redblueamerica.com

Hi freethinker:

Thanks for your thoughts. Some counterpoints, if I may:

* No mischaracterization is meant when I say that this nation was built by immigrants; and while I appreciate the distinction between being built by legal and illegal immigrants, I think the first waves of European settlers in what is now the United States were "legal" immigrants only in a very, very narrow sense. And they created the foundation from which everything else flowed. And I think that frankly creates a national burden for us to leave our doors open a little more widely than we might otherwise prefer.

* You assert that everybody knows we can't deport 12 million people -- and yet that's not what I really hear from the Romney and Huckabee campaigns. They don't use the word deport exactly -- they just want everybody who is here to leave and, as they say, "go to the back of the line" of immigration eligibility. Assuming that most, if not all, those people might not want to leave, there will be two choices: A)Making them leave or B) Not making them leave. The former option is, basically, deportation. It might not involve all 12 million, but it'll involve a good chunk -- and, oh yeah, we don't have an immigration bureaucracy that can do the job. I don't think I've created a straw man here.

* I think your economic argument is the strongest. There are clearly winners and losers any time you introduce a new variable into an economic system, and illegal immigration has probably created some losers. I think, on balance, we'd be in worse shape without it.

Does that mean we should leave the system like it is? Heck no! Do what the president says -- I rarely say that -- and get cracking on creating a guest worker program and paths to citizenship that make sense, given the push-and-pull of this particular supply and demand. And impose stricter, timelier penalties on businesses that employ illegal immigrants even after such reforms are made; I think it's fairly well documented by now that if there's a dip in available work, there's a dip in illegal immigration.

Ok, I'll bite: Newt Gingrich?

And, if I'm right, what prize do I get?

As for Bush's pre-presidential resume being not much better than Obama's ... Joel, I think you're stretching a bit. Bush was twice elected the governor of one of most populous states in the union -- upsetting beloved incumbent Ann Richards the first time and winning in a landslide the next. And while the governor of Texas has less power than many of his peers, Bush did manage to usher tax cuts through a Democratic legislature, help produce a budget surplus, increased spending for schools and raised test scores.

Obama basically ran unopposed for a Senate seat in deep blue Illinois when Jack Ryan dropped out over a sex scandal. And Obama announced his audacious candidacy for the presidency a mere 25 months after being sworn in as a U.S. Senator. The man is barely qualified to be chairman of a Senate committee, for Pete's sake, and has virtually no record to examine. Bush did.

Joel your commendation of Bush says " ...it recognizes that this country was built by immigrants, that it's logistically impossible to deport 12 million people, and that our country and its economy are stronger for having immigrants participating in our economy."

You make three statements here.

1. Our nation was built on immigrants. You conveniently ignore two things in that statement. The first is that nobody who is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants disagrees with you. The second is that this country was built on legal immigrants not, for the most part, on illegals. You deliberately mischaracterize the people you disagree with in order to make your point. They say that the fact that the immigrants are illegal is a salient point in their argument. Bush, Kennedy, and the rest of corporate America teamed up on the immigration debate against the poor. The pro-illegal position is also racist. It wants special privileges for Hispanics. If you were to advocate relaxing immigration controls at JFK, you would be consistent.

2. That it is impossible to deport 12 million people. You conveniently ignore two things in that statement. The first is that nobody who is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants disagrees with you. The second is that a large percentage can be deported. Now police arrest them and let them go. They could just as easily be deported.

3. That our economy is stronger for having illegals participate. Again you make a sweeping statement that is false in particulars. The overall economy may be better but parts of it are worse. Black unemployment is higher than it would otherwise be. Teenage unemployment is higher than it would otherwise be. Blue collar workers are losing their jobs to illegals. Things may look good at the top of the economy, but the view from the bottom is getting worse in part because of illegals.

I wasn't old enough to cast a ballot for Dubya. I probably would have, if only to put the hurt on Senator John Kerry from my illustrious state of Massachusetts, but I just found it kind of interesting that things you like best about Bush are the things I really dislike about him. At least we agree on Petraeus, even if Joel's party doesn't.

Hey Brad, no need to throw down like that.

A) You mischaracterize my position. I'm not going to say that Bush hasn't done a single thing right, or 100 percent bad. But I think, on the whole, he has been a bad president: On civil liberties, on the war, on the whole "unitary executive" thing. Some of this has been due to ideology, some of it to competence. On the latter point, at least, there aren't even that many conservatives left who would argue with me.

B)Don't pretend that by inauguration day that Obama won't have been a senator -- dealing with national issues -- nearly as long as George W. Bush had been ruling Austin. (Or that both men hadn't spent nearly as big a portion of their time in their respective offices running for president.) And let's remember that in Texas, the governor's position (as opposed to the individual in it) is relatively weak.

So, yes, I'm happy to match resumes.

I think "pretension to be above the fray" mischaracterizes Obama, somewhat. There are many people in politics -- on both sides of the divide -- who have become invested in the fray as an end unto itself, instead of being part of our national process of making decisions. And if I read Obama correctly, all he is saying is that the fray doesn't have to be The Thing.

Now there are other people who have something to say about that. And I suspect they will. I like that Obama's thinking big, about trying to build a coalition, instead of practicing a politics that seems centered solely on trying to make the other guy lose. What I don't know is how successful he can be.

As for Obama's experience: Feh. I guess I'd put his pre-presidential resume up against our current president's and feel pretty comfortable in the comparison.

When Barack Obama talks about unity, I get nervous. It's not that I'm against unifying the country for the common good. But appeals to unity should not preclude a robust debate over what the country should unite behind.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And this topic is as fine an opportunity as any to dispel a few misguided notions about RedBlueAmerica.com.

Here's the thing: We're not trying to be "above the fray" or "non-partisan." That's been a misconception from the start, abetted by our friends in the press (alas). If it's a lot of hugging and hand-holding you're looking for, I think you will be disappointed. But if you want purple-faced rants against the Democrats or Republicans or both, this isn't the place for you, either.

Remember our motto: Best thinking, both sides.

Look, I'm a conservative Republican with a strong libertarian streak. I don't pretend to be unbiased, although I try to be as objective as my biases will allow. As it happens, I am friendly with people whose politics are quite different from my own. Can it be challenging at times to bridge the gaps in our understanding of the universe? Of course. As fond as I am of my co-moderator Joel, I wouldn't want him within 1,000 miles of an actual policymaking job. I'm sure he feels the same about me. But we manage to work well together. That's what grown-ups do.

The point is, we can be partisan, but we can also be civil. Ronald Reagan's relationship with Tip O'Neill is testament to that. On the other hand, like Reagan and O'Neill, I'm not here to hold hands and go out of my way to show I'm "open-minded." That would be phony. I think it was Bill Bennett who said at some point your mind can be so open that your brain falls out. I'm here to engage with my fellow Americans. But it's precisely because we're Americans that we should be able to fight hard and still wake up every day holding no grudges.

So... what do you think?