June 3, 2007

Shadegg: Let's Keep It Civil

John Shadegg, one of Arizona's conservative Congressmen, writes about his opposition to the proposed comprehensive immigration bill in today's Arizona Republic. As he outlines the reasons for his unhappiness with the bill, he warns Republicans on all sides to tone down the emotion:

The recent personal attacks leveled at Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl are inappropriate and counterproductive. It is appropriate for any of us to express our views on the merits or flaws of any proposed legislation. However, personal attacks or challenges of individuals' honor or patriotism are unbecoming and out of place, especially on issues of such magnitude.

At the same time, the criticism by President Bush and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez of those who disagree with them are equally inappropriate and counterproductive and only serve to further divide the nation on this issue.

President Bush's comment that those who disagree with the bill “don't want to do what's right for America” was intemperate and offensive. He presumptuously asserted that anyone who does not support the bill hasn't read it.

I think that Republicans and conservatives need to take a deep breath. Shadegg structures his opposition in a rational and sensible manner -- by explaining the actual deficiencies in the bill, rather than lashing out at the authors. Shadegg objects to the probationary Z-visa, the disparity in treatment between illegals and guest workers, and the loose restrictions on qualifications for normalization, all of which are valid and serious concerns with this bill.

We cannot afford to keep up the namecalling that this proposal has generated. Regardless of what one thinks about this bill, the fact is that Jon Kyl has been a good friend to conservatives in his political career. John McCain has had his self-inflicted troubles with conservatives, and many in the party refuse to even consider him for the presidency. However, McCain has served his country in a manner that few have, and has for the most part supported conservative causes. Neither man deserves the vilification that has come their way over the last two weeks.

George Bush and Lindsay Graham should learn that lesson, too. While McCain took pains in my interview to express understanding and sympathy with conservatives who do not trust Congress, Bush and Graham spent their time accusing the bill's opponents of either being unpatriotic or bigoted. They need to take a deep breath as well, and apologize for the personal attacks on the party's core supporters.

If we are to advance the cause of conservatism, we need men like Jon Kyl and the party'sbase to work together. We need to end the namecalling, debate rationally, and then work together for real solutions to the problems of immigration and border security.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shadegg: Let's Keep It Civil:

» Thoughtful posts on the immigration issue from Sister Toldjah
As we all know, the debate over the immigration bill has become a highly contentious one, so much so that Republicans are battling Republicans on the issue to the point where it almost seems like the bill can’t be discussed rationally. There are... [Read More]

» That giant sucking sound you hear is the blogosphere, folks. from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
CoComment tells me I am hating the blogosphere I dunno, maybe I need to take a break from other blogs again so my crankiness will dissipate. ;-) Just a sample from last night– At Sister Toldjah’s post about immigration: To see conservative... [Read More]

» Minutemen: Bush’s instincts better than some from The Anchoress
Traitorous Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman have penned a piece in support of the current illegal immigration bill. I know, I know, they’re Bushies and not to be trusted, but I’m putting it out there for you to read, if you haven’t already. ... [Read More]

Comments (39)

Posted by Tom Shipley | June 3, 2007 6:13 PM

However, personal attacks or challenges of individuals' honor or patriotism are unbecoming and out of place, especially on issues of such magnitude.

This how segements of the right have been operating for the past 6 years. Now that you're turning on each other, you see how odorous it is.

Posted by BD | June 3, 2007 6:27 PM

blah, blah, blah ... it's lovely to be lectured about civility by the left. The appropriate response:

"Physician, heal thyself."

Shadegg's right that we should debate this on the merits, not by attacking motives, etc.

"THE" problems with the bill are many:

1) This this crew has no credibility re: enforcement - especially the President, who's never been interested in enforcing the Southern border (oh, and btw - it's not like he hid his feelings on that subject). They cannot reasonably expect rank & file conservatives to support them on any sort of normalization until they establish some bona fides on enforcement.

2) The bureaucracy to do all the things the bill claims will be done will be huge and it'll have to be efficient. Pardon my lack of confidence in government to accomplish these things.

3) Laws are easily changed. For the left, agreeing to "enforcement" measures that'll take effect some day in the future is the price for getting illegals normalized today. There'd be a stink if they attempted to pass the "regularization" provisions as a stand alone bill - even if, in 2009, they have the White House and Congress.

The President, et al. are providing cover for regularization - IF Democrats win the White House in 2008, they'll repeal or weaken enforcement to the point of nonexistence.

Posted by Bill Faith | June 3, 2007 6:52 PM

Verily the bill should be debated on its merits. Then burned. Stall for time, friends and neighbors, and pray for a Fred Thompson victory in '08. I linked from my latest "No Illegal Left Behind" Roundup

Posted by Joseph Bell | June 3, 2007 7:26 PM

This issue would be much less of a concern if George W Bush had been competently enforcing existing immigration law for the last 6 years.

The performance of the George W Bush administration in this area, and this proposed immigration bill, is so bad that Republicans should consider the merits of impeaching George W Bush.

Perhaps then George W Bush (or Dick Cheny) will do a rational appraisal of whether they still need to serve their base and conservative principals.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 3, 2007 7:32 PM

While I agree that name-calling is a counterproductive tactic which reveals a lack of factoids to back up one's argument, I resent being told that an elected representative deserves "respect" simply because of his (or her) title.

If a Senator is behaving like a jackass, then he *should* be told that he's behaving like a jackass. I don't really care if his little feellings become hurted at that point.

Both Republican and Democratic voters have been telling and telling and telling our elected representatives for several years now that immigration is a Top Priority. We've also been telling them for longer than that that the borders need to be secured. Since those representatives don't seem to be able to hear the reasoned, calm and polite tones we've been using, I think voters can be forgiven having resorted to yelling our wishes.

When the louder tone of voice becomes screaming complete with tantrums, it's simply a result of being ignored. There's an old saying that in order to get a stubborn mule to do something, first you have to get its attention, and slapping it upside the head with a 2x4 is an excellent attention getter.

Our elected representatives are being stubborn mules about immigration, and if voters are now arming themselves with 2x4's to get their attention, fair enough.

Posted by steve | June 3, 2007 7:46 PM

Had we enforced existing law properly, this mess would be a small fraction of what it is today. To think a Country At War would have more than 1 million Aliens per year crossing it's borders Illegaly, is nuts. Secure the border first, then we can talk.

Posted by flreader1 | June 3, 2007 7:51 PM

Jon Kyle should not be surprised at the outrage and dismay that is being directed towards him. He has turned 180 degrees from his election promises. Tone down the rhetoric, indeed. Live up to your promises. Then we'll talk

Posted by nandrews3 | June 3, 2007 7:52 PM

Nice little lecture on civility, Ed. Got a question for you. A couple days ago, you said that Bush's criticisms of those opposing the immigration bill were standard operating procedure: "This is the normal mode of operation for the White House -- to always stay on the attack." You said that for conservatives, "it seems just a little hypocritical to start whining about it now that we're getting a taste of it ourselves."

Now, you're referring again to the exact same remarks by the President (plus whatever Lindsay Graham said), and you're complaining that he went over the line and called you unpatriotic and bigoted. Now you say he needs to "apologize for the personal attacks on the party's core supporters."

This almost seems like a case of honesty on Ed's part. According to these two postings put together, the "normal mode of operation for the White House" involved unacceptable personal attacks and smears directed at opponents. Hey, Ed: Did you mean to concede this?

You say Bush should apologize for saying Republicans are against the bill because they aren't patriotic. (Good luck getting that apology, btw.) Would you now say that he should also apologize for saying that Democrats are against the Iraq war, or against his handling of detainees, because they aren't patriotic?

Can we get you to tell Rove to apologize for saying Democrats oppose the Iraq war because they want to give therapy and understanding to our attackers? Or is civility only supposed to apply between fellow partisans?

It would be great if Ed would clarify this. I suspect, though, that he's spinning around, throwing out various arguments and hoping that one or another of them can keep Republicans on the same page. But trying to police the language of a heated intraparty debate doesn't necessarily serve the interests of a broader conservatism. It just shows that you think partisan unity--and the self-interests of a particular political party--are what's important.

Other people may place a greater value on the substantive outcome of a particular policy dispute. And some of them have clearly had enough of people like Ed saying they should shut themselves up because whatever's good for the Republican Party must come first.

Posted by Jim C | June 3, 2007 8:11 PM


Part of what your quoting came from the article written by Shadegg... not Captain Ed. Please re-read the post.

I will say this though; we simply don't trust our elected representatives to enforce existing immigration laws... why should we trust them to enforce "promised laws" that will be passed sometime in the future? And, as Nahncee said; forgive us if we feel like we need to shout to get our point across after being lied to for 21 years (ever since the '86 amnesty).

Jim C

Posted by Angry Dumbo | June 3, 2007 8:20 PM

Perhaps humor (illustrating absurdity as Rush would say) might make the point that enforcement of the border has been a joke.

Do you remember the video of the congressional candidate, Raj Batka, who crossed the border on an
elephant accompanied by a six piece mariachi band?


The video was the most creative political stunt of 2006. Batka lost, but the deck was stacked against him from the beginning (he was running in a largely democrat district and thus received little support from the national party big wigs being outspent nearly 10 to 1). Batka's moxy and humor are precisely the kind of energy that is missing from the Republican party today.

Posted by GeorgiaMom | June 3, 2007 8:56 PM

Some politicians do indeed deserve to be personally attacked. This bill is a personal assualt on American citizens and McCain and, God help me, Bush are leading the charge.

Posted by spurwing plover | June 3, 2007 9:00 PM

Anericans are absolutly opposed to illegal imagration we dont want any possible terrorists comming with them

Posted by grognard [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 3, 2007 9:32 PM

In 1999 there were 181 charges brought against businesses or individuals on hiring illegal aliens, in 2003 that number dropped to four. Making laws is only half the battle, you also have to enforce them. As far as the name calling goes as a centrist I have been called every name in the book by both sides, as far as I am concerned it is two heads of the same partisan beast.

Posted by RBMN | June 3, 2007 10:16 PM

Illegally crossing the Mexican border is a federal misdemeanor. It's not a felony. And it's not a felony because it doesn't deserve to be a felony.

I wonder why all this raw anger and bile is directed at average individuals committing an individual misdemeanor. For 99%, they didn't assault anyone to get here. In most all cases, they're not violent, and they're not living off welfare. They don't go to the emergency room just for kicks. Most of them crossed a line on a map, so they could earn some money and send it home.

I have a hard time condemning the average border-jumper, because if I was a Mexican with no money, I might be willing to break into another country (not my own) to get a job too.

The fact that today's border-jumper has a lot of company doesn't make that individual more guilty than he would've been twenty years ago, when the influx was less of a problem to us.

Blame the Congress. They've pretty much ignored the problem for twenty years. And especially blame the employers who knowingly hire illegals and use the existing loopholes to stay out of trouble with the law. Employers break the current law because the current law has a loophole (no document verification required) that makes the current law unenforceable.

Posted by azvoter | June 3, 2007 10:19 PM

What is the motivation for McCain to co-author the immigration bill, even at the risk of offending his Republican base? It's all about business...his wife owns the Budweiser distributorship in Phoenix. More immigrants from Mexico translate to more alcohol business. McCain said he would recuse himself from voting on alcohol related bills. This bill CLEARLY benefits his business, but his greed trumps his campaign promises.

Posted by Jeremy Abrams | June 3, 2007 10:27 PM

As someone who apparently does not want what's best for America, an appeal to be civil falls a bit deaf on my ears.

We owe Kyl this or McCain that? Our national identity is at stake, and millions worldwide who are waiting patiently in line, who would never think of claiming the American dream illegally, are being spit on.

In terms of passion and anger, If not now, when?

Posted by Realist | June 3, 2007 10:38 PM

OK, I think I've got it.

They lie to me repeatedly and make it clear that they think I'm stupid and a bigot.

They demonstrate absolutely stupifying incompetence in almost everything they do other than acquiring power and money for themselves and their cronies.

And I must say nothing but rather just grab my ankles and ask for more.

Got it.

Viva El Presidente Jorge bin Jorge al-Bush!

Posted by Mike | June 3, 2007 10:43 PM

I guess it is now official. I must consider myself an ex-Bush supporter. Sorry Ed, but if you are going to go over o the side that prefers politics over reality, I will have to be an ex-QM reader too. What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

Posted by Ken | June 3, 2007 10:49 PM

I am afraid the time is long siince past for civility. Everyone, including Ed, knows the enforcement is a sham. The real problem is not the 12-20 million here now. Its the 20-30 milliom more that are packing their bags.

Peggy Noonan had it right. We didn't leave the party. The party left us.

Posted by RBMN | June 3, 2007 10:57 PM

Re: Jeremy Abrams at June 3, 2007 10:27 PM

To mix metaphors, McCain and Kyl are the ones trying to close the barn door before even more needles come to hide in the barn's haystack.

But the anti-immigration-bill lynch mob (that says "rip up the compromise and start over from scratch,") are the ones accomplishing absolutely nothing. If you start from scratch, you start from scratch two years from now. And in two years, Republicans may have even less leverage. Then we'll wait four more years to tighten up identification requirements and the border.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Democrat leadership LIKE legalizing this first generation of immigrants. The Dems expect these immigrants (or their American born kids) will vote Democrat. But it's the Republicans who will determine who the new second generation votes for. We need to remember that. McCain and Kyl are wise enough to know that the vast majority of illegals will never be deported by force, so the next best step is to find out who, and how many are here, and willing to raise their hand.

Sometimes doing the right thing is a lonely task.

Posted by feeblemind | June 3, 2007 11:45 PM

Neither the repubs or dems are going to do squat about immigration.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 3, 2007 11:53 PM

I would rather have them do squat about immigration and let the locals start to enforce their own laws than to throw open the borders, give amnesty to 12 million law-breakers, and then stand back proudly and say, "see? we passed a law just like you wanted us to!"

Once the states, counties and cities start passing and enforcing their own laws and regulations, I hope they can figure out how to bill the Feds for the effort involved.

Posted by NIB | June 4, 2007 12:32 AM

I am an Arizona voter and was a cash contributor of Senator Kyl, this past election. I am furious at the extremely cold reaction I received when I called his office last week. As soon as I mentioned opposition to this bill, the tone and responses were demeaning and in your face! The Senator’s previous good service does not buy current arrogance. Failing further tacking by the Senator, and soon, my next contribution will be for recall rather than support.

There is great arrogance from our ‘representatives’ in Washington – and now ‘folks’ are calling for respect from us, the great unwashed. Wrong! Wrong!

Posted by The Yell | June 4, 2007 1:20 AM

There are 300 million Americans but apparently if we don't sustain, respect and defer to these few hundred incumbents, conservatism comes to a screeching halt?

Posted by Rose | June 4, 2007 1:46 AM

I'm pretty sure the guy lives in some nice Country Club subdivision somewhere, nice and safe, and all clean and pristinely manicured.

But out here in the real world, just a few hours from the Mexico border, the effects of our destructive illegal immigration and lack of border security policies are blatant - and they aren't polite.

Like the 80-something year old lady about 1/2 mile from my house who was raped and murdered and had her house burned down over her, for the crime of giving an illegal alien a scrambled egg breakfast taco - by that illegal alien.

Most of the murders around here are illegal alien or coyote related.

Most of the kids are not doing well, either, thanks to the illegal drugs that pass through here on their way to bigger markets.

It doesn't leave me feeling very bloody polite, even before you get to most of the impact on America itself, much less the tax dollars and "entitlements".

But the Constitution!!!

However, if they want me to be polite, they could institute a few charges of TREASON against some certain polticians - then I'd get downright PLEASANT. Do a little dance, drink a few mohitas, get down!

Posted by Gray One | June 4, 2007 4:34 AM

Bush, Kyl and McCain may, as _individuals_ deserve polite respect. However, as _politicians_ their mendacious disrespect towards those of us who
do not approve of this bill is sufficient cause to call
their _political_ reputations into disrepute.

In the end, it is simplpe- they will do this travesty to us, and we will no longer be a part of THEIR party.

Mr. Bush may recognize the phrase "Adios, muchacha" !

Posted by onlineanalyst | June 4, 2007 5:31 AM

I find it difficult to understand why Republicans are even considering passage of this Kennedy-La Raza shamnesty bill as it stands. Let us not forget who the author of this boondoggle is. Why are the Republicans carrying water for the "old bull" behind every other failed immigration policy?

The spin by the inside-the-Beltway pols of both parties is that the bill is not an amnesty as they point to the "path-to-citizenship" features. What they don't address is the obvious amnesty in the awarding of temporary Z- visas, given within a narrow 24-hour window of time that strains credible belief that effective oversight can be achieved. Once the temporary Z-visa is in hand, the illegal who is at once legalized into perpetuity is protected (indeed, coddled) by so many loopholes that he would be a fool to seek a permanent Z-Visa, much less a "path to citizenship". Enforcement of any laws broken by the temporary Z-visa holders stops with this provision and challenges will be hamstrung in courts by immigration lawyers who see a bottomless well of potential profiteering. Thereis the rub!

Be very suspicious of laws crafted by lawyers, especially those who have not understanding of economics.

The chain-migration feature is also offensive because its promoters are hiding behind bleeding-heart "family values" rhetoric that escalates the numbers being amnestied. Statistically, the numbers of illegitimate births attributed to Mexican cohort of illegals should raise plenty of eyebrows about how "family oriented" it is.

I find it ironic, as well, that US citizens must now have a passport to travel to places where we once went freely while the border areas in our country are a virtual one-way door for our invader-squatters.

Our border must be secured first. In this age of terroristic threat, all violators of our borders should be viewed askance.

Holders of fraudulent documentation should be exited/deported with promptness, given the status of persona not grata. If an illegal has the wherewithal to purchase phony documentation to hide in the shadows, then he should have been able to cough up the funds to apply for citizenship legally.

Too many illegals are already in our country on expired visas. The enforcement system is adnuttedly strained in locating and addressing these scofflaws. Why should anyone believe that the Z-visa solution could be credibly implemented via the bloated yet ineffective system in place? (But then, maybe that is the aim of the Kennedy-LaRaza sellout.)

Posted by DaMav | June 4, 2007 5:41 AM

Explain again how we are supposed to respect Kyl who engineers a major amnesty measure with Ted Kennedy a few months after being elected on a 'no amnesty' platform.

There is amazing irony in McCain insisting we cave in to illegals so they don't riot while you insist that uncivil dialogue is "counterproductive". Sounds to me like the party 'leadership' is ready to roll over if people are sufficiently uncivil.

Posted by docjim505 | June 4, 2007 6:28 AM

The dems had a similar problem a few months ago when especially rabid elements of their anti-war base were very roiled because the new Congress wasn't going to surrender in Iraq right away.

The root problem is that the elites in both parties have gotten the idea that they don't really have to respond to the voters except during the few months right before an election. Well, why shouldn't they believe that? What is the recividism... er, reelection, I should say... rate of members of Congress? 90%? 95%? Both sides here at CQ like to point out the corruption that exists on the other side: the dems have William Jefferson; we have Duke Cunningham. BUT, AS A GENERAL RULE, NEITHER SIDE WILL THROW OUT ITS OWN TRASH. Members of Congress know this and use it to their advantage. How many of us vote straight ticket or near-straight ticket simply because we absolutely loathe the other side? How many of us Republicans thought about (or did) stay home last election... and now suffer bitter criticism for contributing to the disaster that is the dem majority?

Civility is desirable in politics as in all things, but let's not mistake civility for acquiescence. If the president, Senator Kyl, that mincing fool Graham, and the rest of the pro-amnesty crowd in the GOP don't like what's being said about them by their own base, then maybe it's time for them to reconsider their position.

Or maybe they just assume that we'll all dutifully trip the "R" lever next November because it's better to have a pro-amnesty GOP than a democrat Congress / White House any day.

Posted by Keemo | June 4, 2007 7:09 AM

Not going to happen Ed... We are not going to "quite down" and become all civil in the face of a bill that has this kind of potential for permanent damage to our country; "permanent" meaning the effects this will have on our children & their children. When it comes to our own, the rhetoric had better kick up a notch!

We are a tolerant people; we tend to go about our business, while keeping our side of the street clean; we tend to have faith that others will make decisions based on a solid foundation of principles... We work hard to provide for our families & we pay our taxes to honor our country while providing our elected officials the funds necessary to maintain our infrastructure systems, and to keep us safe.

Tolerance has it's limits! Patience has it's limits! Blind Faith in a higher power does not compare to blind faith in humans!

I have lost my faith in my government; this bill (in it's present form) has drained my tolerance; drained my patience; drained my trust for either party... I lost my trust for the Democratic Party some 25 years ago. I put my trust in the Republican party based on a set of Conservative Principles. Ronald Reagan helped to cement my faith in the Conservative movement. Principles are not a political tool; principles are a way of life, and are not influenced by the latest polls. Laws are only useful when they are established in a democratic way, and then enforced consistently by all involved in our system. Far to many in our system have been either "bought" or "heavily influenced" by outside sources to allow for our laws to be enforced with any consistency. What applies for the average citizen, must apply for the elite as well. A law is much like a principle; it either is or it isn't....

When our government (both sides) cleans it's own house of all of the known law breakers, then (and only then) can they be taken seriously by us. Republicans and Democrats have law breakers holding very powerful positions within our government; they all know that we know this, but yet they throw some spin on it and shove it down our throats.. We are sick and tired of this crap.

This shamnesty bill is the last straw...... Loud, Angry, and plain "FED UP" is what these people will get & should get...

Posted by quickjustice | June 4, 2007 7:13 AM

Calls for "civility" mean that things are getting so heated that our leadership fears a meltdown. Their fears are well-founded.

Here in New York, I was in an emergency room a month ago. All the other patients were Mexicans. They had no insurance, so the taxpayers were picking up their tabs. That's the status quo.

Health care isn't the only social service the illegals are using. In New York, they get free public education, no questions asked. If they are victims of a crime, they can report it to the police, no questions asked.

These public policies are humane, but they omit accountability by failing to sanction the employers who are cynically dumping the expense of employee benefits for their illegal workers on the taxpayers.

Even as legal Americans become increasingly prosperous, reducing the need for the welfare state, we're importing poverty through illegal, unskilled workers. That increases the need for, and expense of, government welfare programs, the only justification for the existence of the Democrat Party.

Our success as Republicans in bringing prosperity to this country has necessitated the Democrats finding impoverished people to advocate for to justify their continued existence. The illegal workers are that group. When they are legalized, they suddenly become eligible for a host of other government benefits, ensuring full employment for key Democrat constituencies.

Posted by harleycon5 | June 4, 2007 7:45 AM

There is a likely plan behind the "be nice and retain your composure" argument, and I noticed that Senate leaders are now saying that "Resistance is fading". Aww, now it seems clearer doesn't it? We need to be nice, shut up, and get comforably numb.

I don't think so.

I don't think we need to call names, but lets face it, that little fop Lindsey Graham has no problem calling us "bigots" when he is all too happy to blow a whole in the stern of the Republican ship. I wish that I could say something positive about ole' Lindsey, but he is little more than a RINO McCain lapdog. And I AM being nice, believe me.

I think we should keep namecalling to a minimum, but also make it clear that we are not going away until they either jettison this bill, or we are destroyed as a political force in this country. And I am not going anywhere soon.

Posted by Papa Ray | June 4, 2007 7:47 AM

While I think that most of the damage to our Nation was done in the past concerning immigration, I don't want to see it made even worse by present politicians.

Even if it were not illegal, immigration has been damaging our Nation in an ever increasingly manner, that must be stopped and then reversed.

Otherwise, we need to invade Mexico, depose the government, annex Mexico as our newest state, occupy it, clean it out and start building new prisons there for those that won't obey our laws.

Mexico has abundant natural resources, would be a great new addition to our Nation.

Oh...is this the long term plan the Bushes have in mind?

I don't think so, they want Mexico to compete with us on every level, but not on a level playing field. They want to give Mexico the advantage in every way possible.

Also, one other thing. Even if Bush jr says he is sorry, it's too little, too late.

Papa Ray
West Texas

Posted by NahnCee | June 4, 2007 11:30 AM

quickjustice - at least you still *have* emergency rooms in New York. Here in LA, most emergency rooms have closed down in the last five years because they can't afford to keep hemorraging the millions of dollars per MONTH to provide free health care to the swarms of illegals from south of the border.

That means if an American taxpayer should have a heart attack or get in a car accident, it will take an extra 45 minutes to an hour to be transported to one of the remaining emergency rooms still open in Burbank, Santa Monica or Pasadena -- enclaves of white middle and upper-class taxpayers who have health insurance.

Posted by Cindi | June 4, 2007 4:14 PM

Our President went to Mexico, stood with its president and called our civilian border control, the Minutemen, 'vigilantes'.

He did this last year, I believe, and since then for me, all bets are off; he deserves to be called what he is - a sellout of the American people..

Posted by Project Vote Smart | June 4, 2007 5:48 PM

Rep. John Shadegg’s voting record on immigration issues can be found at: Rep. John Shadegg’s Voting Record

Rep. John Shadegg’s history of speeches on immigration can be found at: Rep. John Shadegg’s Record of Speeches

Rep. John Shadegg’s ratings from special interest groups on immigration can be found at: Rep. John Shadegg’s Interest Group Ratings

Project Vote Smart produces the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), which essentially asks each candidate “Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?” You can find Rep. John Shadegg’s responses to the NPAT at: Rep. John Shadegg’s NPAT

For more information on Rep. John Shadegg’s position on immigration please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

Posted by Kevin | June 4, 2007 9:43 PM

Link to article Capt Ed???

Isn't that supposed to be one of the advantages the New Media has over the Old Media?? Please use it.

Posted by Beth | June 5, 2007 12:46 AM


Typical blogosphere BS; an appeal for civility ends up being met with a round of incivility. Well, let me pile on, then.

Captain Ed, you know how everyone talks about the toxic political climate we have these days (for the last few years)?
You know what it coincides with--the rise of blogs. I'm convinced after three years blogging that the mentally disturbed (or at least personality-disordered, or maybe it's just plain old Tourette's) are vastly overrepresented on blogs. It's spread to the MSM and the Beltway, and infected the whole country.

And this stuff Bush said last week: Good grief, y'all need to GET OVER IT. Like y'all don't say worse things every single day about him and everyone else? Is freaking out about a tossed-off comment really helping anything? Do y'all REALLY think he meant you don't want anything good for this country? Please. It's not like Bush is the most eloquent speaker, you know.