Hagan and Dole: A difference without much distinction?

Hagan, Dole put focus on illegals
Greensboro News & Record

Some of the loudest opening salvos of the U.S. Senate campaign have focused on illegal immigration, an emotionally charged issue that has been the subject of stalled legislative efforts at the federal and state levels.

Both Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the Republican incumbent running for a second term, and Kay Hagan, a Democratic state senator hoping to win a seat once occupied by Jesse Helms, have spoken about the need for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

"Most of us in the immigration movement were pretty cognizant that this would be one of the most contentious issues in the campaign and that it would not be in our favor," said Irene Godinez, advocacy director for El Pueblo, a group that lobbies on behalf of issues concerning the Latino community.

"It's unfortunate that they're looking pretty much at enforcement issues only," Godinez said of the candidates. "We know that enforcement only cannot work, just as amnesty only cannot work."

NC's problems have nothing to do with immigration. Our problems are the destruction of manufacturing (our jobs are in China), energy costs, deteriorating infrastructure, channeling public money into corporate pockets (Dell Computers quarter of a BILLION dollar bribe, er... "incentive"), health care, and education costs.

Illegal aliens are a WEDGE issue created by the racist wing of the GOP. And rather than state this obvious fact, our candidate seems to be on the same general side as the Republicans.

Hagan has tried to make the case that Dole is ineffective, even on points where they agree in principle. For example, Hagan said that she, too, would have voted against the 2007 immigration reform measure.

"The difference between them is Sen. Hagan wouldn't have voted no and then walked away from the table," said Hagan spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan, saying the Democrat would have worked to come up with an acceptable bill.

See what I mean? According to Hagan, Dole's failure was simply voting against the bill, rather than working to find something acceptable to the howling loons Dole represents.

"Quite honestly, it's an issue that very rarely gets brought up on the stump," Flanagan said.

Then why go to the trouble of "agreeing" with Dole that the bill should have been voted down?

The bill in question was pretty good, but the xenophobes running the GOP were agin it. Since the GOP hardliners would only support a bill more stringent than the one offered, Hagan is saying, in essence, she favored a more stringent bill.

Now maybe she has a different view, in which case I invite her to CLARIFY her position on this issue, and while she is at it, she can clarify her position vis-a-vis Pam Spaulding's questions.

There are only two reasons I can think of to oppose the bill as Hagan's claims she does. 1) She honestly thinks immigrants are a problem, in which case she is clueless and/or in the wrong party. 2) This is political chicanery where she is simply posturing for the rubes who support Dole, in which case she is playing people for chumps, which is just wrong on many levels.

Every time I hear her speak, or read a news story about her, I have premonitions of post election appearance on Fox news where she talks about her support of telco immunity and her opposition to "divisive" criminal investigations into the crimes of the Bush administration.

The November decision is shaping up to be one of choosing between a powerless Republican everyone ignores, or a conservative Democrat pushing the GOP agenda of corporations uber alles, scary brown people, fear, and heterosexual corrupting gays.

The impression I am getting from the Hagan camp is that our votes are in the bag, so there is no need to even address our existence. The attitude of some folks at BlueNC is that criticizing a candidate is not on, and I (and others who think as I do) should shut up and sing the loyalty song.

Not going to happen.

And no, I have no intention of voting for Dole.

Comments

If you honestly believe

The November decision is shaping up to be one of choosing between a powerless Republican everyone ignores, or a conservative Democrat pushing the GOP agenda of corporations uber alles, scary brown people, fear, and heterosexual corrupting gays.

that Liddy Dole is powerless, it reveals a major flaw in your understanding of Beltway politics. She is wielding more influence now than she ever has, and that's saying a lot. Even worse, she's doing most of it behind the scenes, which is why she appears to be powerless.

You have some issues with Kay, and I can understand that. I still have a few myself. But vigorously attacking her and trying to cast her as possibly even worse than Dole is not only incorrect, it's counterproductive to the goals you (probably) have.

And claiming you won't vote for Dole doesn't amount to much if your words cause others to vote for her or keep them at home on election day.

Hagan is the one moving Right

and agreeing with Dole, not me. With the GOP looking to lose about 6-10 seats in the senate in November, exactly what powers will Dole have?

Given the fact that she's hasn't done a bang up job recruiting senate candidates for her party, she not exactly loved by her own party at the moment.

If the choice is between a Lieberman Democrat and a powerless Republican, which serves the state better?

Do we seriously need another Democrat caving on FISA and voting to stay in Iraq?

The only thing worse than a Republican senator is a Democratic senator who helps the Republicans.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I think it's fine to offer constructive criticism

I think it's not only fine, but certainly within our rights to offer constructive criticism to Democratic candidates and/or their campaigns.

We all want to win but at what cost?

When Obama had a homophobe speak on his behalf, many of us spoke out against that. I think the fact that his campaign recieved enough feedback on that incident resulted in putting McClurkin on the back burner. I haven't seen him involved in the campaign since.

The fact is, candidates make mistakes. If their supporters do not voice their opinions and exercise their right to free speech, the candidates will be more likely to repeat the same mistakes.

As Democrats, we should embrace a diversity of opinion, we are not brownshirt Republicans who walk in lock step and have our ever word censored.

It is possible to support a candidate, pledge to vote for them, yet not agree with them on every issue.

NCDem Amy on YouTube

Obama has done something Hagan hasn't

and that is reach out and talk to the folks who took issue with his actions, either directly or through his surrogates.

So far, we've had a promise of such a thing, but not action, no time, no date.

I am perfectly willing to vote for a candidate I don't agree with, but I have to believe them. It has to be at least 50% for Christ's sake. Hagan's talks a good deal, but says damned little, and virtually nothing specific. What does come out is either ill-informed or right of center.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

The Party Matters

It's time for my periodic post about why a person's party counts so much.

It's been awhile since I read "Crashing the Gate", but the lesson that I took away is that the Democratic Party shouldn't be a bunch of single-issue interest groups, and that having a seat filled by a Democrat of any stripe is better than having the seat occupied by a Republican. The reason is that committee chairs, the routing of bills, the schedule, redistricting, etc. are determined by the majority party.

Paul Krugman had an astonishing column entitled Centrism is for Suckers last Aug 4th.

The take-away lesson from his column is this: "Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs."

I too am pretty dissappointed in Hagen's positions - and I plan to tell her so at the Democratic Party's State Convention this weekend - but I certainly plan to vote for her. She'd be like Heath Schuler - voting badly but essential to override vetoes, etc. Of course, we may not need to override many vetoes if we all work hard! ;-)

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
http://george.entenman.name

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name

"Crashing the Gate" was a book for 2006

Kos has definitely gone from wanting "more Democrats" to "better Democrats." I think that's a good point, regardless of which way a person leans re: this thread.

I ♥ NC General Statute § 163‑211.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Yes!

Of course, we may not need to override many vetoes if we all work hard! ;-)

Yes, yes, yes.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Unless some of our own

vote with the enemy to protect corporate interests.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

I'm not a single issue voter

I have quite a few issues that I am concerned about:

1) Not granting corporations amnesty for thousands of felonies.

2) Equal rights for gays and lesbians.

3) Hearings on secret prisons operated by the Bush administration.

4) War crimes investigation.

5) Prosecution of corporate war profiteers.

6) The removal of American troops from Iraqi soil by the end of 2009.

7) The review and revocation of all presidential orders signed by Bush.

8) The repeal of the last bankruptcy law.

9) The repeal of all tax breaks granted since 2001.

10) The establishment of a "Manhattan Project" for alternate energy sources.

11) An investigation into the negligence that resulted in the destruction of New Orleans.

12) The re-establishment of the media "fairness doctrine".

13) Hearings on media consolidation over the last two decades.

14) An investigation as to how Jeff Guckert (aka Gannon) got press credentials for over two years despite not belonging to any accredited media organization.

15) A new investigation into 9/11, this time with full public testimony UNDER OATH by Bush, Cheney and the rest of the parties involved.

16) Public hearings into the outing of Valerie Plame.

17) An investigation into the actions of the GOP in the 2000 election, including a review of the actions by Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas.

18) The appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of Ashcroft, Gonzalez and Mukasey.

19) An investigation into who authorized Pfizer to test drugs on our soldiers.

20) Public hearings on single-payer health care, with the proceedings opened by reading out the coverage that members of congress receive, how much they pay, and what their deductibles and co-pays are.

I can list a few dozen more, but I would love to hear Sen. Hagan's position on these.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.

Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.