I thought it was slick and unfortunately I've come to expect that of Edwards since he sold himself to Soros and MoveOn.org, who oppose her for not being left enough.
She actually won points with me on her speech. I found it reasonable to try to wind down the war and get troops home and at the same time recognise that some troops will be needed there in case of need and also to combat groups like AQ in Iraq. She also made perfect sense to me on the driver's licences for illegal immigrants issue in that whilst it isn't something one should want to do because it is the federal government's responsibility to handle immigration controls, it make sense for states to give illegals driver's licences given the fact they are here whether one wants them here or not, and leaving them without them only causes more harm. Four years ago, given I am known for working on driver's licence issues in my state in court, I even wrote an OP-ED article for the Philadelphia Inquirer upon their request setting forth the same argument:
Quote:
Opinion: License rule won't impair terrorists; Limits aimed at immigrants could boost crime
Philadelphia Inquirer (PA) October 27, 2003
Would you like to be able to catch more terrorists, criminals and bad drivers? Would you like to know who they might be? Without their having domestic driver's licenses, the chances are greater you will not.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a law prohibiting immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses unless they prove that they are lawful residents of the United States. The law limits the licensing to the period of lawful residency, and those with visas for less than a year are barred unless they are students. This well-intentioned legislation - intended primarily as an antiterrorism measure - is misguided for several reasons.
First, the law will not significantly impair foreign terrorists, never mind domestic ones who have licenses. Terrorists can circumvent the law in numerous ways in which no license is necessary.
Terrorists bent on mass murder don't care about respecting driving laws. They will seek lawful residency through many schemes and get licenses. They will seek to enter the country legally or illegally and live without a license, especially by living in urban areas, staying with others, or posing as visitors or students. They will recruit members who are American citizens and legal residents with licenses. They will seek counterfeit domestic licenses. They will form plots outside the country and execute them after entering the United States and obtaining temporary licenses through visas.
Second, the law will increase criminal behavior and false reliance on licenses as sufficient proof of "safe" status. The endless varying forms of foreign and domestic documents are difficult for government and private employees to validate. A criminal market for breeder documents - official-looking forms, cards and IDs with false data - will grow rapidly to help undocumented immigrants obtain licenses.
The law also aggravates the problem of corruption among government employees, public notaries and others who illegally issue licenses and breeder documents.
Third, undocumented immigrants, who used to be allowed to obtain driver's licenses, are now prohibited by the new law. Though this change may sound sensible and fair, it is unrealistic and harmful. Millions of undocumented workers not considered a terrorist threat are employed to cheaply perform undesirable agricultural, home, restaurant and outdoor jobs. As long as the demand for such labor exists, undocumented immigrants will be here to work. As a result, the number of fraudulent licenses will increase, and more flights from accidents and uninsured collisions will arise. Many undocumented immigrants will not respond to criminal and driving violations or will give false identities, depending on the seriousness or repetitiveness of violations.
The change also makes trouble for undocumented immigrants seeking legal status, keeping them underground and afraid to cooperate with government officials. Deported workers will repeatedly return illegally.
Instead, we ought to allow licenses regardless of legal residence - with goals and precautions in mind. This can accomplish many positive things. Most undocumented immigrants are peaceful and, under this system, would most likely provide proper information and seek legal status in the United States. Undocumented immigrants would be given the opportunity to comply with vehicle laws for the public's benefit, and licensing and law enforcement agencies would be more able to track unsafe undocumented immigrant drivers.
As for terrorists, licensing agencies should develop tamper-resistant licenses that are difficult to counterfeit and require identifiers such as scanned photographs, signatures, fingerprints and dental records and DNA samples. Further, the agencies should seek cooperation and share databases with one another. If government agencies cooperate more effectively, criminals and terrorists can be discovered and captured easier. Cross-checking background information among agencies can help identify fraud and corruption and help authorities discover criminals and terrorists more easily.
While respecting reasonable privacy concerns, the government must improve cooperation between licensing and other federal and state agencies. This, together with sound public and private security practices, is the best defense against terrorists.
|
I haven't decided whether Hillary will get my vote at all. However, one thing that does put me off is the insistence of so many of those running for office to reduce public debate of very important issues to bumper sticker slogans, yes/no false choices on complicated subject matter, 'gotcha' gimmicks, false attacks on competitors, and other techniques that dumb down the very important debates we all need to consider when selecting a candidate and being informed voters for choosing wisely.
Do I prefer a detailed and nuanced answer? You bet--on any complicated issue. I want to know whether a candidate knows the details and is a policy wonk, not a simpleton with simplistic answers. I also want to know that a candidate is not interested in choosing positions to please those who don't know what they are talking about to our national detriment.
I got similarly put off when I saw Rudy Giuiliani get the same treatment at one GOP debate where he went into great detail about the things he did when mayor of NY, including why and how he took positions on taxes, guns, immigrants, etc. Nobody else seemed to willing to do that--they just went straight to base-pleasing bumper sticker comments, spin attacks, and citing blanket talking points, etc. IMO, he explained his actual tactics whilst mayor and why and explained how he felt they were very successful for NY and yet not in repudiation of some basic platforms (responsible use of guns, using gun laws against the lawbreakers and not the law abiding, etc). And, IMO, he did indeed do a very good job fixing up and running a quagmire city government and a city that had many social problems before he took office. It was not just -- "hey I'm the 9.11 governor" -- as many opponents like to pigeonhole him for the bumpersticker crowd who can't digest anything deeper than that. Yet, his opponents have tried to bumper sticker him as being only about "9.11" or being "against GOP platforms" that are put to the public in bumper sticker form without any explanation. I think it really stinks if candidates get penalised for actually explaining their policies and making an argument of how they worked out well in practice.
None of this means I will vote for Giuliani either at this time. But, Rudy and Hillary have a much better shot at getting my vote than Edwards who puts out ads like that and is far more prone to give me bumpersticker slogans and base-pleasing dogma without a real discussion because that really tells me nothing about whether he has sound ground for what he is advocating.