In what sense is our existing immigration system racially or culturally discriminatory?
Using what “code words”? With the possible exception of Hilary Clinton some time last year, I can’t remember the last time I heard a Democrat say anything that could be construed as even a euphemism for more redistributive taxation.
And yet we have never been without one at any time since independence.
If you think Dean is a “fringer,” Shodan, you are looking at the left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope.
Who said anything about being seated at any conventions?
Coulter’s books get bought by conservatives, she gets air time on conservative talk shows and news programs, she gets published by conservative publishers, she gets praised by her fellow conservative pundits, she gets gigs speaking before conservative audiences – ergo, she is fully and deeply and passionately embraced by American conservatives, a.k.a. the Republican Party. And they sure aren’t breaking any land speed records distancing themselves from her brand of extremism.
I’m inclined to agree with your assessment. Also can’t forget all that campaign money that comes from the overclass.
To expand on my earlier message, here’s what I think a winning argument would be for Democrats vis a vis gay marriage:
"Marriage is a sacred institution, historically recognized as being a pact between a man and a woman. This institution too intertwined in our social structure, and too important to our society, for it to subject to the whim of the body politic. Therefore, the Democratic party will do nothing that would weaken this critical institution or change it in any fundamental way.
However, we must recognize that one’s choice in partner should not cause them to be discriminated against, lose tax advantages, make them unable to claim spousal benefits, or in any other way lack the advantages the state offers to people who engage in traditional marriage.
Therefore, the civil union laws will be amended to treat a civil union as any contractual obligation entered into between two citizens who wish to declare themselves legally bound to each other. Such a union will carry all of the benefits and liabilities of a traditional marriage, and we will make sure that employers who offer spousal benefits must offer them to civil partners upon proof that they have been bound together by civil contract. Estate law and other institutions that give special preference to spouses must be amended to allow for civil partners to enjoy the same benefits.
Our Republican colleagues continue to intrude into the bedrooms of America, and continue to see the government as a tool to interfere in the private relationships of the people. We flatly reject this, as we reject their moral arguments against homosexuality. Whether any form of relationship is moral or immoral is a matter for each individual and their relationship with their god. It is not the job of government to pass such judgement, and it is a violation of the constitution to try.
We also believe that the federal government especially has no role in such matters, and that individual states must be free to follow the desires of their people in areas where local culture plays an important role. The federal government should therefore act only to make sure that federal law is as even-handed as possible, then step back and respect the liberty of all."
How’s that sound?
It makes way too much sense, but I’d do weird things like shout it from the rooftops for any candidate who was insane enough to show that kind of intestinal fortitude. The religious right would be all over him/her like white on rice, but I’m guessing one of these days it’s got to come to that.
I’m a little confused . . . the sweeping language of the first paragraph implies you’re talking about civil-unions legislation at the federal level, the second implies a states’-rights policy which would leave some states free to reject even civil unions. If some states allow civil unions and others don’t, wouldn’t the IRS have to give “full faith and credit” to that distinction, treating civil-union partners as married for tax purposes if they live in a civil-union state, but treating them as single if they live in, or move to, a state that does not recognize such unions? Or would there be a policy that the federal government will recognize all civil unions for its own purposes even if entered into in states where such are illegal? The latter could be construed as a denial of “states’ rights.”
No, I’d say at the federal level you need some form of basic recognition that falls below the level of ‘marriage’ but simplifies things like a couple wanting to move to another state without having their legal status changed. Also, the federal government must play a role when it comes to federal taxes.
Above that basic level, it should be a matter for the states.
I think this is also the correct policy for drugs. Federal law only in areas where it’s required to manage issues between states (border security, drug importation laws, etc). Laws pertaining to the actual usage of drugs should fall to the states.
Will, if you were following the discussion it was about whether or not the Dems should distance themselves from Moore. But then, you probably weren’t following the discussion…
How do you know this?
Blah, blah, blah. Give me one cite of one Republican politician praising her or her books.
Coulter was fired from National Review for her “Invade them and convert them to Christianity” commentary.
Not all conservatives are down with Ann Coulter. Just like not all Liberals are down with Michael Moore.
Those two play to the base, to the fringes and radical elements of each party. The base is noisy and over-represented on the internet.
Sam: Regarding your suggestion about what the Dems should say about SSM, how is that different from what Kerry said in the last election? Maybe you put a bit more flowery language on it, but I think you outlined Kerry’s position exactly.
And further on rjung’s Coulter comment… the real point is that whether or not the Dems should distance themselve from Moore has nothing, NOTHING, to do with Coulter and whether or not Republicans support her or don’t support her.
Well, that’s just it, that’s the sticking point. If a state bans civil unions, as some already have, and yet the federal government still recognizes some of that state’s residents as being joined in such unions, then we’re not respecting states’ rights – are we?
Regarding more, in terms of this debate I see nothing to be gained by the Democratic Party distancing itself from him, because IMO he is much more concerned with economic than cultural issues, which is what the party itself needs to be; and because he is one of the most effective spokespersons we’ve got. He’s done a lot more for the left than Coulter ever will for the right.
Sorry, I meant of course, “Regarding Moore . . .”
I merely find it amusing (in a “typical Republican hypocrisy” sort of way) to hear suggestions from Republicans that the Democrats need to distance themselves from the likes of Michael Moore while they’re embracing far loonier nutjobs like Ann Coulter. It’s like someone with a heroin addiction berating someone for occasionally drinking a can of beer…
There have been some Republicans in this thread who have suggested that Dems distance themselves from Moore. You can, I’m sure, give us examples of how any of them have endorsed Coulter. Or are you just talking out of your ass again?
In two senses. First, the majority of legal immigration slots are taken by relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents under the “family preference” or close relative provisions. There are currently far more Asians and Latin Americans with U.S. citizen relatives than Europeans and Africans, so the proportion of immigrants from Asia and Latin America keeps getting larger and larger in sort of a self-perpetuating chain.
Second, if you can physically get across the border without being apprehended, you don’t really have to worry about being deported. Even if you are caught and ordered to appear before an immigration court, you can just skip your hearing, and nobody’s going to go looking for you. This intentionally lax enforcement of the law for people who are physically present in the U.S. provides an automatic advantage for those who enter by crossing the Mexico-U.S. border, because they have a much better chance of getting in undetected (maybe 50%?) as compared to people who have to arrive by plane or boat (practically zero, because they have to go through customs immediately upon disembarking). Score another advantage for Mexicans and Central Americans.
C’mon, John … you of all people know that the typical Coulter fan silently agrees with her even as they refuse to admit it. Even the SDMB’s usual phallanx of Bush apologists aren’t going to publicly admit admiring Ann while urging Democrats to dump Moore (well, okay, maybe Brutus… 
).
“The other thing that bothers me about Coulter is that I probably agree with her politics at least 80% of the time. But I just cringe at the arguments she uses to defend her positions.”
–John Mace, 4/8/2005