Thursday, March 22, 2007

Deport him for so many reasons

From liberal rag "The Nation"

McCain? Hagel? No, Gordon Smith Emerges As GOP Maverick
If you are looking for a maverick Republican in the Senate, consider Oregon Senator Gordon Smith.

Republicans were furious with the senator. Democrats were delighted on one hand – it is always good to have a member of the president's party unleash on the White House – but frustrated on another, since Smith poke at the president made it harder dismiss him as "just another Republican" going into the 2008 election season.

When the Senate voted on a plan advanced by Senate Democratic leaders to try and begin a troop withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days in Iraq – with a goal of getting all U.S. troops out by March 2008 – Smith was the sole Republican to cast an anti-war vote.

It's always bad when the folks who defend communist spies are trumpeting for a Republican senator. It should be embarrassing for the Oregon GOP, though not quite as embarrassing as when we had Packwood, to have Gordon Smith being the liberal darling.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

you and your freinds need to start a party of your own so you won't have to bash fellow republicans.

RINO WATCH said...

Good grab Daniel!

We have another cut & runner in Oregon House...Brian Boquist

Anonymous said...

Received a request in the mail from Smith asking for money......it went in the garbage.
Sue

Anonymous said...

I suggest you go to Salem and tell Brian Boquist to his face that he is a "cut and runner," and then shut your fool mouth and listen to him tell you a thing or two.

Anonymous said...

I think I will open a Fiddle String concession in the State Capitol Building.

As reported on TV news, Gresham claims to have 114 gangs and our legislature is working on free passes for queers.

Shouldn't we have minimum standards for Cake frosting thickness?

Scottiebill said...

Smith should make the move to the Democrap party now and be done with it, thereby letting a true Republican run in his place next year.

Anonymous said...

Communist spies? It's nice to know that Daniel is not above libel.

Bobkatt said...

Why all illegals are thieves.

Anonymous said...

I am not in agreement with the politics of "The Nation," but in terms of intelligence, insight and literacy, it is 1,000,000 times better than this shitty blog.

Bobkatt said...

Invasive species are infiltrators that invade and cause harm to ecosystems beyond their historic range. Their invasion can threaten native ecosystems or commercial, agricultural, or recreational activities dependent on these ecosystems. They may even harm the health of humans. Human actions, both unintentional and intentional, are the primary means of invasive species introductions and spread to new locations."
Yeah, plants can be harmful too!

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:22 PM,

And yet not only did you read it you also posted on it. hmmmm makes you wonder huh?

Deb

Anonymous said...

Heard today of a counter-protest, 500-1000 vets, bikers marching with a permit...on a Friday, same route, burning the Portland city council in effigy.

Can Smith be included?

Burn a US soldier in effigy, not on my watch!

Anonymous said...

I strongly suggest Craige McMillan read Clash of Civilization on top of the instantaneous rebuttals written in response to Clash of Civilization before he writes such a stupid article again.

bjdorr said...

Bobkatt, thank you for sharing that link, "Why all illegals are theives."

Illegal immigrants come here to commit crimes and make our lives miserable.

Anonymous said...

Congrats to Smith for actually having balls.

Anonymous said...

>>> Illegal immigrants come here to commit crimes and make our lives miserable. <<<

Bullshit. Objectively false. It's all or nothing with you guys. 'They're all rapists, drug runners, etc.' Absolutely no room in the right-wing "mind" for shades of grey, nuance and the actual complexities of life.

Truly amazing. There is a long tradition in history of human beings skirting the rules, bucking authority and defying the system so they can survive and live a better life. Does anyone recall that the American revolutionaries were also "criminals"? In so many cases, people like this are revered, worshipped, hailed as heroes. And yet when poor people risk their lives to cross the border into a place their ancestors once lived so they can pick goddamned fruit off the trees, you guys just take great joy in shitting all over them and demonizing them. Not just the ones who fuck up, but ALL of them, including their innocent children. Disgusting. Shame on you. You'll share a place in the history books with some repugnant characters.

Anonymous said...

Them in the history books? Isn't that giving them a little too much credit?

BEAR said...

Apparently anon 6:53 doesn't understand the word illegal. His depiction of the "noble" criminal is LOL!

BEAR said...

Apparently anon 6:53 doesn't understand the word illegal. His depiction of the "noble" criminal is LOL!

BEAR said...

Worth saying twice...LOL!

Daniel said...

They are called illegal aliens for a reason!

bjdorr said...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of the word "illegal":

Main Entry: (2) illegal
Function: noun
: an illegal immigrant


Good grief, and all this time I'm typing the whole word "illegal immigrant!"

Okay, here's the definition to "illegal":

Main Entry: (1) il·le·gal
Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'lE-g&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal
: not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)


Oh yes, "Unlawful":

Main Entry: un·law·ful
Pronunciation: "&n-'lo-f&l
Function: adjective
1 : not lawful : ILLEGAL
2 : not morally right or conventional
- un·law·ful·ly /-f(&-)lE/ adverb
- un·law·ful·ness /-f&l-n&s/ noun


(Pardon the pronunciation keys that don't come out right in the text)

bjdorr said...

I need to train my brain to say "illegal aliens." Grrr!

a curious thinker said...

Legality? Daniel, the canard of legality is often lost among those who can see past such a superficial label. What is legality based on? Is it based on the moral beliefs of others?

If this is the case, should we be subject to the personal opinion of others?

Is the adherence to the personal opinion of others necessary for the stability of a state? And if so, what is it about the personal opinion of others that somehow leads to the supposed stability of a state? Is it a superior sense of logical thinking? Or is it the supposed "divination" of the person's moral convictions based on misinterpretations of an ancient religious text?

Your supposed syllogistic link between morality and legality is lacking, less I have misunderstood your logic. But if it is as I think it is, it is impossible for you to accurately link legality with morality. Therefore, the credibility of your claims on the "legality " of illegal immigrants is lost on the average voter, least of all me. Ironically, your claims of "legality" were your strongest arguments against illegal immigration.

Anonymous said...

Curious thinker .. good question. You probably lost Daniel when you used the word "syllogistic," but I follow you.

OregonianInDC said...

Evening all...thought I'd share for the conversation:

Smith a Target With No Apparent Foe
March 15, 2007
By David M. Drucker,
Roll Call Staff
---------
Democrats already have begun targeting Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) — and the state’s Democratic leanings support the logic of their efforts. But Democrats have yet to find the one thing they need to take down the GOP incumbent: a willing challenger.
Thus far, one candidate high on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s wish list, Rep. Peter DeFazio, is insisting a 2008 Senate run is off the table, with ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber, state Treasurer Randall Edwards and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo also ruling out a bid. Meanwhile, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, another much-discussed possibility, is hedging, saying he’ll decide around Labor Day.

Other names also have been thrown around, but other than that of veteran Democratic activist Steve Novick, none publicly have committed even to explore a run at Smith, who had $2.2 million in cash on hand to close 2006 and is ready for combat “if it comes to that,” according to John Easton, Smith’s chief of staff.

“The Senator has never taken the seat for granted, and just like 2002, we are very prepared for re-election,” Easton said. “Certainly, in the category of grass-roots infrastructure, money and staff, we are ready for a fight.”

Democrats believe the Senator’s re-election is in serious peril.

The DSCC already has run newspaper ads in the state’s largest newspaper, The Oregonian, lambasting Smith on Iraq, which Democrats believe could be his biggest albatross in the 2008 race. Although Smith recently has been quite critical of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, Democrats believe his prior support for the effort will trump his latest position.

“Iraq is his biggest vulnerability,” said a Democratic operative based in Washington, D.C.

Lisa Grove, a Democratic pollster based in Portland, Ore., said Smith’s favorability ratings are decent. But she was quick to add that his job approval numbers are low and underscored that voters aren’t going to elect Smith to a third term just because they like him.

Oregon voters lean left and often exhibit a populist streak, with a significant bloc of independent voters figuring prominently in statewide elections. Democrats believe Smith has been far too cozy with corporate interests for Oregon voters’ taste, and — beyond the Iraq issue — say Smith’s overall record will prompt the electorate to break with him.

Grove believes DeFazio, Blumenauer and Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.), among others, would all give Smith a formidable challenge. She said it would be preferable for Democrats to find a candidate “sooner rather than later,” but she noted that the cost of running an effective Senate race in Oregon is not so expensive that the party’s chances would be hurt by a late-entering candidate.

“We are not Ohio or California in terms of what it costs to run. It’s going to take a lot of money to do this, but not in proportion to other states,” Grove said.

Democrats may be disadvantaged by not already having an announced candidate. But some party strategists note that now-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) didn’t jump into the 2006 Senate race until late summer 2005 but still managed to raise the money and create the campaign operation she needed to oust incumbent Sen. Jim Talent (R).

Bob Moore, Smith’s Portland-based pollster, said Democrats are underestimating the Republican incumbent.

Smith outperformed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole (R) in the 1996 presidential election that saw President Bill Clinton win re-election by a landslide, beating his Democratic opponent by 4 points. The Senator outpaced the GOP standard-bearer at the top of the ticket again in 2002, receiving significantly more votes than the GOP gubernatorial nominee as he trounced his Democratic challenger by 16 points.

Moore said a repeat of last year’s poisonous political environment is a concern for any Republican in a blue state — including Smith. But with a solid record on constituent services and some long-held left-of-center views on certain issues, Moore said a Democrat is unlikely to oust Smith based on who he is and how he’s voted in Congress.

“Gordon Smith is pretty popular in Oregon,” Moore said. “You could throw a Democrat head-to-head against him, and he’ll beat him.”

Smith’s recent support of Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s (D) proposal to raise the state cigarette tax was fodder for Democrats wondering if the Republican might get himself in trouble with the GOP base. But Smith is a longtime proponent of taxing cigarettes, so this move is unlikely to be seen as the kind of swerve to the left that will anger Republican voters, Easton said.

However, one subject that could cause trouble for Smith among Republican voters is Iraq.

By so publicly rebuking Bush, as he did in a speech on the Senate floor just after the 2006 elections, he ran the risk of alienating the GOP base, many of whom support the president’s overall policy on Iraq even if they are unhappy with how the war has been handled.

But according to Easton, Smith was well-received by Republicans at a recent gathering of GOP activists — the largest such convention of Oregon Republicans to meet each year. In a speech to the gathering, Smith explained his Iraq position.

Easton said that went a long way toward smoothing things over with Republican activists who had been concerned by the Senator’s pointed criticism of the president.

As for the Democrats, they are continuing to look for a candidate.

DSCC spokesman Matt Miller declined to discuss the committee’s effort on that front, but he said DSCC Chairman and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) was engaged in a concerted push to find a challenger for Smith.

“C’mon. Sen. Schumer lie dormant?” Miller said. “At this point we’re just not ready to talk about it.”

R Huse said...

Gotta love the racism of some who comment on the various reasons why its morally justified to violate immigration laws.

Could someone please explain to me how, by virtue of crossing the border illegally, that automatically establishes that ones ancestors lived in this country?

I guess it starts with the basic notion that "oh well, all those people south of the Rio Grande are kinda all the same". How the hell does the fact that you were born south of the border establish any sort of ancestral heritage in the US?

Anonymous said...

"I guess it starts with the basic notion that "oh well, all those people south of the Rio Grande are kinda all the same". How the hell does the fact that you were born south of the border establish any sort of ancestral heritage in the US?"

R Huse, I am surprised. Even for you, the above is completely absurd if not a product of pure stupidity. Family trees and ancestor's records are enough to prove who lived where when, and to what nationality they belonged to. Racism my ass.

Anonymous said...

Genocide is also called a war crime for a reason.

Bobkatt said...

anon 6:53: Does anyone recall that the American revolutionaries were also "criminals"?
There is no moral equivalent between the American revolutionaries and the illegal aliens. At the time of our independence we were operating under REX LEX, the King is law. Today we are operating under LEX REX, the law is king. Our founders debated endlessly before they chose the route they did. They attempted to obtain from the king the freedoms and protection and living conditions they deemed necessary through dialog and agreements to end their tyranny but found that impossible. The result of this action created the foundation for this country to develop into the great prosperous nation that has become the single most magnet of the world for people yearning to be a part of that dream.
Rather than forcing their way into our heritage the illegals need to follow the examples of our founders and demand from their own government the opportunity to share in the great national wealth that is Mexico. To allow millions of illegals to come here and stay only exacerbates the problem and enables their government to continue to oppress its own people.

I am Coyote said...

Well now there is the possibility of a Republican opponent.

yip hmmm yip

R Huse said...

Anonymous, thank you for calling my argument stupid and then saying essentially the same thing as I did.

You are entirely right, what establishes ancestry is records and family trees. CORRECT!

What does not establish ancestry is the fact that someone crossed a river, which is what I said.

If you are going to claim that everyone who crosses the Rio Grande has ancestry here, without seeing any sort of records but based upon physical appearance, that is in fact the definition of racism.

Got it?

Anonymous said...

In America, the King is a lawbreaker.

Robert said...

Bobkat..

Then you would have to agree that much of the settling of the west was an illegal act. In fact, given that the Senate never ratified a treat with the Clatsop Indians, most of us in the West Columbia and North Willmette River basins are illegal immigrants.

eddie said...

I'm tired of this "ancestors once lived here" garbage...

Look up the history... the real history... not a fairy tale made up by racial supremacists from a race that's not a race but a common skin tone of a mixed heritage.

Spanish missionaries planted missions up and down California... the land was divided up into ridiculously large parcels and handed out to Spanish nobility as ranchos. There were fewer than 40 ranchos in Southern California (the most densely used land). Settlers from the United States territories were encouraged to move to the west, to help develop the land. Eventually, when Spain relinquished control, California voted to join the Union rather than Mexico. Upon entering the Union, the residents all received citizenship... Contrary to what some folks seem to believe these days, the immigrants are not descendants of people who once lived north of the border.

Furthermore, if you take a survey of agricultural workers... especially the fruit pickers... you'll find virtually all of them have migrant papers. They're NOT illegals... the illegals are in the cities, doing jobs that Americans would do, if they didn't have to compete with low, under the table wages.

You think a requirement of actually getting approved to live here is evil and unfair? Where on Earth does anyone else allow that? Do you think you can waltz into France and get a house and stay forever? How about Norway? no?

Hey, here's a funny one, you can't even move into Mexico and stay legally on a whim.

Is there some problem with trying to limit immigration to the MILLION plus people a year that our government actually approves?

eddie said...

I'm tired of this "ancestors once lived here" garbage...

Look up the history... the real history... not a fairy tale made up by racial supremacists from a race that's not a race but a common skin tone of a mixed heritage.

Spanish missionaries planted missions up and down California... the land was divided up into ridiculously large parcels and handed out to Spanish nobility as ranchos. There were fewer than 40 ranchos in Southern California (the most densely used land). Settlers from the United States territories were encouraged to move to the west, to help develop the land. Eventually, when Spain relinquished control, California voted to join the Union rather than Mexico. Upon entering the Union, the residents all received citizenship... Contrary to what some folks seem to believe these days, the immigrants are not descendants of people who once lived north of the border.

Furthermore, if you take a survey of agricultural workers... especially the fruit pickers... you'll find virtually all of them have migrant papers. They're NOT illegals... the illegals are in the cities, doing jobs that Americans would do, if they didn't have to compete with low, under the table wages.

You think a requirement of actually getting approved to live here is evil and unfair? Where on Earth does anyone else allow that? Do you think you can waltz into France and get a house and stay forever? How about Norway? no?

Hey, here's a funny one, you can't even move into Mexico and stay legally on a whim.

Is there some problem with trying to limit immigration to the MILLION plus people a year that our government actually approves?