South Carolina voters hit back at Graham

[Joe Republic]

Graham has no principles, he's just a sociopath and may be doing drugs.

Carl, you certainly do have a bizarre (and not to mention potentially slanderous) way of discrediting people you disagree with.

[MarkWarner08]

So, Carl, what's you beef with illegals?

Now, I would like to further elaborate on additional problems with illegal aliens.

First, identity theft.  Have you ever had to take the time to correct records where identity was stolen and it cost you a nice sum of money?  I have, and it was a time consuming process, occasioned by the act of an illegal alien.

Second, lets turn to criminal activities of illegal aliens, above and beyond illegally entering the country.

a. Motor vehicle theft.  A significant source of revenue for illegal aliens is to steal motor vehicles in Arizona and run them into Mexico.  Even if the Mexican cops end up with the vehicle, it will never be returned.

b. Drug smuggling.  One of the major ways that many illegal aliens pay their coyote is by smuggling illegal drugs into this country.  There is currently a major fight among the coyotes over who controls the drug smuggling into Arizona.

c. Violent crime.  If you want, I can give lots and lots and lots of cases.  Yes, I personally know many people who have been victims of such crimes.  Some of the instances really should be included in "strange but true."
 
Third, medical care.  The former Surgeon General (Richard Carmona) used to head the trauma unit at Tucson Medical Center.  It had to be shut down because of costs of treating illegal aliens.  So now patients in many instances have to be transported additional miles to a trauma center, thereby endangering their lives.

Fourth, taxes.  A large percentage of the school district, city, county and state government budgets go to cover the cost of illegal aliens (medical care, education and law enforcement).  Now, I can think of a lot of purposes that money could be spent on if we did not have the illegal aliens here.

Do you need more?

Carl, Let's begin with some basic refutations.

To your identity theft point, I cede this point to you because the stats back you up. If the U.S eased the guest worker process, fewer illegals would have to resort to such dangerous deceptions to enter America.

To your crime assertions, I direct you to this article which largely rebuts your spurious point that illegals are causing a crime wave in America: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109

To your medical point, I'd like to point out the main cause of the health care crisis in America is not illegals, but in fact, the rising cost of prescription drugs and the way insurance companies are systematically denying service to the poor.  Socialized medicine in countries like England and France has incurred massive deficits, but unlike the U.S, which spends the most on health care while getting the least of any industrialized nation, their systems work.

Here are some good articles that help rebut your final point about taxes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090&
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0321/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040415/news_1n15taxes.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

[MarkWarner08]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

Yes, you are full of tricks (among other things), but you really seem to be having problems dealing with reality.

First, the American economy is a "mixed" one, NOT "pluralistic," as you asserted.  Please learn the correct basic terms.

Second, to answer you question "Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good," the answer is NO!  You really should investigate reality. 

a. The Post Office is a byword for arrogant incompetence.  If it weren't a legal monopoly, it would probably go out of business.  We have organizations like UPS, FedEx, etc. because the Post Office is such a poor provider of services.

b. Many areas in Arizona take advantage of one of the most cost effective (private) fire departments in the United States called "Rural/Metro Fire Department. "

c. As to schools, my son attends a private school, which is much better than the government school he attended a couple of years ago.  Maybe you should consider attending a private school.

So, as anyone willing to look at reality, there is no need for socialism.

Third, with respect to the subject of income inquality, its extent and causes, well, that's an enormously complex subject which you do not seem to comprehend.  Perhaps in addition to starting a thread promoting socialism (which IS a dirty word), you might want to start one to discuss "Income inequality: Its Extent and Causes."

Fourth, would you please cite where I advocated "tarrifs"?

Fifth, I can think of many terms to describe the "Foreign Affairs" magazine, but "venerable" is not one of them. 

[MarkWarner08]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

So you agree with me? Great to see that you've released yourself from the yolk of intellectual oppression that is the CATO institute.

[Conan]

Interesting tempest, but I doubt it'll escape the teapot.  I don't see a credible primary challenger for Graham out there now, and there is zero chance there will be one unless this bill actually passes, which I doubt, at least in its current form.  Even then, the question is who would bell the cat?  The mice of the General Assembly have their own seats to run for and they can't run for both their current seat and Graham's under South Carolina law.  Even if Ravenel should prove to be innocent of his cocaine charges, that won't happen in time for him to break his pledge and run for Senate in 2008.  Beasley has his own baggage as he proved by his performance in his 2004 Senate run.  Maybe Andre Bauer will run against Graham, but he barely beat Campbell in the Lt. Gov. primary last year and then only because Campbell ran a poor campaign that convinced people the only reason he was running was because he was his father's son.  Graham's a proven campaigner and I doubt if the Kyle Busch of South Carolina politics can beat him.

It'll take a well funded millionaire outsider to defeat Graham in the primary and the well-funded millionaires mostly support this bill.

Whats Hodges position on abortion? He's still young and if he's moderate to conservative, and doesnt support the immigration bill, he can possibly give Graham a run. He probably doesnt have any written down position on the immigration bill either.

[MarkWarner08]

Interesting tempest, but I doubt it'll escape the teapot.  I don't see a credible primary challenger for Graham out there now, and there is zero chance there will be one unless this bill actually passes, which I doubt, at least in its current form.  Even then, the question is who would bell the cat?  The mice of the General Assembly have their own seats to run for and they can't run for both their current seat and Graham's under South Carolina law.  Even if Ravenel should prove to be innocent of his cocaine charges, that won't happen in time for him to break his pledge and run for Senate in 2008.  Beasley has his own baggage as he proved by his performance in his 2004 Senate run.  Maybe Andre Bauer will run against Graham, but he barely beat Campbell in the Lt. Gov. primary last year and then only because Campbell ran a poor campaign that convinced people the only reason he was running was because he was his father's son.  Graham's a proven campaigner and I doubt if the Kyle Busch of South Carolina politics can beat him.

It'll take a well funded millionaire outsider to defeat Graham in the primary and the well-funded millionaires mostly support this bill.

Whats Hodges position on abortion? He's still young and if he's moderate to conservative, and doesnt support the immigration bill, he can possibly give Graham a run. He probably doesnt have any written down position on the immigration bill either.

Hodges is running a successful consulting firm in Columbia, South Carolina. Unless Graham implodes, I'd doubt Hodges would run in a Presidential Election Year for a Federal office.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hodges is a Democrat, so he certainly would not compete against Graham in the primary.  As the Republican incumbent, things would need to be pretty bad for Graham to be at risk in the general election.  Hodges could probably make it a close race, but I doubt he could win it.

[Conan]

Hodges is a Democrat, so he certainly would not compete against Graham in the primary.  As the Republican incumbent, things would need to be pretty bad for Graham to be at risk in the general election.  Hodges could probably make it a close race, but I doubt he could win it.

I wasn't suggesting he would primary Graham. I know he's a dem. In the case that you're not even addressing me, I apologize.

[Kevin]

A Jim Webb type Democrat or a Harold Ford type one could give Graham a run for his money.

[Conan]

A Jim Webb type Democrat or a Harold Ford type one could give Graham a run for his money.

I know what you mean by Harold Ford type but I just want to put out there, that the candidate would have a better chance if they were white.

[Kevin]

A Jim Webb type Democrat or a Harold Ford type one could give Graham a run for his money.

I know what you mean by Harold Ford type but I just want to put out there, that the candidate would have a better chance if they were white.

I'm refering to a moderate to conservative Democrat, If you look at it also a Harold Ford type Democrat is more conservative then a Jim Webb type of Democrat, Also Harold Ford only lost because he responded in a poor and  immuture manner to that ad and Bob Corker's attacks.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You REALLY need to reread the article in the Arizona Daily Star that you cited.

Legal immigrants do have a low crime rate, illegal aliens do not.  Please do not try to confuse the two.

Also, I understand you favor socialism as the answer to all problems.  However, facts indicate that you are wrong here as well.

Why don't you start a thread where you promote socialism,

Oh, and BTW, as John Dibble if he can tell you who Ludwig von Mises was and tell you about the Mount Pelerin Society.  I was priviledged in my youth to meet and speak with the great man (I have a treasured autographed copy of one of his books) and have been also priviledged to talk with members of the society I mentikoned.

I have a question for you. Is the American economy capitalistic or socialistic? Trick question... it's a pluralistic system. Do you realize the schools, the post office, the fire department, the police etc are all institutions run for the public good, without a profit incentive? These tenets of American life are socialistic in nature. It's important to balance Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" with programs that cater to the basic needs of society.

The reason for the rise in income inequality include the decline in union membership (unions can restrict the supply of labor thus increasing the salaries), the rise of globalization, and the massive tax cuts for the rich which started with JFK. Is globalization bad for some workers? Yes. Has it helped America continue to grow at the fastest rate of any industrialized economy? Yes.  By incorporating socialist programs (free education) with aggressive job retraining programs, we can help American workers prepare for the future.

Socialism is not a dirty word, but neither is globalization.  Economic populists on both the left  (David Sirota) and the right (Pat Buchanan) ignore the positive virtues of globalization and instead seek temporary fixes such as a tariffs, which in fact backfire. Your efforts to restrict the flow of workers into America will hurt America's economy in the future. Just look to a recent article in the venerable Foreign Affairs which notes while the rest of the world is facing a future labor shortage, America, largely due to illegals from Mexico, will be able to continue to grow in the future.

So you agree with me? Great to see that you've released yourself from the yolk of intellectual oppression that is the CATO institute.

You really need to go back and reread my response.

[Conan]

A Jim Webb type Democrat or a Harold Ford type one could give Graham a run for his money.

I know what you mean by Harold Ford type but I just want to put out there, that the candidate would have a better chance if they were white.

I'm refering to a moderate to conservative Democrat, If you look at it also a Harold Ford type Democrat is more conservative then a Jim Webb type of Democrat, Also Harold Ford only lost because he responded in a poor and  immuture manner to that ad and Bob Corker's attacks.

I know what you mean pertaining to Ford. Jim Webb is essentially a liberal with a gun. He's not what I'd describe as moderate either. Would you agree with that?

[Kevin]

A Jim Webb type Democrat or a Harold Ford type one could give Graham a run for his money.

I know what you mean by Harold Ford type but I just want to put out there, that the candidate would have a better chance if they were white.

I'm refering to a moderate to conservative Democrat, If you look at it also a Harold Ford type Democrat is more conservative then a Jim Webb type of Democrat, Also Harold Ford only lost because he responded in a poor and  immuture manner to that ad and Bob Corker's attacks.

I know what you mean pertaining to Ford. Jim Webb is essentially a liberal with a gun. He's not what I'd describe as moderate either. Would you agree with that?

He is liberal,However he is the type of liberal who can relate to rural people and that helped him in some parts of Virginia other then NOVA. He also seems pretty effective so I think he we eventully get the same type of respect that John Warner has gotten from Virginians over the years.   

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Jim Webb path to winning elections is to run a mediocre campaign destined to lose by fifteen or twenty points, and then luck into your opponent saying something so mind-numbingly stupid that it throws you right into the game.

That's not exactly a formula that need be emulated: Any Democrat should have beaten George Allen last year.  Interesting that Webb almost didn't.

[Sam Spade]

The Jim Webb path to winning elections is to run a mediocre campaign destined to lose by fifteen or twenty points, and then luck into your opponent saying something so mind-numbingly stupid that it throws you right into the game.

That's not exactly a formula that need be emulated: Any Democrat should have beaten George Allen last year.  Interesting that Webb almost didn't.

Que?  Any Democrat would have beaten George Allen last year?  Especially Webb's primary opponent, who is so famous that I can't remember his name.

I can't agree with that.  Webb or any other Democrat wouldn't have topped 46-47% in the Democratic wave until the six-letter word incident happened.

That incident managed managed to pull his election numbers, which had been around the safe 55-57%, below 50% and he never recovered above that.

Sure, Webb would have moved from his post-primary numbers of 35% to to the low 40% eventually by merely consolidating partisans around him.  But the move above 46-47% only happened b/c of 'macaca' and every other Democrat (save maybe Mark Warner) would have been in the same boat, possibly worse.

Webb underperformed slightly in NoVA, but severely overperformed in SW VA (and rural Virginia generally).  I doubt any other Dem would have been able to make up those numbers Webb gained in NoVA.

I am also not saying that Webb ran the greatest campaing in the world (far from it).  But saying that Allen was toast w/o 'macaca' or definitely toast against some other candidate w/'macaca' is simply wrong, IMHO, through what the polling said.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Jim Webb path to winning elections is to run a mediocre campaign destined to lose by fifteen or twenty points, and then luck into your opponent saying something so mind-numbingly stupid that it throws you right into the game.

That's not exactly a formula that need be emulated: Any Democrat should have beaten George Allen last year.  Interesting that Webb almost didn't.

Que?  Any Democrat would have beaten George Allen last year?  Especially Webb's primary opponent, who is so famous that I can't remember his name.

I can't agree with that.  Webb or any other Democrat wouldn't have topped 46-47% in the Democratic wave until the six-letter word incident happened.

That incident managed managed to pull his election numbers, which had been around the safe 55-57%, below 50% and he never recovered above that.

Sure, Webb would have moved from his post-primary numbers of 35% to to the low 40% eventually by merely consolidating partisans around him.  But the move above 46-47% only happened b/c of 'macaca' and every other Democrat (save maybe Mark Warner) would have been in the same boat, possibly worse.

Webb underperformed slightly in NoVA, but severely overperformed in SW VA (and rural Virginia generally).  I doubt any other Dem would have been able to make up those numbers Webb gained in NoVA.

I am also not saying that Webb ran the greatest campaing in the world (far from it).  But saying that Allen was toast w/o 'macaca' or definitely toast against some other candidate w/'macaca' is simply wrong, IMHO, through what the polling said.

Re-read what I wrote, and then kick yourself for wasting your time on that lengthy counter response.