It seems that the lines get crossed more easily each day. The picture on the right is taken from the server of Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC.
(NOTE 6/21/06): This graphic was on the site according to the Deseret News article I linked to below.
The Team America political action committee removed from its Web site a picture of Cannon with a target over his face.Message to Tancredo: Trying to hide your graphic doesn't change the fact it got put up in the first place.)
This is just unacceptable. I'm sorry, but in this day and age, this is beyond the line, particularly when some have already fired off incendiary rhetoric (like "Quislings" or "agents of Mexico").
This, of course, gets ignored. So does this gem from Cannon's primary challenger (and Tancredo endorsee):
"Chris can't have it both ways," Jacob told KSL-TV. "He can be on the president's side, or he can be on the side that's against illegal immigration."Where to begin? First, John Jacob has just accused President George W. Bush of supporting illegal immigration.
In an early morning debate on KCPW 1010 AM, Jacob said to Cannon, "You've been on the side with the president. You've rubber-stamped his ideas, he's coming out to support you, so if you win, you'll stay on that side."
Shall we look at what the President actually said in his speech on immigration? Here:
First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.Does this sound like support of illegal immigration to you? It does not seem like that to me. If anything, he is opposed to illegal immigration... the problem is that his solutions are not the solutions of hard-liners.
In other words, John Jacob has misrepresented the position of the President of the United States on this issue in order to win the primary for the Republican nomination for the seat representing that district in the House of Representatives. That's called lying - and by doing so, he has shown the ultimate disrespect for those he seeks to represent.
Yet, this goes on from opponents of the President's plan - one largely reflected in the Senate bill. They have claimed it is an amnesty that rewards lawbreakers. But a look at the facts shows otherwise. There is a fine levied and a requirement to pay back taxes (at least $3,250 according to MSNBC), not to mention the fact that if they do misbehave (get convicted of one felony or three misdemeanors), they are gone. In essence, the Senate bill involves an admission of being here illegally (a guilty plea) - and in return for coming forward willingly, they are given a lesser sentence (fines/restitution and probation).
That's not amnesty, that is a plea-bargain. But the opponents of the Senate bill seem to think they cannot win the debate if that is how it is perceived. So they claim it is an amnesty. One look at the dictionary, shows that the term does not apply to the Senate bill. These opponents are misrepresenting the Senate bill in order to defeat it. Merely because the punishment is not severe enough in their minds.
It brings to mind the time when Bill Clinton and the Democrats found themselves facing off with Republicans over Medicare reform. In an effort to keep Medicare from going bankrupt, Republicans wanted to hold the rate of increase to twice the rate of inflation as opposed to three times the rate of inflation. But the Democrats couldn't say, "The Republicans aren't increasing spending enough" - it just wouldn't sell. So they claimed the Republicans were cutting Medicare spending. It was a lie - and it worked well enough. Bill Clinton got re-elected.
Are conservatives willing to sink to Clintonian tactics for short-term political gain? If so, then it speaks very poorly for their worthiness to run this country.