Posted on 08/18/2007 4:06:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Correct, but inaccurate.
Mitchell took an equally hardline on enforcement but emphasized his support for giving legal status to the illegals and creating a guest worker program.
He effectively painted Hayworth and the GOP as being derelict because they refused to address the problem.
Hey! What about Schoolbus Nagin! (Just trying to be helpful)
Yeah, there are lots more guilty whites than there are Hillary voters.
In Massachusetts, which had elected RINO governors since 1990, a completely unqualified black man was elected in a landslide in 2006.
A very telling story appeared in the Boston Globe about two weeks before the election.
The wife of an unemployed union drywall guy was asked why she was voting for Patrick, since her husband was out of work because of illegal aliens and Patrick was strongly pro-illegal.
"Yes, I know", she said, "but he's so well-spoken".
There are lots of whites who would never vote for Hillary who are dreaming of a "magic Negro" to vote for - Obama may be just the guy to drag Hillary over the finish line.
No, Mitchell did what a lot of Dem candidates did to defuse the issue, i.e., they said they supported the WH/McCain position.
He effectively painted Hayworth and the GOP as being derelict because they refused to address the problem.
The GOP controlled House passed H R 4437, which JD said wasn't strong enough. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, i.e., S 2611, but the Senate Reps voted 32-23 AGAINST it.
The problem that the Reps faced was the WH, which provided the Dems cover. Immigration was not a defining issue in the Hayworth-Mitchell race, mainly because Mitchell was able to hide behind the WH and McCain. Scandal and redistricting were the main reasons Hayworth lost. I have a home in Scottsdale, which is why I am familiar with what happened.
*** As an African-American from Illinois ***
As the son of a Muslim man from Kenya
Fixed
Good fix. But I’m afraid it won’t hold.
I believe there is but someone can probably confirm or deny it with more authority than I. It places him in direct succession to the presidency and that is not allowed. Surely you’re not worried about it are you?
Even if Clinton wanted Obama on the ticket I can’t imagine why Obama would want to join. He wants to be president, and traditionally the vice-president slot has not been the road to the White House.
Yes. The real question to ask is whether he can function as VP... without having the title.
I disagree. Clinton does not own the anti-war left with her position on Iraq.
Obama gives her the anti-war crowd and negates any attempt by a third-party candidate.
Wrong for two reasons:
1) Obama brings the anti-war left that Clinton does not have. Go over to DU for proof of this.
2) Richardson is not needed as long as the Republican candidate takes a strong stand against illegal immigration. If McCain was the nominee, then Richardson would be needed to offset the appeal to illegals.
This has been hashed over numerous times here on FR. Bill Clinton is not eligible to be President, hence he cannot be VP.
As an unofficial advisor, Bill Clinton will have more freedom to work behind the scenes.
Neither has the office of US Senator.
Maybe not, but this is a distinction without a difference and its effect would be negligible. And I want to see this anti-war third party candidate before I get all excited about that.
-there is also the provision that both president and vp cannot be from the same state........oh, wait, you are speaking of the clintoons who don’t live together......
Of course he is.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
There are other ways to become President (other than by election), one of which is by succession.
The anti-war left is not going to abstain from voting for Mrs. Bill Clinton. They certainly did not abstain from voting for "moderate" Democrats in 2006 either. While they may whine loudly at the Democrat party for not cutting off funding for the war, they won't abandon Democrat party candidates at the polls.
Richardson is not needed as long as the Republican candidate takes a strong stand against illegal immigration.
I'm not quite sure how you make this connection. I think a lot of Hispanics who have never voted would be drawn strongly to a Clinton/Richardson ticket simply because Richardson is Hispanic.
Not as much, no. But 8 years as senator would be more fun than 8 years as second banana to Hillary Clinton. And if the ticket lost the 2012 election then he's toast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.