Hispandering Democrats

Was it really such a good idea for the DNC to put their final two candidates on a channel and in front of an audience where they were forced to embrace illegal immigrants? Maybe so, but that is what happened last night. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, in Miami and on Univision, delivered numerous sound bites pledging not to deport undocumented immigrants and vowing to build a pathway to citizenship for them, all in a effort to compete for Latino voters. What happens in the general election against Republicans who are competing to do just the opposite, a pro-deportation position that most voters (and the Obama Administration) support?

Share

Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host

85 thoughts on “Hispandering Democrats”

  1. via npr media player:
    Hispandering: The Cristela Edition

    February 19, 2016

    Comedian Cristela Alonzo talks us through some of the candidates’ most interesting moments of the candidates trying to win over Latino voters.

  2. Just read part of last night’s transcript.

    HRC – It’s too complicated.  It’ll be too hard to pass.

    Hillary has low expectations of what is possible.

    Aim high.  Always ask for the most you can.  If you fall short, you’ll still be farther ahead than if you ask and expect very little.

    Bernie is the candidate who will push for real change.

     

    *No Cristela zone here.  She’s a channel-changer for me.

  3. according to abc news:  Here are seven moments that mattered at the debate [2 and 5 in their entirety] :

    1. Email Exasperation

    2. Changing positions? Or “Hispandering?”
    The debate audience may have learned a new word Wednesday night, as moderator Maria Elena Salinas asked each candidate whether their immigration policies were a form of pandering to Latinos, or “Hispandering.”
    In a 2003 radio interview, Clinton castigated employers of illegal immigrants; in 2007, Sanders voted against an immigration reform bill over guest workers that “drive wages down.”
    Each candidate, though, pivoted to moments when they stood up for immigrants — and times their opponent hadn’t.

    “I said ‘Welcome those children into this country,'” Sanders said of the Central American migrant crisis. “Secretary Clinton said ‘Send them back.’ Big difference.”
    Clinton fired back, accusing Sanders of standing “with vigilantes known as Minutemen who were taking up outposts along the border to hunt down immigrants.”
    Sanders claimed Clinton was picking and choosing pieces of a larger bill he supported.
    “Madam Secretary, I will match my record against yours any day of the week,” he declared.
    There were moments of agreement, too. Under prodding from Ramos, each candidate also offered a solemn vow not to deport undocumented children already living in the United States.

    3. Both Candidates Won’t Say If Trump Is Racist

    4. Clinton Mocks Trump’s “Beautiful” Wall

    5. Clinton Gets Self-Reflective

    In between the questions about her emails and exchanges with Sanders on immigration, Clinton opened up when asked about an issue that has dogged her for more than 30 years: Her honest and trustworthiness.
    “Look, I have said before and it won’t surprise anybody to hear me say it, this is not easy for me,” Clinton explained in response to a question about a new Washington Post poll released yesterday that found that only 37 percent of Americans consider her honest.
    “It’s not easy to do what I think is right to help people, to even the odds, to hear a story like the woman’s story we just heard and to know that I can make a difference and I want to in every way possible,” she added, referring to a Guatemalan-immigrant whose husband was deported three years ago. The woman questioned about Clinton about immigration during the debate.
    Clinton then continued with this moment of self-reflection: “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed,” she said, “Like my husband or President Obama.”

    6. Woah look at that youngster!

    7. The most confusing suit in political history

  4. blueid, sorry to offend you with the cristela piece. will try to do better. was just looking for riffs on “hispandering” since it’s today’s thread topic and jumped on 1st one listed.  but then found this (hope it passes muster with you), an earlier more comprehensive history of the term at codeswitch:

    It goes back to at least 2002, when pioneering political blogger Mickey Kaus, writing at his Slate blog Kausfiles, noted a “recent Hispandering proposal” from then-House Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to legalize some immigrants who are in the U.S. without documents. That’s the first searchable online reference to the term Hispandering, according to research done by the NPR librarians.

    It should be mentioned that Barry Popik, etymologist extraordinaire, spotted the phrase in a conservative email digest sent in 2001, but Popik gives Kaus props for “popularizing” the term. Kaus, for his part, says he came up with it independently, saying it wasn’t an aha moment so much as “just another night on the blog.”

    “I’m always looking for puns,” says Kaus. “And, I was wondering, what can we do to mock this trend of, ‘God, we’ve got to appease the growing Latino vote?’ ” He tried a few different versions before landing on the word that would go on to be a hashtag. “None of the ones with Latino worked, so I tried Hispanic.”

    Kaus says it’s nice to have a shorthand term for a very specific kind of political pandering, the kind he felt Gephardt was up to back in the summer of 2002. “It’s good to have a term that can be used as an epithet,” he says.

    Initially, Hispandering was picked up by conservatives and anti-immigration reform pundits who aimed it at politicians they felt were disingenuously wooing Latino voters with friendlier stances on immigration, like pathways to residency for workers in the country illegally or softening border enforcement.

  5. just in case rancor and high dudgeon raise their ugly heads again or you want to say hi to tony and some of our other mixers, stop in at jamie’s place. looks like they’re having a good time over there.

    for me for now tho’, the trail is more than enough political palaver  (at times it even is an overdose). as long as the boss keeps the bar open, i’ll hang around. one more for the road please…. and sam, play it again.

  6. from wapo
    The Miami debate was Clinton’s personal nightmare

    By Alexandra Petri
    Maria Elena Salinas: Secretary Clinton, why don’t people trust you?

    Clinton: Maybe it’s because I just said that I was looking forward to this debate, which is either a bald-faced lie or a sign that I am some kind of a sociopath. We had one of these three days ago. Why would we have another one now? Did you just want to torment me by putting me in another situation where a man makes unrealistic promises and waves his arms while I have to smile and look unruffled, all the while living with the knowledge that somehow he was what the people of Michigan wanted, not me? What does he have that I do not have? Does this answer your question?

  7. Patd, I hear he may be, but for me it’s only if he brings brandy when I’m snowbound in the Alps. 😉

  8. from wapo editorial board:

    Mr. Sanders’s populist rhetoric doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. His insistence, for example, that the North American Free Trade Agreement led to 800,000 job losses ignores analyses from unbiased sources such as the Congressional Research Service. “In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics,” a 2015 CRS analysis found.
    Blaming freer trade for the loss of manufacturing jobs fails to tell the much bigger story of economic transformation that has swept the world over the past several decades. Technological change, automation, productivity improvements and other factors have eliminated old-school manufacturing jobs all over the world. Mr. Sanders cannot bring back the U.S. economy of the 1960s, and it would be harmful to try.

  9. From Alexandra Petri’s piece:
    Ramos: And we’re back. Secretary Clinton, will you deport children?
    Clinton: Uh.
    Ramos: Will you?
    Clinton: No! I won’t deport children! I think I was trying to give you a more nuanced answer about process but if you’re going to keep asking then, no, no I won’t.
    Sanders: I can confidently promise that a President Sanders will never deport children!
    Clinton: (hopefully) Are you saying that because you don’t believe President Sanders will happen?

    gigglesnort.

  10. patd, the world economy has changed in the past 20 years, the US economy has changed, consumers have changed, and these changes would have occurred regardless of NAFTA.   For instance, in 1996 I, well, Mrs. P, had a cell phone the size of a brick (it was a Qualcom phone, manufactured in Taiwan I think) – and Mrs. P & I had only that one cell phone – primarily because Mrs. P was pregnant with LP.  Now LP and Mrs P have iPhones and I have a Samsung Galaxy.  I now read WaPo, converse here, communicate by text with LP & Mrs. P, do legal research, etc. on my phone.  Apple & Samsung sell them here because we buy them.  They make them overseas presumably because they have bigger profits if they do so.  Of course lost in the criticism about Apple making phones in Asia is the fact that Apple (and Samsung – largest in the world- and Qualcom…) is a worldwide corporation headquartered in California and Apple’s suppliers are from the US, Asia, Europe, Indonesia, Maylasia…As if the iPhone isn’t expensive enough, it would cost Apple (and us) an additional $660 Million and the tax on the US profits would be 35% instead of the 2% profit on overseas profits of Apple if the iPhone was assembled here.   Kinda points out the complexity of onshoring – it would create jobs here and increase tax revenues – which of course would be passed onto consumers in the price of the product. It’s hard to believe but the iPhone wasn’t introduced until 2007.  The chips for the iPhone, ironically enough, are made by Samsung.

     

  11. We ran off our Clinton pals? Missing them already. And just when I was about to come around (by default). GOP Debate tonight 8:30pm ET, could be the last chance to watch Boy King Rubio.

  12. Of course we’ve recently seen that polls can be WAAAAAY  off, but if you can trust the FL polls, Rube is close to riding off into the sunset – as he said to Chuckie, there’s nothing wrong with being a regular citizen (which is condescending and ironic on so many levels, and all at the same time).  I really never appreciated his gift for economy of words.  Hope he enjoys his new job more than his current one.

  13. Rubio needs Jeb to endorse him …wonder how that conversation is going

    Rubio will be a lobbyist for awhile and then governor of Fla

    We are supposed to get six inches of rain over the next two days on top of 4 inches earlier in the week and it was the warmest Feb on record….for us it is an end to the drought but for people in lower flatter places…floods

  14. Rubio’s disapproval above 50 in Florida, if Cruz manages to beat him for 2d he probably drops out primary night

  15. I wonder why the Strumpette doesn’t talk about the polls that show him with the lowest approval ratings and the highest ick factor of any candidate ever…

  16. PatD – Cristela doesn’t offend me, I just can’t listen to her. I could probably read a transcript of what she said, as long as I didn’t hear her voice on my head.  Just one of things.

  17. WAPO is promoting Hillary.  Of course they would say NAFTA wasn’t a problem.   Well, my company shut down manufacturing in the US and sent it to Mexico.

  18. I think the candidates should be drug tested (for  variety of reasons)

  19. Think the staff went to the restroom with her? (How do you build a rolling eyes imogee?)

  20. NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

    But, yeah, old, man Bush was part of the problem, too.   Perot was the only one who understood what it would do to the job market.  Then the people losing jobs had to use unemployment benefits until they found new jobs (probably for less payment), so they had less month to put into the local economy, which hurt the mom-and-pop stores.   A giant, sucking, sound, indeed.

     

  21. blueid, all it takes is for us usa’ers to make an effort to only buy America made.  boycott the outsourced whenever possible.  seems to be working in some places.  see latest Marriott press release about only purchasing usa towels for their hotels.  small step for them but it is a start.

    we are the enemy.  we can say no.  stupid little stuff  like cleaning up the environment starts with small steps: us little people not throwing trash out the window,  recycling all that plastic or not using it at all, repairing instead of  dumping,   again it’s a mote/beam in the eye thingy.

  22. potty break

     

    they were just making sure there wasn’t any tp hanging off her

  23. anybody know yet what was in the flash drive that the former marine threw over the wh fence after he shot the preacher who was promoting cruz?   any good conspiracy theories out there that bad stuff about cruz might be on it?

  24. Why shouldn’t you be able to confer with staff?  Kind of a dumb rule

     

    I think they did it to enforce the idea that she always bends the rules

     

  25. KGC, I never understood why DNC laid down that rule about no staff consultation during debate breaks.

  26. What could Marco do to redeem his campaign at tonight’ debate?  Pay off a bunch of bloggers, tweeters and columnists to say he won

     

    Short of that in his opening statement – say how he has grown during the campaign and how what he has learned impacts

    What he would do in the first 100 days of office

    Someone has to figure how to get Trump’s record breaking negatives into the conversation.

    Also is Trump a racist. Whether he personally is isn’t the point – he is using racist sentiments to attrack supporters and his policies are racist so he’s either a horrible person who would do anything to win or a racist.

  27. KGC, boy king could always just whimper that his rich patrons told him this was a done deal, and it’s not fair

  28.  the last act of a desperate man? … only a desperate man would drop his pants in living color on national television!

    He will be wearing I love Fla undies

  29. Blue, no, it wasn’t and yes, it was.  The Agreement was signed by GHWB (see below) just shy of 2 months before he left office.  It was ratified under the Clinton Administration and signed into law by Bill.

    “Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[5] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation’s legislative or parliamentary branch.”

    [A picture of the folks named below was posted but it didn’t post – link is below]

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Nafta.jpg/270px-Nafta.jpg

     

    Back row, left to right: Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, at the initialing of the draft North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992. In front are Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche, United States Trade Representative Carla Hills, and Canadian Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson.

     

  30. pogo, according to these guys who should know http://www.naftanow.org/about/default_en.asp here’s how they lay out its history (to be picky about it, history.com says bill signed it into law 12/3/93 but wiki says 12/17/92 when bush fast tracked it):

    NAFTA ~ Chronology of Events
    June 10, 1990: Canada, the U.S., and Mexico agree to pursue a free trade agreement
    February 5, 1991: NAFTA negotiations begin.
    December 17, 1992: NAFTA is signed by leaders from Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
    August 1993: Additional side agreements on labor and the environment are negotiated.
    January 1, 1994: NAFTA enters into force

  31. “We ran off our Clinton pals?”

    not all, boss. still here, still with her and will be ’til you pry my cold dead fingers from the post comment button.

    btw, reposted your 11:46 comment to our outliers. hope you don’t mind.

  32. The bill that ratified the agreement was signed into law by Bill Clinton – I said that.  The agreement was signed on 12/17/92. The bill was ratified and Bill signed it into law on 12/8/93.  That’s why I said it was and it wasn’t.  It was Bush Sr.’s trade agreement.  Hillary had nothing to do with it.

    There is an office that tracks trade agreements – Office of United States Trade Agreements – it operates out of the office of the president. Here’s their NAFTA blurb. It does not support the disastrous trade agreement verbiage Bernie (and drumpf) use.

  33.  
    patd,
     
     
     
    Most of the data came from the United States Trade Reprehensive (USTR), a poetical position.
     
    President Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, have a major creditability problems when it comes to Trade Agreements.  I refuse to call them free because they are anything but free.
     
    President Barack Obama claimed in a White House fact sheet that the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement (KORUS) would “increase exports of American goods by $10 to $11 billion…” and that would “support 70,000 American jobs from increased goods exports alone.”  Well the facts are that the growing goods trade deficits with Korea have eliminated more than 75,000 jobs between 2011 and 2014.  Also, “increase exports of American goods by $10 to $11 billion”; in the first three years after KORUS took effect, U.S. domestic exports to Korea increased by only $0.8 billion, an increase of 1.8%.  Imports from Korea increased $12.6 billion, an increase of 22.5%. As a result, the U.S. trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion between 2011 and 2014, an increase of 80.4%, nearly doubling in just three years.  Let us see the results of your trade agreement Mr. President.   Increase exports by $10 to $11 billion, wrong, increased by only $0.8 billion.  You did increase the trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion between 2011 and 2014.  Would support 70,000 new American jobs, wrong again, the increased imports that caused the trade deficits eliminated more than 75,000 jobs. Real good job Mr. President!  <strong>Why should we believe you now?</strong>
     
    Then there was President Bill Clinton with NAFTA and getting China membership into the WTO.  The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) shows that the 2013 U.S. goods trade balance with the NAFTA countries was a deficit of $177.2 billion.  The combined U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico and Canada rose (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) from $9.7 billion in 1993 to $132.3 billion in 2013.  The NAFTA deficit increased $122.5 billion, or 1,258 percent. On September 19, 1993, Bill Clinton said “NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in two years” and “create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact.”  Clinton said “NAFTA will generate these jobs by fostering an export boom to Mexico.”
     
    Ross Perot’s statement during the 1992 presidential campaign that if NAFTA was not a two way street it would create a “giant sucking sound” of jobs going south to the cheap labor markets of Mexico was absolutely correct.  NAFTA has displaced more than 850,000 U.S. jobs.
     
    Then there is the matter of China and the WTO.  In 2000, President Bill Clinton claimed that the agreement then being negotiated to allow China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) would create “a win-win result for both countries.”  Between 2001, when China came into the WTO, and 2013 the U.S. trade deficit with China increased $240 billion. These growing trade deficits eliminated 3.2 million U.S. jobs.
     
    Between NAFTA and getting China into the WTO Bill Clinton gave the shaft to the U.S. middle class for the benefit of Wall Street and the large multinational corporations.
     
    The United States already has a large and growing trade deficit with the 11 other countries in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which reached $265.1 billion in 2014. In contrast, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico in 1993, before NAFTA took effect. In other words, outsourcing to the TPP countries is a much greater threat than it was under NAFTA with Mexico.
     
    More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost between 1997 and 2014. Most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.
     
    The preceding data is from these documents:
     
    Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages
    By Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, April 13, 2015 10:01 AM
     
    U.S.-Korea Trade Deal Resulted in Growing Trade Deficits and More Than 75,000 Lost U.S. Jobs
    By Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute, March 30, 2015 2:31 PM
     
    Debunking USTR’s Absurd Assertion that the U.S. Has a Trade Surplus with NAFTA Countries
    Public Citizen Report, January 13, 2015
     

  34. pogo, you’re not suggesting that Bernie would lie, was untrustworthy? not truthy? no way…  🙂

  35. purple, don’t turn those well-researched guns on me.  pogo started it.  yell and rail at him.

  36. Poobah, cold light of day – Bill could have vetoed NAFTA in December, 2013.  What isn’t fair is the suggestion, clearly made throughout the campaigns, that Hillary had anything to do with NAFTA.  By not vetoing the bill, which passed with 61 votes in the Senate, to the extent NAFTA has had a negative effect on jobs and the economy, Bill bears a measure of blame for not forcing Congress’ hand.  But in fairness, while he voiced support and his belief it would create American jobs while it was winding its way through Congress, he did not negotiate the agreement.  The arm’s length analyses of it show that it has had a mild positive impact on GDP and that if oil is taken out of the equation (it would have continued to be traded based on our capacious needs and Canada & Mexico’s ability to sell it to us), the trade balance has been in our favor. (Based on the gov’t’s figures – which PPiT sees as suspect)

  37. Patd, as I have said, the direction of this site is user driven. Anyone is welcome to steer it wherever they like, through comments and thread posts, or by leaving.

  38. I thought the problem with trade agreements isn’t the agreement but the methods that governments used to give their businesses a competitive edge

    I’d like to be in a group that gets pandered to (well women yes but I’m looking for some of my special interests….)

    My most controversial interest is allowing families a deduction for two children

  39. Yes KGC, it has been helpful that Bernie’s presence nudged Hillary to a more critical stance on trade deals that hurt our workers. Just hope it sticks if she wins office. She griped about NAFTA in 2008 but if anyone knows of anything she tried to do about it once in power, I’m all ears. Maybe she did.

  40. Purple,

    Public Citizen is hardly an arm’s length analyst.  I don’t know whether their methodology in the white paper you linked is sound or not or whether their conclusions are valid.  I know it conflicts with the white papers the government has published on the issue.  Just as a statistical methodology matter, I do know that if the baseline data is not based upon the adjustments they made, the comparisons are meaningless.  I’m as skeptical of PC’s claims as I am of NAFTANow’s claims. I suspect that somewhere between the two is the truth.

  41. Bill certainly claimed command in these remarks when putting Bill Daley in charge of getting NAFTA done (August 1993): “This agreement means more trade, more exports, and more jobs for the United States. I think it is very much in our national interest. … I also want to say that as we move into this campaign vigorously now—and it’s something that we’ve not been able to do because we didn’t have an agreement until just a few days ago—Mr. Daley will be working with Ambassador Kantor, with the Secretary of Treasury, with the Director of EPA, with the Labor Secretary, and with other members of the Cabinet, including the Commerce Secretary, to present a strongly united front. …  this trade agreement means a better future for America’s workers, for American industry, for the American economy. I think it is very much in our interest to adopt it.”

  42. Purple, sorry for the delay on publishing your comment above. Spam filter holds any comment with 5 or more links, and I have to manually approve.

  43. Obama said it best, back in 2008: “Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA,” Obama said. “But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a ‘free and fair trade agreement’ and that it was ‘proving its worth.’ And in 2004, she said, ‘I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.’ “

  44. Hey, I said Bill supported it and believed it would create jobs, and regardless, he WAS the head of the executive branch, so he had to take charge of it once it went into effect – whether he had believed in it or not.  To Bill’s credit he chose someone with large hands to work on its implementation. And if Hillary was reading the USTR reports, I’m sure she did think it was a good deal for NY and the US. By 2008 she obviously had a different view of it. The 2004 comments hardly indicate a full-throated endorsement .

  45. Yes Pogo, but there is a move in Clinton camp these days to shift blame for NAFTA to Bush. Shared blame more like it. They have actually pissed off some union leaders who fought Bill (and Hillary’s defense of NAFTA as senator) by even making this suggestion. They should just leave it alone, Hillary got it right in 2008 saying it was mistake, whistle back the spin digs, and keep focusing on what to do about it.

  46. Btw everytime Hillary touts job growth and economic progress during her husband’s term it implies she had something to do with it, makes it harder to complain when she is associated with something he did that wasn’t popular. But in the case of NAFTA at least by 2008 she made it very clear that she was distancing herself from that and thought it was a mistake

  47. I think she can say.. every decision maker makes mistakes I have done so

    In hindsight everyone can be correct.  Too often we discuss mistakes in the absence of context

    when I make mistakes they are my mistakes made on the best available information – I do not make them based on friendship or political calculation

  48. Honest to God, Craig.  The Politifact article reflects at best mild support by Hillary for the agreement through 2004, with what looks all the world to me like an assessment in 2008 that it had not been as positive as she had hoped.  Why she did not IN 2008 say that is beyond me, but this is the kind of BS that drives me nuts – by 8 years ago she’d come to the position on NAFTA that Bernie has, and rather than acknowledge that she’s gotten right on the issue according to St. Bernie’s position, she gets beaten about the head and shoulders by his supporters for a position she once had then changed.  I’m waiting for the sexual predator enabler and defender shit to hit next.

  49. Purple, you are correct, hmmmm. I will investigate why the spam filter held that one.

  50. Good advice KGC. The propeller head kids in Hillary’s camp sometimes get too cute by half. I do not seem to be getting this across but what I am saying about Hillary these days is aimed at shoring up substantive responses in the general election, not defeating her in the primary, thats over. Denying her cargo of baggage does her no good. Cheerleading won’t suffice. And the prevarications that often surface from her staff won’t either.

  51. I hear what you’re saying about her associating herself with the economic prosperity that occurred on Bill’s watch. I hope she does and I believe policies consistent with what Bill pushed – NAFTA aside – will withstand such scrutiny pretty well compared to the economic disasters suggested by the pugn candidates, who still believe Laffer apparently.  And considering what happened on W’s watch – which I believe she is drawing the contrast with because she has largely shifted to running against the pugns rather than Bernie – she should.  But it’s her positions today that seem to me to be what should be criticized, not positions she no longer holds.  I’m sure that her current positions with respect to the financial sector could draw some fire – I’m not that comfortable with what appears to be coziness if donations to PACS reflect that.  But I don’t see that happening.

  52. Crackers – My special interest is for single people.  The whole world is priced for two. It’s not fair. That’s life.

     

    As for NAFTA, Bill kept his promise about creating exports…but it was jobs.  I had a lot of friends who had their jobs moved to Mexico.  Despite what any report may show, people see the world based on their personal experience.  Politics is really local, down to each individual.

  53.  

    Hey! where is everybody? in 2008 the same thing happened no? a few of those that couldn’t take the heat went and started their own blog…..thing is, by comparison to 2008, its been pretty tame so far……just saying….Purple….nice work!…..pat, great stuff….you remain consistent …..

  54. Blue

    not much you can do about  in commercial settings but in government one can

  55. Created a Blogroll in sidebar for Jamie’s Place. Other suggestions welcome.

    Carson endorsing Trump? Didn’t see that coming.

  56. Solar – It seems strange that there are so few Bernie supporters here (and comments were made about him and anyone who believes him, and folks were free to do so), but the bigger group flees.

    If the Crackers family can support multiple candidates and survive, we can, too.

  57. Hispandering………only until they get in the white house……after that….nada

  58. Tonight Trump really needs to unequivocally rebuke that guy who punched that protester at his rally. If not I am done considering him.

  59. Blue,

    I forgot to tell you that as i have read your comments….they seem to be what youve been saying all a long….dont see anything wrong with them…..cept the Donald ones……better hope that he doesnt get to be potus…….U never going to live it down….Nafta……just another excuse for large corps to take over the world…..thru our cia, fbi,military complex……they can get away with deforesting other countries, take down political leaders, threaten them if they don’t go along……..nafta is just another tool to use against the middle and lower classes…it like a bishop, or the rook on the chess board…….the clintons knew exactly how to move these pieces….

    Link tv had a great docu about this a few years back

  60. Rubio will come out strong.  No reason to play it safe.  He will hope everyone dog piles on Trump, but they may just let Rubio go down swinging.

    What will be interesting is their responses to Bernie and Hillary’s cajoled promise about illegal immigration.

    Ted is worse than Trump. I stand by that statement. That doesn’t mean either is good, but Ted is scary.

    Trump is gonna hafta answer for the violence at his rallies, and allegedly , by someone on his campaign staff.  Some of Rant’s supporters were like that 4 years ago. Remember the poor woman who had her neck stepped on by a Ranter?

  61. Jace: Trailmix! We watch republican debates so the rest of the world doesn’t have to.

    Exactly, I am never afraid of hearing what I don’t want to hear. I enjoy it.

  62. jace -LOL!

    I really think the GOP will do something to put candidate x (none of the above) on the ticket.  I don’t know how it’s going to shake out, but they won’t let Trump or Ted represent their party.  And as much as they’d like it to be Rubio, they can see he’s not ripe yet.  I do feel they want Nikki Hayley in the second spot.  Mittens 2016???

  63. Just a short note folks.  I have encouraged everyone to go back and forth if for no other reason than interest and variety.  I had to leave because I lived through the wars of 2008 and simply couldn’t take another round.  Hillary is a woman I not only respect but genuinely believe will be a wonderful president simply because she brings a woman’s sensitivity to the job in addition to being brilliant, hard working, and competent.   It’s not political grandstanding, it is:  “I may not know everything, but I will study the issue, evaluate, formulate a reaction and then try to get cooperation from Congress to develop a plan that will benefit the most people.”  This is not sexy, loud, flag waving or exciting.  It is just getting the job done like diapering the baby while cleaning a four bedroom house, working an 8 hour job and fixing dinner so somebody can come home and tell me he’s tired.

    Well I’ve had enough of the guys being “tired”.  It’s time to let someone do the job who knows what holding it together no matter how tired you are really means.

Comments are closed.