Monday, February 06, 2006

Political bombshell #2

I didn't want to come home and do this post, I really didn't. But the emails and comments on various blogs are too much for me to ignore.

This started on Thursday when the candidate that I supported, Jason Atkinson, came out in favor of the President's "guest worker" plan.

Many peopel withdrew their support for him and many people wanted clarification.

I, among others, didn't feel that the clarification was adequate. While I am not ready to jump ship yet, Lars chose to endorse another candidate today.

The reaction has been vitriolic.

The part that confuses me the most is that when Jason said he supported the President's plan everyone explained to him that the plan was amnesty. Lars said it, I said it, many other said it.

Jason chose to believe the lawyer-speak from Bush over the Oregonians who had his best interest at heart. I have sent a copy of the President's plan to Jason, Lars also sent a copy. As of this morning Jason told Lars that he hadn't read it.

Why would Jason want to remain willfully ignorant on the issue that may have the effect of killing his campaign? Why would he choose to focus on a small fraction of a speech instead of reading, in black and white, the actual proposal from the President?

I proposed this question to Jason:

"I know that a lot of people have been contacting you regarding your stance on a guest worker program (many people have forwarded your response to me) but I want to ask for myself. I have attached a copy of the Presidents plan (the president has no ownership of HR 4437 or any of the other bills or ideas pending in congress) the President's pan is the one outlined in the attachment.

So the question is: Do you support the President's guest worker program?"


To date I have never heard him disavow the plan in it's current form, disavow the plan that EVER single immigration reform group I know of says is amnesty.

But now I hear (at various places) that Jason did in fact take a good position, that Lars ending his support is the result of a "bitter feud," "bribery," "back stabbing," or quite possibly alien mind control waves.

I now am hearing that Lars is a "liar" a "liberal" a "traitor" among other things. Now I don't need to defend Lars in this forum, you all have his phone number, call him up and he can defend himself.

But being someone who is also wavering on supporting Atkinson I wonder if the same things are being said about me. I have not decided to withdraw support completely pending a conversation I am expecting to have with the Senator on Wednesday. I would like nothing more than for him to confirm to me that he rejects the President's guest worker proposal. (and that he would be willing to do so publicly)

But with the current situation I keep thinking about all the people (myself included in this bunch) that has said the immigration issue is going to tear the Republican party apart. With everything that has happened since Thursday I am now seeing a ghostly specter sitting on top of my computer who keeps repeating:

The prophesy is being fulfilled...

(He is also saying it in Spanish for some reason)

Se está satisfaciendo el prophesy...

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to beleive that Jason wasn't prepared for this question. Especially after looking at one of the top issues on these blogs is Illegal Immigration.
Is he now claiming that He didn't know the Guest Worker program is Amnesty? Jason didn't understand that Bush & McCain/Kennedy want all who are here, WORKING to STAY! A M N E S T Y

Jim in KFalls said...

Daniel,
I like you have been waivering over the last few days, but I think I am still going to vote for Jason - I believe in everything else he has to bring to the table. I am interested in hearing what Jason has to say if he replys to your questions.

What seems somewhat childish to me is the same people that are standing up and saying they will still support Jason are the same people that are saying they are cutting ties to Lars for his endorsement of Saxton. I certainly wish Jason would recognize the mistake he is making and come out and say he is not in favor of the GWP program - but that is not likly to happen, so we'll see...

Boze Noze said...

Daniel, The "president's plan" you reference is dated 1-7-04! It is two years old. The plan has Changed, just like the Harriet Myers nomination. Bush heard the outcry and revised his position. Here is the current plan straight from the source:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

As Part Of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, The President Has Proposed
The Creation Of A New Temporary Worker Program. To match foreign workers
with American employers for jobs that no American is willing to take,
temporary workers will be able to register for legal status for a fixed
time period and then be required to return home. This plan meets the
needs of a growing economy, allows honest workers to provide for their
families while respecting the law, and relieves pressure on the border.
By reducing the flow of illegal immigrants, law enforcement can focus on
those who mean this country harm. To improve worksite enforcement, the
plan creates tamper-proof I.D. cards for every legal temporary worker.

A Temporary Worker Program Would Not Provide Amnesty. The program does
not create an automatic path to citizenship or provide amnesty. The
President opposes amnesty because rewarding those who break the law
would encourage more illegal entrants and increase pressure on the
border. A Temporary Worker Program, by contrast, would promote legal
immigration and decrease pressure on the border. The President supports
increasing the annual number of green cards, but for the sake of justice
and security, the President will not sign an immigration bill that
includes amnesty.

Vonski said...

"Is he now claiming that He didn't know the Guest Worker program is Amnesty? Jason didn't understand that Bush & McCain/Kennedy want all who are here, WORKING to STAY! A M N E S T Y"

I think rather that Jason took the President at his word when he said in November, "The program that I proposed would not create an automatic path to citizenship, it wouldn't provide for amnesty -- I oppose amnesty. Rewarding those who have broken the law would encourage others to break the law and keep pressure on our border."

Now, how much trouble would he be in with the Republican party if he said that he thought the President was a liar? I'm usually not one to promote my own site on someone else's, but I have Atkinson's latest press release posted. Hopefully Daniel will get around to reading it soon.

Allen said...

Alas poor Jason!

Ron Saxton has the Willamette Valley Vote pretty well sewed-up and Jason needs to land the rural AG folks vote to counter that huge advantage. Simple fact, most Valley people don't know who Jason Atkinson is but Ron Saxton is very familiar.

Jason's problem (issue) is the Ag folks really enjoy the cheap and plentiful labor benefit the Illegal Aliens provide. Hey, now they get to sleep-in and stay in a warm office as that hard field work is history.

Now, do you expect him to come out against Bush's Guest Worker Program and join those of us who want the border closed first and then consider a Guest Worker Program.

MAX Redline said...

LOL!

Sorry. Seems to me that this is just about disagreement. Good grief, Lars isn't evil or whatever. He has a business to run, and that business depends on ratings.

When he trots over to the national side and says things like "hey, I had to beat up on a friend of mine" and carries on as he has...well, my view is that he's just going for ratings. Why else would he go to the national venue and portray himself as a reluctant beater-upper?

Now, I enjoy listening to Lars - along with other talk radio. But I do think it's important to remember that Lars is in it for Lars. He's looking out for number one.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing; just that people should bear in mind that that's job 1.

Jeff said...

somehow, I always laugh at least once or twice when reading your posts. I love 'em!

Anyway, on a serious note: Why does it feel like republican candidates are forced to go one way or the other on the Presidents plan? I know illegals are, well, illegals...so that is black or what. however, the plan to deal with it is not that easy.

I continue to feel that jason is taking a stance that is realistic! It isn't realistic to round up the millions of illegals and ship them home. We have to find another way.

Thanks for your hard work, Daniel.

Daniel said...

Boze Noze, the paper is dated back then but the White House sent it out on Friday! They must think that it's current.

As for the plan that you outlined, what does it do with the 12 - 20 million criminal aliens here? Are they "guest workers?" Or are we brining additional workers from out of country for this program?

The disclaimer:
The program does
not create an automatic path to citizenship or provide amnesty.


So unless the path to citizenship is "automatic" it's not amnesty to the president. If the path to citizenship is available to criminal aliens currently here he doesn't see that as amnesty.

Vonski, the president isn't the be all and end all of the Republican party. Congressman Tancredo is now a celebrity when a few years ago Bush and co. couldn't stand him. (He is still no in favor with the white house, just the general American public)

You can frame it as Bush is a liar or you can frame it that Bush is playing word games.

Do you guys really think that the plan has changed since the issuance of this memo? (the one that was sent out ON FRIDAY) No, the plan on the white house site is just more vague.

Tony said...

Daniel,

I say keep it up. Jason's behavior pretty much sealed it for me.

I can't believe anyone who heard the show on Friday thinks this is about amnesty.

It is more about Atkinson's behavior and lack of ability to be tough under fire. Sure, I am bothered by his defense of hte indefensible, but I chalk that up to ignorance of the true nature of the President's plan.

But missing interviews, not bothering to call Lars back, getting emotional on the air because a talk show host says what you think misrepresents your position, these are not the makings of a governor.

Remember over on NW Republican, when Jack Roberts said Atkinson "could be a good statewide candidate some day (if he doesn't self-destruct first)"?

I think his prophecy has come true.

So Daniel, I hope you will stop worrying about clarification (for a third, fourth, fifth time) on illegal immigration and amnesty. Jason said his piece, Matt Evans wrote in and said he didn't think it was a big issue, so they have said what they think. I don't think other candidates would ever be given this much grace.

But rather, focus on the big picture. When you heard the show Friday, were you inspired to confidence and such by the person you heard arguing with Lars? Did that person sound gubernatorial to you?

If not, find another conservative to back. I suggest the one who is actually going to win the primary, but hey, to each his own. We are all adults here so make your own decision.

Tony said...

Oh..and one more thing. For Lars to back Ron Saxton, even if he was the last Republican in the race, is shameful and in my view says a lot about Larson's credibility.

If he doesn't like Mannix, so be it. Don't endorse anyone. But to endorse a liberal turncoat like Saxton is simply beyond the pale. Especially when he basically lied to Lars right on the air today (see my blog at www.radicallyright.blogspot.com for details).

Inexcusable.

Boze Noze said...

Daniel, I pulled that "plan" straight off the Whitehouse website yesterday. Who "sent out" that document on Friday? Please give me a source. Are you taking someone elses word that they recieved that on Friday? Lars' maybe? Lars probably recieved it on Friday but my guess is that it did not come from the Whitehouse but it came from one of your Anonymous posters.

Oregon Infidel said...

Atkinson is a politician. Pure and simple. And as such, his behavior as of late should not be suprising at all. As the race heats up, you should expect that he, and all the other candidates start flopping around the hot issues like a fish on the deck. the problem here is that there really is no better choice for Governor. I believe that I will vote for Jason, however I don't think that I will be at all shocked when he doesn't keep his campaign promises. He's a politician after all.

I am Coyote said...

This is not so hard.

The President has been lying about his immigration plan on oh so many levels.

Yet the President has also been lying about spying on Americans on oh so many levels.

He already has admitted that they were "wrong" about their WMD reasons for going to Iraq.

Yet I am sure that Lars has no problem falling lock step with Bush on the last two issues. Lars has also fallen in line with Saxton a proven liar as well.

So what is up with Lars? Why can't he be consistent?

I understand some discomfort over Jason's position. That is not the BIG issue. The big issue is how does Lars square his support for three very tenuous positions yet believe him on this ONE position that is so important?

Like leaning on a weak reed.

yip yip

Playin' Possum said...

HMMM... Duelling plans...

About nothing, since the president obviously has no real plan. Therefore your boy is neither guilty nor innocent of supporting the amnesty boogeyman. So this whole tempest fits nicely in a teacup...

As coyote points points out, GWB is a liar. That hardly needed pointing out, since being an accomplished, even inveterate liar is a prerequisite for success as President. The only honest President we have had in 45 years was Carter, and he was a failure...

So, what about these competing documents? first, throw out Boze's link: There are no specifics in it at all, the closest to specificity it comes being:

"A Temporary Worker Program Would Not Provide Amnesty. The program does not create an automatic path to citizenship or provide amnesty."

In the older version, the "trial balloon:"

[Amnesty] "rewards the undocumented population with an automatic path to citizenship." In this plan " The legal status would expire after 3 years (with the ability to be renewed). Temporary workers then must return home or apply for a green card under existing law,…The President’s proposal would not put temporary workers on the path to a green card, which permits holders to apply for citizenship after 5 years. However, it would not preclude a participant from obtaining green card status"...

Who is eligible? "UNDOCUMENTED MEN AND WOMEN NOW EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES and to those in foreign countries who have been offered employment here." [caps mine]

And to ice the cake? Coyote on an earlier string made the point families aren't eligible, only workers. WRONG! "Will the family members of aliens participating in the temporary worker program be able to live in the U.S. with the principal worker? YES.

The lesson? If you are a completely unscrupulous lying sonofabitch and therefore qualified to lead this Nation, and you want an unpopular thing, you simply call it something else.

So...

It isn't "amnesty" because the Liar-in-Chief says so. But the difference will only matter in the beltway. In the apple orchard, it is amnesty: An open ended invitation to bring your family and stay, in three-year increments. Realistically, there is no damn good reason for Pedro to ever become a citizen, since that requires effort.

And two more things: With mama in the country, there will be a bunch of little citizens on the way. And considering this Nation's attitude toward "the children," all of Pedro's other kids will get everything any other kid gets - just wait and see...

We're going to lose this one, boys. It only remains to be seen how the debacle is renamed to make the dummies in this land think it is a win... The rest of us will be overruled by the dummies.

Better to just move the border to Guatemala now and bring Mexico into the Union, before all the Mexicans end up with dual citizenship - because that's where we're heading.

Torrid said...

"To date I have never heard him disavow the plan in it's current form, disavow the plan that EVER single immigration reform group I know of says is amnesty."

Since that's two errors in one sentence, and that's the standard you've set for dismissing the writer's credibility...what were you saying, again?