We Like Civil Comments

These are comments to our Republican Debates Essay (which were posted)

"When he didn't get the negative answer he wanted from the first two folks he went to Tom Tancredo. Rove has told Tancredo not to darken the White House door and Matthews knew that. Unfortunately, Tancredo didn't disappoint."

Rove stands opposed to securing our borders. It seems obvious from your post you do too. Rove and Bush have attacked Tancredo for years. It's too bad a Republican blog would join in beating up a Colorado presidential candidate.

You are a bit too sensitive, friend.  The purpose of the essay was to demonstrate that Matthews was out to embarrass as many Republicans and Republican positions as he could.  It is hard to accomplish that without examples, and his interaction with the candidates on the Rove question seemed a harmless way to do that.  Tancredo could have, and should have dodged the question, but didn't.  The other candidates who were asked did dodge the question.  To use the example without reporting that interaction seems lame.  It is our view that the question never should have been asked.

It is hard to see how the commenter gets to either of his assertions-that we favor open borders and that we "beat up" Tancredo.  We have already demonstrated that when we want to "beat up" someone, we try to be as effective as we can be. 

As for the border issue, we favor a solution that recognizes a law which can't be repealed, the Law of Supply and Demand.  The fact that Congress has ignored the need to recognize that law for two decades has created a problem that shouldn't have existed, and frankly we have no solution. 

There can be a reasonable policy that meets the country's demand for labor and still controls the border.  There cannot be a policy which tries to control the border without any reasonable attempt to meet the demand for labor.  To attempt the latter is much more of an unaccountable open borders policy than the former. 

Those who want to argue that position in a thoughtful, civil way are invited to write an essay which we will happily publish.  A good starting point would be our essay "Thoughts on Immigration" of two weeks ago.

We also received the following comment to the same essay:

I think the Republican debate went well. It was vigorous, civil, and all participants stood their ground, answered the questions and were brave. I avoid post-debate analysis. It’s overload and insults one’s intelligence, as though a person cannot come to their own conclusions about what just took place.

Tancredo was sometimes abruptly cut off by Mathews but did well alongside the heavyweights Giuliani, McCain and Romney. When asked about Rove, Tancredo didn’t “throw bouquets” and comment, “Personally, I like Mr. Rove, and he’s a very intelligent man. He’s sincere and he’s a tireless advisor to President Bush and a friend, as well, yada yada . . .” I liked what he had to say about Rove, because it demonstrated his humanity and feistiness, almost Harry Truman-like.

Don’t we all have some point on which we chafe and disagree with the administration? Isn’t Mr. Rove the de facto and implacable gate keeper of administration policies? Life in the real world isn’t always sweetness and light, and if you’re worth your metal, you’ll take scratches and bruises. Acting “above the fray” and avoiding controversy smacks of political correctness.

Governor Thompson of Wisconsin showed a human side and didn’t do badly, either.

I wish Republicans would stop belaboring the abortion issue and shut up. It's not a political issue.

Comments

[Valerie Tyler]

In "We Like Civil Comments," I read the reference to the "Law of Supply and Demand" with regard to the border issue and illegal immigration. I’ve heard it said several times that immigrant workers are essential to our economy, that the U.S. needs a steady source of cheap, entry-level workers. Illegal aliens, themselves, tell us that “we need them.” Some ask, "Who’s going to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers?" People offering such justifications for open borders or guest worker programs are thinking locally.

There are many nations around the world that have plentiful low-wage and low-skilled labor, but it’s very difficult to identify any among them that demonstrate any great economic performance. There are more important elements to a healthy economy than an endless supply of cheap labor.