, please) there is a lot more justification for me keeping my original interpretation than for changing it to “Chavez [is] a hypocrite for hiring Guatamalan slave labor”, or that this was obviously “an exploitative relationship, with substandard wages being paid by Chavez”.
Why are viewpoints swayed all the way out to that extreme? Partisanship. I am not saying the republicans aren’t hypocrites (haw haw!). What I’m saying is that I am disgusted by the level of two-facedness on the part of the politicians (but who isn’t) and the willfull forgetfullness and dupability of the populace( note- I am not in any way separating myself from these faults).
What else could explain wildly divirging explanations of remarkably similar cases? “Immigrant women face enough hurdles in a society which is hostile to their ethnicities, to their language barriers, and to their very presence in the United States. They face enough barriers trying to become U.S. citizens, enduring severe discrimination every step of the way. Now they are confronted with yet another roadblock in their path towards survival.”
That was a democratic defense written of Zoe Baird in 1993, explaining away any ideas of exploitation. I remember many others like it, and if people are that obstinate, I will rot around for more. Now, given the same set of conditions today, why don’t we see democratic partisans ascribing similar circumstances to Ms. Chavez? that’s right, because she’s republican.
Think I;m talking out of my ass? What about
or how about
Mandelstam-
1993 Jan 16, Attorney General-designate Zoe Baird and her husband paid a $2,900 fine for employing illegal aliens in their home .
Intelligible enough for you to read it and completely misunderstand it. I am saying that I have heard no Democratic senators, representatives, think tanks, columnists, governers, pundits, talking heads, etc bring up the fact that the democrats are undertaking the same exact actions they decried as hateful, hypocritical, and disingenuous 8 years ago. Many of these people were in the same positions of authority now as they were then, and were among those doing the decrying.
Can can I say “the media” didn’t “complain”? Yes, because, as I said above, no one has brought up the inherent hypocracy of Ms. chavez in relation to the Zoe Baird case. Yes, I heard about the Linda Chavez case through the media. Yes I heard about the Zoe Baird case through the media. I also heard about these qi gong praticioners who pulled a bus with their yangs. So what? The fact of the matter is that Duck Duck Goose is the only other person I’ve heard who even connected the two events.
jb
p.s.- and the bus dick stunt is not one of them
FTR, I, for one, did not say that. I said that I had no problem with Zoe Baird having been held to that standard. I pointed out (as did The New York Times and various news services) that Chavez was caught in the hypocrtical position of having criticized Baird for something that she appears to have done herself. I agreed with Aunt Pam that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of not acknowledging the extent to which all sorts of middle and upper class Americans rely on cheap and often illegal immigrant labor.
Finally, if you are convinced that Chavez acted from purely disinterested motives (implausible as that is given that she didn’t even bother to help the woman to get a green card) why don’t you take that up with the Republicans since they were the ones who dropped her like a hot potato. I will add that it is not only “bullshit” but also moronic to accuse others of irrational debate without doing them the justice of representing their views fairly and clearly.
Aunt Pam, if Chavez had wanted to sponsor a Guatemalan for humanitarian and labor-related reasons, the INS would not have prevented her from doing so. Someone with Chavez’s profile could have easily hired an immigration attorney, and while the woman’s case was pending she would have been able to work for Chavez legally.
According to this Ms. Chavez housed said illegal immigrant in 1992 - she was aware of the woman’s status, certainly gave money, provided room and board for a period of two years. The immigrant provided help with household chores. While you may not consider this an employer/employee relationship, it certainly can be construed as one. But, whatever. what I find exceptionally interesting is Ms. Chavez’s public opinion in 1993 of Zoe Baird, quoted above and again in the link “I think most of the American people were upset during the Zoe Baird nomination that she had hired an illegal alien,” she said appearing on PBS’s McNeil/Lehrer News Hour. “That was what upset them more than the fact that she did not pay Social Security taxes.”
Let’s see, Ms. Chavez had an illegal immigrant staying in her home, doing chores, receiving room/board and cash (at times as much as a couple hundred dollars at a time), and Ms. Baird had an illegal immigrant in her home, doing chores, (IIRC) receiving room/board (and definately cash, but the gripe was no SS taxes were paid). Hm. Both women were in the wrong. One chose to publically chastize the other for it.
Then, you add to it, (again from the link) that while the FBI was investigating the relationship between Ms. Chavez and the immigrant, that “in December, Chavez called a former neighbor who knew Mercado to discuss the neighbor’s recollection of Chavez’s arrangement with the immigrant.”
Both of these pieces of information (without the time line, which I think adds an interesting dimension), were posted to this thread almost immediately. And yet, you’re still seeing it as ‘partisan’ stuff. Yea, fine.
**jb_farley **
"<snip>Chavez gave her money to help her get on her feet."
<snip including links>
That was a democratic defense written of Zoe Baird in 1993, explaining away any ideas of exploitation."
Well, jb glad you finally did your homework. Maybe you should do it next time before your OP ;).
Yes, I came across the same link when I had the time to do some checking, and Zoe Baird had in fact hired
–ooops–helped a Peruvian couple to get back on their feet.
For the record, the link you posted was a feminist response to the Baird situation. It argued that women are held accountable for queries into domestic labor whereas men are not. It argued that such investigations need to take into account how difficult it is to get good childcare. In spite of all that, it chastized Baird and her husband for hiring illegal immigrants rather than going through the long but legal process of sponsoring them. I agree with that argument and I say, if Ashcroft or Powell hired illegal domestic labor, they should explain themselves too. That said, I think most people with political ambitions were on notice since the Baird and Kimba Wood scenarios. So let’s add “not too bright” to Chavez’s many distinctions.
To be clear, then, nowhere did this quasi-defense of Baird make the pathetic case, now being made by some Republicans on Chavez’s behalf, that what was going on was compassionate charity rather than illegal employment.
I rest my case.
So, jb, the same for you as for waterj2: if I were you I’d not accuse anyone of making unsubstantiated attacks on partisan grounds, until I were prepared to make appropriate distinctions myself. And your OP was unintelligible. But thanks for clarifying.
As for not having heard the events connected in the media, try reading The New York Times. They are far from perfect, but they don’t reduce issues to the level of punditry.
okay, Mandelstam, you now appear to be digging yourself deeper into this hole of your own making. No, I’m not talking about any kind of logical trap or rhetorical jersy traffic circle. you used a smily, and the goddamn winky one at that.
look, I see a big problem here. I haven’t represented myself clearly. I am NOT saying “that bitch Baird hired em immigents, all Saint Chavez did was present a helpless soul with water and sweet breadfruits.” I am not trying to defend chavez’ appointment. I am not saying she didn’t break the law. I am not saying she didn’t hire the lady.
I am a longtime democrat who is pissed beyond belief by the betrayals of my party. It’s shifting to the right faster than the parts of bob hope’s brain which controlled logic. I am especially madened by this latest incident because it exposes just how deep rank hypocracy has reached with its slimy tentacles, and because my old party has gone from appropriating the ideas of the right to behaving almost like them.
What I am in fact saying is that many of the people who were in power (see list in above post) then are still in power now, and have sunk deep into the muck. Is Linda Chavez unfit for the job? I thought so before I had heard of this immigrant nonsense.
So why did the people who were publicly outraged and disgusted in 1993 turn right around and do the same outrageous and disgusting behavior? Couldn’t they have challenged her appointment on other grounds? Did they have to bring this into the fray? In short, did they have to engage in the same despicable behavior they apparently loathed?
You can talk all you want about how the republicans are hypocritical and skanky, and all I’ll say is “No duh” and “I don’t give a shit”. In regards to this issue, I give exactly half a rat’s ass, because it’s my own party I care about.
jb
oh, and does anyone else wanna chime in on the whole “Unintelligible” thing?
jb
jb I don’t quite see how I’ve dug myself into a hole as my points about your last post, so far as I am concerned, stand: 1) water2j’s view of the matter, with which you concurred, still doesn’t, um, hold water for me and 2) the feminist response that you found to the Baird/Wood situation wasn’t equivalent to the Republican justifications of Chavez’s acts.
That said, you have explained your underlying views very well. Thanks very much. After reading your last I re-read your OP and it’s now clear in a way that it wasn’t before. I understand that you wrote it as a disgruntled Democratic disappointed to see your party resort to unprincipled arguments. As to the Democrats’ drift to the right, you won’t catch me disagreeing with you on that point (and to show my sincerity I will second that with a big old unwinking smiley :)).
There are still some things about your feelings that I don’t understand, however. Why not be pleased to find the principled feminist response to the Baird situation? Why reduce it to the fake compassion thing (well, perhaps the answer is that you bought it, as you said above).
And why ally yourself with water2j’s implication that any criticism of Chavez is just unthinking partisanship of the worst kind? Your analysis is much more complicated than that as you’ve just shown.
Let me make a giant leap now–and no insult is intended at all. Why watch TV for the news at all? Feeling as you do, I wouldn’t bother for a second with the TV news. You won’t really find any principled positions there either: at best it’s just entertaining “spin.” I say this seriously: no condescension at all intended. Almost all of my friends feel as you do about the Democratic Party and almost none of them depends on the mainstream media for an account of anything. The Times and a sprinkling of PBS or CNN is just about the only mainstream media I bother with anymore. (Of course, I’m just guessing that you’ve assessed the situation through TV coverage. Maybe I’m wrong.)
Sorry for misunderstanding you.
Um, that should have read waterj2. Apologies
I didn’t really think you had dug yourself into a hole. I just hate smilies. wink.
I actually think the feminist response to the Baird response was a good thing. It was a well-reasoned article, which is why I used the cite from it. I think Baird was purposely skirting tax laws and immigration laws by hiring, for a long period of time, a nanny who was not a legal immigrant. This allowed Ms. Baird to save lots of money by taking advantage of another’s situation to fill a need.
Linda Chavez, on the other hand, could have done the same. But it’s just as likely that she didn’t. I have no trouble believing anyone, Democrat or Republican, could feel empathy for someone who is helpless and homeless, and in a generally shitty situation. I also believe that anyone, Decocrat or Republican, could do was Zoe did.
The difference between Baird and Chavez is that the former had a clear-cut case of exploitation against her, and the latter does not. Now, here this please- this is what gets me pissed off.
While admitting to Zoe Baird’s behavior, rank and file democrats railed against that being a deciding factor. They railed against the fact that political appointment was now nothing but a havan for rumormongering. In essence, they excused her behavior, even after she withdrew her nomination.
Now we are given the csae of Linda Chavez. Less clear-cut. More leeway to give her the room for the doubt. What do some democrats do? Exactly what they said they hated. And no other of the loyal say anything.
Worse than that, in my eyes, is the staunch refusal by many (especially those in this thread) to admit they are not thinking fairly. There is a lot of room for doubt. But lo and behold, it’s democrats who mainly have a problem with Chavez and her illegal friends. Coincidence? I hardly think so.
There’s a reason why some people say thing slike “I just don’t think Chavez has a humanitarian bone in her body”, or even “Humanitarian my ass!” There’s a reason why many of those who chimed into this thread immediately ascribed this onus of evil and blame upon Chavez. Why? Because she’s from the other party. And if she were your aprty’s candidate, you would be painting her in bitchy broad brush strokes.
jb
that last “would” should read “wouldn’t”.
there’s so many other typos, I’m not even gonna try an fix em.
jb
There’s a difference between Baird and Chavez. Baird hired those people. She paid wages. Chavez apparently brought this woman in as shelter. The woman is a hard worker, and helped out with chores around the house, voluntarily. In response, Chavez apparently gave her some spending money when she needed it.
This sounds to me like a couple of nice people, trying to do good things.
As further evidence, there has been a parade of witnesses who have testified that they were at the Chavez house on many occasions, and the woman’s status was definitely that of a guest and not an employee.
As further evidence, we can point to Chavez’s history of taking in similar people, including children who would have been more of a burden than a help around the house.
As more evidence, we have the collection of people who came to stand with her and support her at her press conference, including some high profile Democrats (I’m pretty sure I saw Donna Shalala standing beside her).
Frankly, Chavez sounds like the prototypical ‘compassionate conservative’. She believes that charity starts at home, and she acts on her beliefs. She doesn’t think government should be involved.
But today, we have a perverse notion about charity. You’re considered a compassionate, caring human if you advocate public charity that costs you almost nothing. But if you advocate private charity and give out of your own pocket, you’re a heartless bastard.
Thus we have those models of compassion, the Clintons, who stepped on all kinds of people on their way to power, engaged in a number of shady deals, fired a bunch of innocent employees so they could install their friends, and basically did everything they could to attain money and power. But hey, they think the minimum wage should be higher and that public health care is good, so they automatically become a couple of saints while people like Linda Chavez are demonized.
And BTW, please READ Chavez’s quote about Baird. It is not a criticism. It’s an analysis. And in case everyone’s forgotten, at that time Linda Chavez was a political commentator. It was her job to try and make sense out of issues like this. Her only comment of record was that she thought the AMERICAN PEOPLE were more angry about the illegal immigrant status than about the tax avoidance.
Did she lie to the vetting committee? Not if you’re willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because she claims that she didn’t. She didn’t even think it was an issue, so it never came up.
Incidentally, we had a houseguest for about the same two years, under similar circumstances (a citizen of this country, though). And yes, he helped out with chores. Any decent person would when given free room and board. I don’t think anyone in his right mind who knows us would have ever thought that he was anywhere near being an ‘employee’.
What really happened with Chavez is this: The liberals didn’t want her in the Cabinet, so they dug up any dirt they possibly could to try and destroy her. That’s what happens in politics these days, and that’s why we’ll soon find it hard to get anyone of real quality to run for office.
"What really happened with Chavez is this: The liberals didn’t want her in the Cabinet, so they dug up any dirt they possibly could to try and destroy her."
Really? It looks to me like what really happened is that Bush told her tell her story walking. If you really believe Chavez’s take on the matter why don’t you send him an e-mail and tell him to stand by his woman?
As for me, I’d say the charitable thing to do was to sponsor her for a green card. But I guess that’s just me being a liberal again.
Sam Stone, I agree with what you wrote except for the two paragraphs “But today, we have … Linda Chavez are demonized.” All of that is just tainted hatred of the other side (I mean, you basically say Democrats think if you advocate private charity and give out of your own pocket, you’re a heartless bastard- really, what’s up with that).
Mandelstam you are not right. Bush told her to tell her story walking? On the ninth, Bush said he supported (exact quote- “I’ve got confidence in Linda Chavez”) her in spite of these allegations. She withdrew her nomination amid a barrage of political lawn darts, chucked mainly by democrats.
As to your charity, that’s all well and good. To quote the woman in question, Marta Mercado, “[Linda Chavez] had the intention to be my sponsor.” From what it looks like, sometime after offering Ms. Mercado the choice of living in her home rather than a shelter for abused women, Chavez offered to help Mercado get her papers. The process stalled, and Mercado left the U.S. When she came back after 6 months, this time (knownst to Chavez) with an invalid passport, Chavez was more wary of the law, and didn’t offer lodging.
Where’s the lack of charity?
Felinecare, you should read that too.
and as for her lack of success, Felinecare? I’m sure the other recipients of Ms. Chavez’ charity would disagree.
jb
jb
"Mandelstam you are not right. Bush told her to tell her story walking? On the ninth, Bush said he supported (exact quote- “I’ve got confidence in Linda Chavez”) her in spite of these allegations. She withdrew her nomination amid a barrage of political lawn darts, chucked mainly by
democrats."
Excuse me, jb, but this is hogwash. I’m not even sure they got it this wrong on the television. I do not, of course, deny that Chavez, a controversial right-of-center choice, was not being assailed by various liberals and Democrats. She would have been assailed, much as Ashcroft is being assailed, on those ideological grounds regardless of this personal gaffe. Nor do I deny that once her enemies got hold of the gaffe they played it for all it was worth. And, as I said above, I can even sympathize with your sense that it would be nice if the Democrats could come up with a more high-minded way of dealing with this stuff.
But it’s simply not the case that Chavez withdrew b/c of the Democrats; she withdrew b/c she was given the signal that she no longer had the support of the Republicans. That’s the way these things are done. Obviously Bush doesn’t come out and say, “I made a mistake. The woman misled me and I’m pissed.” She gets a signal and she knows she has to withdraw.
Here is a relevant article on the subject:
And here are some excerpts from the above:
"Bush officials, said one Republican close to the transition office here, were enraged when they learned that Ms. Chavez had withheld potentially damaging information.
"And hour by hour, it seemed, they grew more tepid in their support for her nomination. They moved from Mr. Bush’s less-than-confident-sounding statement on Monday that she would ultimately be confirmed by the Senate to a comment this morning from Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, that ‘we are seeking to develop information’ about when Ms. Chavez discovered she was aiding an illegal immigrant.
“By the time Ms. Chavez appeared on television this afternoon, she was accompanied by other immigrants she has helped who spoke up for her. But no officials of the Bush transition office took the stage in her defense at her news conference.”
In other words, she was toast. When they want to fight for you, they fight for you.
I confess, jb, I find you a bit perplexing, but, whatever.
Actually, jb, let me take back that last sentence about “perplexing.” When I wrote it I hadn’t see your first reply to my extending of the olive branch (warning: that “go to first new thread” function is unreliable!). Hence, it appeared to me that you had ignored the great bulk of what I’d said when in fact you had responded very graciously. You are not perplexing in the least.
That said, we disagree on just one point (and I will spare you the agnony of any winkie smiley on that).
“The difference between Baird and Chavez is that the former had a clear-cut case of exploitation against her, and the latter does not. Now, here this please- this is what gets me pissed off.”
I agree that the facts of the Chavez case are hard to determine although, it must be said, that that is quite possibly b/c Baird was more up front about what she’d done. Just about anyone can make the case that Chavez did. I lived for a while with a relative of mine who was sponsoring a Dominican woman for a green card. She was treated extremely nicely and had her own room just as I did. When people came to the house she often had a cup of coffee. No one would have expected her to–indeed, everyone would have been embarrassed to see her–do housework in front of guests. The family was very fond of her; she helped me to improve my Spanish, helped the young boy of the house to do homework. It would have been impossible for anyone to say whether she was a “maid” or a “houseguest” who did chores occasionally. Nor did my relatives make a point of detailing their financial arrangements with guests of the house: who for that matter does? Since that time I’ve occasionally been in households where people employ others to do housework for them, and I’ve never seen any of these people being treated like “servants,” especially when they lived in the house. I myself hire a college student who helps me clean the house and when we clean together if you popped by you’d never know that she wasn’t just a friend having a gab with me and giving me a hand. How much more might these appearances be confirmed in a case like Chavez’s, where the person is involved in politics and has a reason to make sure the “houseguest” status is what everyone understands. Hell, it’s easy to believe it yourself.
I have trouble believing Chavez’s story (as opposed to the story Sam as told) b/c Chavez is who she is. If Sam were involved in politics and wanted to be Secretary of Labor, then his situation might become a problem for him too. The scrutiny of these personal details is very high (just as admitting to smoking pot or something like that is a big deal too). It is, as you say, vile that there isn’t more attention to the issues and less attention to the “gotcha” issues but, unfortunately, our crappy commercial media collaborates in making the “gotcha” strategies work b/c it grabs people and is easily digested (whereas a full account of Chavez’s record would be “boring” and would occupy the expensive time of real journalists).
"There’s a reason why some people say thing slike “I just don’t think Chavez has a humanitarian bone in her body”, or even “Humanitarian my ass!” There’s a reason why many of those who chimed into this thread immediately ascribed this onus of evil and blame upon Chavez. Why? Because she’s from the other party. And if she were your aprty’s candidate, you would be painting her in bitchy broad brush strokes."
I don’t know about that (though I like the turn of phrase!). I’m more with the feminist argument on this issue (which I’m glad you appreciated). I’d like to know who’s been cleaning the houses of some of these male cabinet picks and why the issue never seems to come up. Maybe they’re just more careful–but I doubt it’s b/c their wives are doing the housework themselves. I will concede that I simply can’t view Chavez’s actions as excused by compassion. That may be partly b/c I’m a liberal and I dislike her politics. But I will say this (and with no disrespect to Sam): if I met a woman in Mercado’s situation and took her into my home and knew she had no financial autonomy, that she depended on me for pocket money, that she was cleaning for my neighbor illegally, that she felt obligated to me to clean my toilets to repay her debts to me, I would definitely not feel comfortable with this for beyond a month or so. I would get in touch with a lawyer. And if I had Chavez’s connections, it would be that much easier to get the process moving smoothly.
Anyway, sorry about that “perplexing” remark!
Here’s my take on it: Chavez was being a wonderful human being when she housed a frightened, abused, illegal alien.
That being said, she is a member of the Republican party. And the GOP was the party that spent umpteen millions of dollars and inordinate amounts of energy impeaching Bill Clinton because he lied under oath about getting blown by an intern.
Paybacks are hell.
Chavez should have been smart enough to realize that she had no chance in hell of getting through the nomination process unscathed. Whether her intentions were honorable or not, she broke the law. Therefore she should not have allowed herself to be nominated.
And both parties would be better served were they to end this ridiculous “In 10th grade, did you drink a case of beer, knowing that it was illegal?” scrutiny.
Zoe Baird should have been allowed to serve. Linda Chavez should have been allowed to serve. Neither situation had anything to do with their ability to do the job.
Hahh hah hah! You know, I wonder how low accusations are going to dig in the near future. Mandelstam, you are exactly right about the boys’ club atmosphere. I mean, fer christ’s sakes, I can picture Orrin Hatch hanging a crudely-written “No Gurls Allowweb” sign on the Capitol. Or Strom Thurmond, with a wicked cowlick, signing “Darling Clementine” until a stream of soap bubbles float from his mouth. Or even
Sen. Kennedy: Fine, fine, Ms., ah, Russel. That will do. I, uh, I just have one thing more to ask. Do you now have or have you ever, uh, had, cooties?
jb