Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Video: Immigration Impacts Ohio District 1

Chris and Jim talk about how the immigration issue is impacting the Ohio District 1 campaign and wrap up Day 6 of the Ohio River Ramble. On Tuesday the Ramble trio will be in Ohio District 18.

Click on the image below to watch.

(Video by washingtonpost.com's Chet Rhodes).

By Chet Rhodes  |  September 25, 2006; 9:01 PM ET
Categories:  Ohio River Ramble  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Touring Congressional Campaign HQs
Next: Politics and the Price of Gas

Comments

"Immigrants don't create demand?"

Uh, what? Increased labor pool for so-called "unskilled" (or any other) presses down wages. If you are talking about consumer demand, no.

"We could drive up wages by purging the disabled and elderly from the workforce as well."

Besides being a an irrelevant analogy I don't think the disabled and elderly are a big part of the workforce.

"Or we could expel all the undocumented immigrants (of course we couldn't really, but as long as we're pretending...)"

George Bush's line. Then he admits he expelled over five million. Ignorance = strength.

"and employers could get back to pitting blacks against whites."

Ah yes, a recognition of my argument casting a distraction about what someone will do in the future based on your prior prejudices.

"I've got all sorts of ideas what we could do if the only ethic were the laws of supply and demand."


By gosh you must be Karl Rove! A brilliant appeal to the dilletanteish identity politics of rich white liberals mixed rightwing libertarian circumlocutions about economics.

Nah, I think you're just another sucker. Too bad.

If you are Karl, I congratulate you how you stampeded the Democrats into "comprehensive" reform, giving them the bogeyman of "conservatives" as the barrier to truth, justice and the American way. Left those union leaders gasping "Hey, we didn't agree to extra worker programs! Just the amnesty! We had a fantasy if we agreed to amnesty we would increase our memberships and the honorable Bush wouldn't still cut wages be non-enforcement of immigration laws!"


Posted by: Joe | September 26, 2006 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Immigrants don't create demand?

We could drive up wages by purging the disabled and elderly from the workforce as well. Or we could expel all the undocumented immigrants (of course we couldn't really, but as long as we're pretending...) and employers could get back to pitting blacks against whites.

I've got all sorts of ideas what we could do if the only ethic were the laws of supply and demand.

Posted by: Union in Cinti | September 26, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Again, SEIU, the Carpenters, the Laborers, the UFCW, UNITE-HERE, the list goes on and on are active in pressing for comprehensive immigration reform. Please, gentelmen, drop the easy, unattributed throw-away line and do some basic research. Stop misrepresenting the position of labor."

Shows how the union elites are united with management these days. Some are just fatalists thinking they have to accept this because much of the Democrat party has joined the wage depression lobbies.

Just think for a moment and say to yourself "Why am I allied with George Bush?"

Posted by: Joe | September 26, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"The position of organized labor is to support comprehensive immigration reform."

Lockstep with George W. Bush.

Dude, who are the lobbies behind this? They want to increase profits be depressing wages they have to pay more. It's very simple. They're not spending money to lose money. Drop the lefty-lib indentity bagage and get down to supply and demand.

The Democrat party is alienated from the people, concerned with only uppermiddle class white issues.

Posted by: Joe | September 26, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

You're still claiming that immigrant bashing appeals to unions in Cincinnati!

While I'm sure you can find union members here and there for whom this might be true, it is simply not, on balance, true of organized labor that we're blaming immigrants for low wages and clamoring for mass deportations. The position of organized labor is to support comprehensive immigration reform. Dividing and demonizing workers does not appeal to us. This is all as true in Cincinnati as anywhere else.

Again, SEIU, the Carpenters, the Laborers, the UFCW, UNITE-HERE, the list goes on and on are active in pressing for comprehensive immigration reform. Please, gentelmen, drop the easy, unattributed throw-away line and do some basic research. Stop misrepresenting the position of labor.

Posted by: Union in Cinti | September 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Bush's Own Church Has Called For The Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq

United Methodist Church leaders helped launch a week of protest and civil disobedience against the war in Iraq by signing a declaration of peace in the capital, urging President Bush to pull US troops out of the country.
The Declaration of Peace, signed on 21 September 2006, is described as a call for nonviolent action to end the war in Iraq. The Washington DC event was one of 350 staged nationwide to promote the peace initiative.

More than 500 groups, almost half of them faith organizations, are involved in the declaration of peace effort, which recently retired Bishop Susan Morrison said includes "acts of moral witness to seek a new course for our country."

By signing the peace document in front of the White House, the United Methodists and other protesters also hope to influence congressional races in November 2006 by forcing candidates to outline where they stand on the war.
Speakers at the Washington DC rally accusing the President of lying about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and launching what they called an illegal offensive.

"Our demand as a movement is to end the war now," said Bishop Morrison. The declaration calls the situation in Iraq "an endless fire consuming lives, resources and the fragile possibilities of peace."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann:

And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton's interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President's "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation's "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit. Nonetheless.

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.


"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration... did... not... try.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm not saying that immigration does not have an impact, but in terms of what is really going to affect this country long term, I think the fact that we're managing to lose two wars simultaneously, gut our military, burn the Consitution, and spend 300 million dollars a day doing it, well, I think that's going to hurt us, big time, don't you? What will be left standing in the wreckage of this couuntry when this katrina of an administration, this nightmare of incompetence and destruction, is finally over?

'Not long after NEWSWEEK's visit, U.S. and Afghan National Army forces launched a major attack to dislodge the Taliban from Ghazni and four neighboring provinces. But when NEWSWEEK returned in mid-September, Sabir's fighters were back, performing their afternoon prayers. It is an all too familiar story. Ridge by ridge and valley by valley, the religious zealots who harbored Osama bin Laden before 9/11--and who suffered devastating losses in the U.S. invasion that began five years ago next week--are surging back into the country's center. In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.'

Posted by: drindl | September 26, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

From a fomer neocon's website. It's time for anyone who genuinely cares about national security to realize that Rumsfled is destroying our military:

'Rumsfeld is at war - with the U.S. Army
Now, even his hand-picked successor as Army Chief of Staff is in open revolt. This is way beyond partisan politics, comrades. I'm struggling for less strident tone, but can't get there. Rumsfeld and Bush are showing terrible disrespect for, and are damaging our military.

Here's the latest. General Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, has refused to submit a budget.

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.'

Posted by: drindl | September 26, 2006 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the gulag. We're now on track to allow Dear Leader the ability to whimsically, capriciously, declare anyone he chooses [even an american citizen] as 'the enemy' ... to be held indefinitely, secretly, to be tortured to death, or to be 'tried' in a kangaroo court without a lawyer, without seeing the 'evidence,' without recourse or appeal.

We have squandered our greatest gift -- the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Consitution -- because we became too lazy and fearful and complacent. Because we put too much trust in big government, and now anyone who protests can be crushed. This is not America. This is a kafkaesque nightmare.

'The Bush administration, supported by House allies, has slipped a small but important change into last week's "compromise" bill on terror suspects, the Post reports. The earlier bill, worked out in negotiations with restive Senate Republicans, defined enemy combatants as those who have "engaged in hostilities," but the latest draft legislation expands the definition to include those who have "supported hostilities." The new language could boost the administration's contention that it can designate virtually anyone an enemy combatant; the Post notes it "does not rule out the possibility" that the designation could be applied to a U.S. citizen.'

Posted by: drindl | September 26, 2006 7:55 AM | Report abuse

So we immigrants can actually regulate the salary rates in the US? let's all ask for a raise today!

Posted by: Carlos Quiroz | September 26, 2006 6:13 AM | Report abuse

True enough ... the immigration issue has become a wedge everywhere.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | September 25, 2006 10:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company