John McCain's campaign is attacking Barack Obama for Obama's rather indisputable comments about the rise of anti-immigrant fervor in small town America. Obama said that the rise of such fervor has a lot to do with bitterness.
But wait - didn't John McCain say something similar in December to The New Yorker?
Anti-immigrant passion also owes much to the disproportionate influence of a few small states in the nominating process. National polls show that, as an issue, immigration is far behind the Iraq war, terrorism, the economy, and health care as a concern to most Americans; a recent Pew poll shows that, nationally, only six per cent of voters offer immigration as the most important issue facing the country. But in Iowa and South Carolina, two of the three most important early states, it is a top concern for the Republicans who are most likely to vote.
"It's the influx of illegals into places where they've never seen a Hispanic influence before," McCain told me. "You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were--'concerned' is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?' It's become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders."
Sure, it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty darn similar. In fact, McCain seems to be saying something far more controversial. While Obama is saying economic hardship breeds anti-immigrant feelings, McCain is saying lots of rural people just hate Hispanics. That may or may not be true - but the fact that McCain's campaign is feigning outrage over Obama's truisms when their own candidate has made thematically similar statements strikes me as...what's the word...oh yeah - dishonest.
They were both making the same, blindingly obvious point.
HRC and MCsame don't want blue collar to find out what they have been up to for so many years, NAFTA , now Colombia trade deal, ..... They underestimate the intelligence of Blue collar workers, they might not have gone to university for some , but they know the difference between a dishonest person a genuine leader.
HRC say i'm against the colombian trade deal , her husband takes $800K from Colombia. HRC say lets boycott the Olympic opening, but Bill is being funded by a chinese firm cracking down on Tibetans
I don't think she will win Pennsylvania , in 2008 people have their eyes opened. No one will foul them.
Obama just flushed it out more and whats intersting this is nothing new. I dont know why people are acting like this is some new jwords of wisdom. Obama even touched on it in his race speech a few weeks ago. People's job disappear as a result of trade deals like Nafta and they develop Anti Trade sentiments Ya think? Its ludicrious to me that we just grossly simplify things and we dont look at the big picture which is the economic devastation of these communities and how to address it. Instead we are arguing about whether people are bitter? It just seems petty to me and a distraction from tackling real issues like rural poverty.
Carol
A couple months after Obama is in office will you be making excuses on why we don't see results.
I remember a 2006 pitch, give us Congress and we will get us out of Iraq. That worked out well. Look at all the excuses, but no delivery of results.
You could already start to write Obama's speeches for just a few months after in office. Gee, I would have, but............blah blah..............their fault............if only.................blah blah..............unexpected developments in Iraq...........
There will be a large group of pundants helping make excuses for lack of delivery, instead of holding him accountable.
And ---if being unemployed AND uninsured weren't enough....our workers have to compete in a world labor market that is unfairly stacked against them....they have to compete for jobs with other workers (namely EVERYBODY who isn't from here) who do have government-sponsored healthcare. Why would savy business executives decide to locate in a place where they will be either held responsible to provide (and pay for) worker insurance or be pressured to do so....when all they have to do to avoid that responsibility is to take the jobs somewhere else.
The Clintons could have said, "Healthcare first, then (maybe) NAFTA." Or, simply, "No Healthcare, no NAFTA." Surely, smart as they are, they knew that they were secrewing our workers 3 times over (and breaking their campaign promise to oppose NAFATA). So what does that tell us about the Clintons.
What is WRONG with the people here in PA that they have forgotten what happened a mere 15 or so years ago.
These folks have been swayed by the Republican party and its bigoted b.s. about who is responsible for their lot in life. Democrats must represent these folks again, and Hillary Clinton is the one that has inspired their confidence.
Read a good book on the topic by Joe Bageant "Deer Hunting with Jesus."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/colombia-and-bill-the-una_b_96167.html