Sunday Forum
Print Friendly and PDF

A California Reader Says Obama Will Have "No Room" To Push For Amnesty; etc.

From: C.O. Jones (e-mail him)

Re: Joe Guzzardi's Column: How Angry Are Americans? We'll Find Out Soon

Barack Obama's got it in the bag, no doubt about that.

But have you noticed that some, including Warren Buffett, are suggesting that Henry Paulson should hang around as Treasury Secretary for another year or so, regardless of who wins?

Buffett is a liberal Democrat. He's smart enough to know that the tough economic times are going to persist for at least a year, probably longer.

Promoting the idea that Paulson should hang around is part of the Democrats' "backup plan," i.e. they'll need a whipping boy just in case things don't turn around, and they don't want it to be Robert Rubin, should he be foolish enough to take the job back.

The Democrats want a guy from the GOP to take the fall.

By the way, keep an eye on the Dow Jones Industrial Average the day after the election.

My guess is that it'll drop 1000 points or more if Obama's elected, possibly triggering trading curbs and then the following day picking up right where it leaves off.

A couple of days of that and Obama will have no choice but to call some kind of meeting involving his Treasury Secretary-designate, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Ben Bernanke, and the other Wall Street powers to reassure them, i.e. promise not to follow through on some of the more far-left aspects of his campaign promises.

Obama will have no room to maneuver, no tax-and-spend, no deficit spending, nada, zip, zero.

Otherwise he risks turning the United States into Argentina, and he's too intelligent and too calculating for that.

Raise taxes during a recession? No way—that's what Herbert Hoover did.

Obama wants a second term, not to be remembered as "that one-term African-American president who screwed everything up."

That's also why Obama won't push for amnesty.

Jones lives in southern California.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

A New York Democrat Asks Why Aliens "Must" Be Given A Path To Citizenship

From: Bob Petrucci (e-mail him)

My wife and I are Congressman Nita Lowey's constituents and her fellow-Democrat.

I watched the Jim Russell-Lowey debate Guzzardi referred to and have many questions about her immigration position.

According to Lowey:  

  • "A path to citizenship must be established for those working here, though they should go to the back of the line." By "those working here", Lowey means illegal aliens.
  • "There are too many people (illegal aliens) in the shadows; they're not coming forward. There has to be a way to deal with them".

I wrote to Lowey to ask these questions:

  • First, why must there be a path to citizenship for those who are working here illegally?

They entered our country illegally, of their own volition, to allegedly to work, not to become citizens. In so doing, they took jobs away from Americans by hiring on at a far lower wage.

Those who want citizenship can follow Lowey's advice...immediately leave and go directly to the end of the line. In fact, had they done so from the beginning, they'd likely be well on that path by now.

In fact, aliens were recently offered, at no penalty, that very option by the Department of Homeland Security. But few chose to come forward.

  • Second, what exactly does "in the shadows" mean?

Aliens are here working in full public view, in construction, in landscaping, possibly even at the White House. 

How can they work and be "in the shadows?"

And, aliens demonstrate in public demanding amnesty and taxpayer-funded benefits. How can they protest from "the shadows?"

  • Third, why should aliens be dealt with in any way other than under our existing laws? 

What qualifies aliens for any special treatment, including taxpayer subsidization? My parents were independent, properly-naturalized Americans...and proud of it.

We're just trying to understand Lowey's position versus Russell's so we, as Democrats, taxpayers and Americans can decide which candidate we should vote for.

Petrucci is a research, product management consultant. His previous letter about Pope Benedict XVI is here. To date, Petrucci has not received a reply from Lowey.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

A South Carolina Reader Wonders What To Do When Republican Candidates Are Democrats in Disguise

From: Rexford Metz (e-mail him)

It is more complicated than just a question of voting incumbents out.

In South Carolina, many of us would like to give Senator Lindsey Graham, a horrible open borders proponent, the boot.

In the Republican primary, Graham's opposition was the conservative candidate Dr. Walter "Buddy" Witherspoon. Since nobody showed up at the polls except me, Graham won walking away.

Now Democrat Bob Conley, who promises to be good on immigration, goes up against Graham.

My problem is that although Graham is no better than most Democrats, I'm afraid that, if the election goes as predicted, we will have nothing but Democrats in Congress.

So we have to have some Republicans left, even if they are RINOs, just so we don't turn everything over to the Democrats.

Now what do I do?

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

A Colorado Reader Reminds Us Not To Forget "Fenno's Paradox"

From:  Richard F. (e-mail him)

I just read Guzzardi's column that posits that, if we all show up at the polls on November 4th, we can kick the Congressional rascals out.

Apparently, Guzzardi has never heard of "Fenno's Paradox", commonly referred to as the "Congressman Paradox", which explains that any given constituent maintains that his Congressman is an honest and patriotic statesman while at the same time the other 534 are scoundrels and mountebanks.

Nevertheless, we must do our best to rid ourselves of the bad eggs.

Richard is a retired Federal employee dismayed that his once red state has slowly turned purple.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

Print Friendly and PDF