barney frank: Page 1
This post has a list of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention and links to more information on their immigration positions when known. There are also a preview of how the immigration issue will be presented at the convention, and some things you can do if you oppose illegal immigration.
Glenn Reynolds still supports childish mocking of politicians rather than intellectual challenges - 11/03/10
It's been two weeks since I last showed how Glenn Reynolds is wrong, so let's take a look at his latest childish, thuggish advice :
BARNEY FRANK SURVIVED SEAN BIELAT’S CHALLENGE, but as this “train-wreck” victory speech demonstrates , it really got under his skin and he’s lashing out in what looks more like an angry concession speech. I think Barney Frank is actually hurt that he had to take it, not just dish it out this time around. But the Tea Party movement has not yet begun to dish . . . .
But Frank’s childish behavior provides a good lesson in how to deal with the political class. Mock them, and don’t treat them with the respect they - wrongly - feel is their due. They’re not used to being challenged. Keep it up, and odds are they’ll either quit, or embarrass themselves fatally.
Rightwing bloggers like to complain about union thugs and the like, and in many cases they've had a point. However, for that point to have any validity, the rightwing would have to repudiate ideas like Reynolds. He's shown time and time again (see his name's link) that he's a childish thug (and perhaps a cowardly one at that).
He's suggesting incivility rather than open debate, and his idea of a "challenge" isn't to debate someone with the goal of showing how their ideas are wrong, but simply to engage in childish mockery. His ideas would lower the level of debate in the U.S. even further than it's already been reduced by the sign-waving, costumed, tantrum-throwing teapartiers. And, one wonders how we could trust a movement that was based on mockery rather than policy; would they think that the way to resolve international conflicts was to call foreign leaders names?
I don't know whether he says the above because he realize he's incapable of intellectually engaging someone like Barney Frank, or because he knows that the tea parties base is incapable and just wants to give them something they might be able to accomplish. In either case it's not good for the U.S. and not even good for the teapartiers themselves.
 That's a link to hotair.com/archives/2010/11/03/
In the 2010 elections, Republicans who were backed by the tea parties ("TP") won several races but some of the major TP candidates lost. The GOP landslide was very large on both the national and state levels, and apparently exit polls showed 4 in 10 voters expressing support for the TP movement. However, those who voted skewed older; more younger people voted in 2008.
Below is a list of some of the races, followed by a discussion of what to do.
* Mark Kirk won in the most important race in the U.S., considering who was kept out of the Senate. Needless to say, the TP "patriots" largely ignored that race and couldn't make the grown-up choice.
* Sharron Angle lost in a clear repudiation of the TP philosophy and also of her fringe ideas. If - as I repeatedly suggested to her and her advisors via Twitter (example: twitpic.com/2rytur ) - had dropped the libertarian lunacy and had concentrated on things like the anti-American DREAM Act she could have won.
* Carly Fiorina lost, in part due to outsourcing.
* Christine ODonnell lost in Delaware. While she has some good features, her libertarian-leaning economic lunacy isn't one of them. In the same state, TP favorite Glen Urqhart lost a House race.
* Marco Rubio won. While he's fairly good on at least illegal immigration, he strongly supports legal immigration. And, he's at least an associate of the Jeb Bush/George W Bush circle. Expect the GOP to use him as a token and to push massive immigration in coming years.
* Pat Toomey - formerly with the Club for Growth - beat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. Toomey is from the "Profits at Any Price" school; expect him to support massive immigration, outsourcing, and free trade no matter the cost to Pennsylvanians.
* In addition to Rubio, Florida is apparently all red. Billionaire Rick Scott - a TP favorite - is their new governor.
* TP nut Joe Miller appears to be losing to Lisa Murkowski. Erich Honecker could not be reached for comment.
* Another TP nut, Rich Iott, is losing to Marcy Kaptur with 41% of the vote.
* Yet another TP nut, Carl Paladino, lost the New York State governor's race.
* A TP nut, Allen West, did win despite affiliation with an alleged criminal biker gang.
* TP favorite Linda McMahon lost to illegal immigration supporter Richard Blumenthal.
* Rep. Raul Grijalva is barely leading Ruth McClung in Arizona. If she didn't have TP-style fringe economic ideas and simply concentrated on how Grijalva encouraged a boycott of his own state and more or less represents the interests of the Mexican government she'd probably be doing a lot better.
WHAT TO DO:
As should be obvious by now, I'm not a tea parties fan. That's not going to change, and I'm not going to pretend to be one either. Not all of the Republicans listed above are associated with the TP movement, but those who are steeped in that movement should be opposed as with the movement itself.
And, the way to do that really isn't that difficult: simply make a good argument against libertarianism, whether the full version or the lite version espoused by the teapartiers. And, encourage the Democrats to make real arguments instead of playing the race card and thinking that calling people names is an argument.
That said, the vast majority of Americans are reasonable and aren't anywhere near as insane as some of the TP candidates listed above. Things will shake out and even out as they see just how badly the TP candidates govern. A majority of people might say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, but we'll find out how little that means the first time a TP candidate tries to touch their entitlement programs. At that point in time, adults might step in to save the day.
UPDATE: Per MSNBC - thus a note of caution - just 32% of those they identified a Teaparty candidates won (link). That might sound high for a third party, until you realize that all or almost all of those were running as Republicans. In a year with such a broad win for the Republicans, you'd expect much more than a third of their candidates of a certain type to win, unless, of course, that type is "teapartier".
And, from this:
Of all the possible changes to come out of the election, the biggest potential shift in immigration policy will probably come from which party controls the House. Now that change is official: Republicans will lead the House, meaning immigration legislation will be in the hands of likely Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who will chair the immigration subcommittee.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.
11/4/10 UPDATE: Sen. Patty Murray (of Obama's day care centers fame) has won re-election in Washington (link). She beat Dino Rossi who was endorsed by TP groups but who at least part of the time didn't return the favor.
Sean Bielat is the tea parties favorite who's challenging Barney Frank for Congress from Massachusetts. His immigration position follows , followed by some questions for him. In the following, each number in parens indicates a question below. I'll invite him via Twitter  to answer these questions, and the reader is invited to do the same: @SeanBielat.
I believe in an America that protects our citizens' civil liberties (see #1) and our borders. The federal government's negligence on immigration and border security makes everyone less safe and more vulnerable.
Workers deserve the protections granted under law and employers need to rely on a ready workforce to keep their businesses and our economy strong. Thoughtful immigration reform (see #2) must do the following:
* Secure our borders to seal out terrorists, drug gangs and human traffickers (see #3)
* Recognize and address the special burden on border states
* Welcome documented workers who keep our economy strong and contribute to our social fabric (see #4, #5, & #6)
* Investigate immigration status only if someone is stopped for other violations; Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, must never feel as though their country does not welcome them. (see #1)
And, here are my questions based on the above:
#1: That seems to be generally supportive of the Arizona law (as it's been amended). Is that correct? On a sidenote, how have the Border Patrol and similar agencies in other countries been able to successfully determine whether someone is likely a citizen or not in literally millions of cases for decades, all without violating someone's rights? When will you be asking opponents of the Arizona law that question?
#2: From that can we assume that you support comprehensive immigration reform? Note that I'm not asking whether you support "amnesty" (see reform not amnesty), just whether you'd support some form of CIR.
#3: And, how exactly would you do that? For instance, under CIR it would take 5 to 10 years to do FBI-level background checks on the 10 million or so who could be covered by CIR. How could you weed out terrorists if only light background checks are done that only rely on information provided by the Mexican government and similar entities?
#4: Do you agree that some "documented workers" who aren't criminals or terrorists can still have a negative impact on our "social fabric"? For instance, many Mexicans have ideas that aren't exactly conducive to assimilation. They also form a power base within our country for the far-left, the Democrats, and the Mexican government. What exactly would you do about that?
#5: Can we assume that you support some form of guest workers program? What general form would that take? What would you do about the fact that to a good extent such programs are shams? That is, employers could find Americans if they really wanted but they don't for various reasons. Would you give in to them, or stand up to them? Would you discuss $50/hour lettuce picking jobs, or would you call corrupt growers on crops rotting in the fields?
#6: Finally, how would you deal with the fact that "guest" workers will have U.S. citizen children? The far-left strongly opposes most immigration enforcement, and they do so even more strongly when it involves mixed-status families. What do you intend to do about the fact that it will be hard to deport "guests" who have U.S. citizen children?
 From seanbielat.org/time-new-voice#Immigration
 I tweeted him a few days ago asking him the question in #6 above, and he replied that answering such questions in just a 140 character tweet is difficult. Thus, this opportunity for him to clarify his position.
Tea party leaders, complaining about NAACP "racist" charge, call Obama's policies "socialist" - 07/14/10
Yesterday, I discussed how if you object to the NAACP playing the race card, the tea partiers aren't your friends. As if to provide a real world example, Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler of the so-called "Tea Party Patriots" offer "On being labeled as 'racist'" (link):
A clear pattern of behavior has emerged over the last 16 months. According to liberals, if you disagree with their thinking, and if you disagree with the Obama administration, you are not only wrong, you are a "racist."... ...At its most simple, [the NAACP resolution] is a direct attack on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans... ...It seems that anyone who disagrees with the far left, socialist policies of Barack Obama and the current administration is subject to the heavy hand of the race card.
1. When claiming to be called a false name, it's generally not a good idea to call others false names. While some in the Obama orbit are indeed far-left, his policies don't really fit that description. And, those policies certainly aren't "socialist". If Obama is socialist, one wonders what those who want him to move further left are, SuperSocialists?
2. The First Amendment claim is questionable since the NAACP isn't the government. They're certainly at least in favor with the Obama administration - Michelle Obama spoke before they voted on their resolution - but they aren't the government.
They also make this outrageous claim:
According to recent polling, more than 49 million people are active members of the tea party movement (Winston Group, April 1, 2010).
You can view that poll here, and the word "active" doesn't appear in it; the question asked was, "Do you consider yourself a part of the tea party movement?" The idea that 49 million people would be active members of their movement is more than a bit ludicrous. Note also that the poll was taken February 22-23 which was a month before the infamous healthcare vote where teapartiers allegedly spat on and called representatives names (in the case of Barney Frank that's been confirmed, in the other cases it hasn't). Due to those incidents as well as their obvious failure, the tea parties have been on the decline since then, and then in May and June the Koch family and Dick Armey of Freedomworks distanced themselves from the movement.
Note also the smear in the very name of their group, implying that those who aren't members of their movement aren't "Patriots".
ADDED: Note that the first link in this post refers to "counter-productive activities such as endlessly repeating the smears [and] endlessly denying they're racists" which they're doing in this case. They don't have the abilities to handle things in more effective ways but instead just reinforce the "teapartiers = racists" meme. No doubt their opponents are beyond themselves with joy that the teapartiers keep bringing it up; it allows those like ThinkProgress to make videos like the one at thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/tea-party-racism. Despite the fact that at least one of those shown on the video is probably a plant and despite the fact that the last frame (with the t-shirt) was a failed attempt at irony (the back says "I'm a racist because I support the Constitution" or similar), the teapartiers won't be able to do anything about it.
If you want to see those like ThinkProgress discredited, the tea partiers are just getting in your way.
7/15/10 UPDATE: One of the ThinkProgress clips was from 2006; they've posted a new version of the video without that clip and some in the teaparties point out that there are still problems with other segments on the clip:
The teapartiers did have a short-term impact on ThinkProgress, but the former group won't remember it and the latter group will just keep doing what they've been doing.
Glenn Reynolds promotes ineffective tirades against politicians (borderline harassment; alcohol) - 04/13/10
On Sunday, Barney Frank was flying from L.A. to Boston when two sisters on the flight - apparently ophthalmologists - tried to engage him in debate about Obama healthcare. When he declined, they began shouting at him, and apparently alcohol was involved (link). Per one of the passengers: "The women had been drinking, and they were crying and shouting... They were clearly the antagonizers, and Mr. Frank was kind of minding his own business."
So, how does tea parties promoter Glenn Reynolds respond? Does he suggest that drunken, mid-air tirades against politicians aren't effective and just coarsen what little debate we have in the U.S.? Does he point out that Frank is generally approachable ( peekURL.com/v2q7zlh ) and that there's a time and a place? Does he suggest that instead of shouting things at politicians they try to ask them tough questions such as outlined in my question authority page?
Of course not (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/97529):
THIS SORT OF THING SHOULD HAPPEN MORE OFTEN: Barney Frank gets a high-altitude haranguing on health care. Two women ophthalmologists, whom Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, dismissed as “bitchy” — which really set them off. Frank got an earful. As far as I’m concerned, these guys shouldn’t be able to go anywhere without getting an earful. Luckily for Ready he’s the partner of a gay Democrat, because if he were a Republican that remark would have been sexist.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse chides me for encouraging discourtesy [note: link], but most commenters seem to disagree.
Many of Althouse's commenters are even less interested in what's the U.S.'s best interests than Reynolds, so take that with a grain of salt.
On the video at peekURL.com/v94ikj9 Rep. Barney Frank says:
"If America had the kind of immigration policy that some people would like today my whole family obviously would have been wiped out in the Holocaust."
I don't know who should be more offended: those of us who support our immigration laws and who want reduced immigration, or the Mexican government. For both groups, the idea that millions of people who are simply taking advantage of loose borders in order to improve their financial situation is comparable to those fleeing genocide is offensive. It's unfortunate that no one who goes to his events is skilled enough at "cross-examination" to call him on offensive lines like that. Instead, all we get are the tea parties types or better: peekurl.com/v1cl5ow
Deval Patrick knew about New Bedford immigration raid in February ("humanitarian crisis") - 03/14/07
Now, a different picture is emerging. Namely, the Patrick administration had months of foreknowledge of the raids and seemingly every chance in the world to try to prevent the "crisis". From this:
"We had an open and frequent exchange of information to make sure that (the state Department of Social Services) were getting information on child-care issues," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi. "We're going above and beyond the role of a law-enforcement agency to address humanitarian concerns."This has caused even Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara to turn (via this) on Deval Patrick:
Mr. Raimondi said ICE met with state officials regarding the raid as early as August 2006, and met with Deval Patrick's administration in late December as well as Harry Spence, director of the DSS.
...He said ICE officials made every effort to determine if those illegal immigrants arrested were the sole caregivers for children. Of the 361 people arrested at the scene March 6, 60 were released within 24 hours, he said. Since then, at the urging of DSS, ICE has released 20 Salvadorean immigrants being held in Massachusetts jails and 10 people of various nationalities being held in Texas...
...Mr. Raimondi said some immigrants arrested at the factory were not telling the truth about their children, making it difficult to assess their situation after the raid...
...Patrick himself was told in February [about] the raid...Their handling of this is strangely similar to Tom Vilsack possibly misleading about the Swift raid in Iowa. Wouldn't it just be easier on corrupt Democrats like Patrick and Vilsack if they decided to tell the truth and support our laws from the start?
...As late as yesterday afternoon Nancy Fernandez Mills, communications director for the Patrick administration, was insisting that "the governor was not told and did not know the raid was happening until it was going on" and that "DSS did not know about this raid until it was in progress."
Told that, in fact, members of Patrick's Cabinet had briefed him about the operation weeks ago and that Spence had participated in a conference call with ICE the day before the raid -- a fact the commissioner himself acknowledged in yesterday's newspapers -- she reconsidered: "I'd like to retract that statement until I talk to someone who actually knows something about this timeline."
It is going to be a long four years.
Responding to the 222-177 vote by the House of Representatives last night, adopting an amendment introduced by Representatives Michael Oxley (R-OH) and Barney Frank (D-MA), allowing banks and other financial institutions to accept the Mexican matricula consular document in lieu of valid U.S.-issued documents, FAIR issued the following statement:
"Once again, Congress has placed the priorities of a powerful special interest ahead of homeland security interests.