The Other Side Of The Story

I just saw a headline a CNN.com:

Immigrant's Abuse Claims Against Whitman Rock California Race

Am I only one who assumes that the other side of the story reads:

Meg Whitman's approval rating amongst conservatives is at all time high.

Come on, conservatives! Do you want to arrest/deport these people or you do want to exploit and abuse them? Pick one. You can't do both. That would not be fair.

The Heritage Foundation Wants To Prosecute Bush Administration Officials!

I know, I know. I did not see this coming either. But I was watching Hardball on Monday night (only because Chris Matthews was sick or on vacation or something - it's not a show I typically watch), and Chuck Todd was interviewing Ernest Istook, who was noted to be a former Republican U.S. congressman from the state of Oklahoma and has now joined The Heritage Foundation; the conversation was about the recent chattering in conservative circles about the modification or even the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Chuck Todd asks:

CT: My question is why go to the 14th Amendment? Why not just enforce the border (and) get tougher immigration law because - if you do that - this issue of birthright citizenship isn't going to play as big of a role? It just feels like you're politically poking hispanics in the eye and saying "we're picking on you!"

To which Mr. Istook replies:

EI: Chuck, why be selective in the laws that you enforce? Why say "let's enforce some laws but let's give a pass to people on other laws"?

I guess that means that everybody who broke the law during the detaining and interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush Administration must be prosecuted! Can we take Dick Cheney right from the hospital to a prison cell?

Have They Watched The Interview?

There has been a national debate over the "Papers Please" Law in Arizona. It has become a cliched talking point amongst conservatives to query "have you actually read the law?" as if the reading of the law would it seem perfectly reasonable to those of us with concerns. They are, of course, banking on the fact that people actually will NOT read it. And, admittedly, I have no intention of doing so.

I was thinking of that in relation to the conservatives like Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin who have come to the defense of GOP senate candidate Rand Paul (KY) for his recent comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on NPR and on The Rachel Maddow Show (as well as other media outlets). Moreover, he was expressing identical ideology as far back as 2002 with regards to the Fair Housing Act.

If you watched the interview, it really wasn't that complicated to see where Dr. Paul was coming from. There is now some backtracking being done and he claims he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This is all spin (in the Maddow interview, he waxed not very poetically about how it's a tough call whether you should vote for something when you object to certain aspects of it... yeah, no shit! Health Care Bill anyone?). It is very clear if you watch the interview that Dr. Paul believes that private businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone they see fit (outlawed in Title II of the Civil Rights Act). This does not make him a racist or a bad human being. It is my contention only that it makes him out of step with mainstream America about what is the appropriate role of government.

So if we had any conservative readers here at Furriners, I would urge them to watch the interview with the realization that they probably never would. But at least maybe we could make "have you watched the interview?" as much of a cliche as "have you read the law?"

P.S. Rachel's next day follow up is also very much worth a view.