Text 5652, 145 rader
Skriven 2007-12-05 13:41:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
Ärende: Oh Look! A double-header!
=================================
NYT: AN UNDOCUMENTED NEWSPAPER


November 28, 2007


Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New
York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue
poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal
immigration.


(This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a
copy of The New York Times.)


In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the
stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably
absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the
Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.


In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support
"a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited
election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.


First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous
slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied
most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.


The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with
California voters.


Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction
of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.


One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond
Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in
support for the proposition."


He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers
were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along
with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians
and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.


And then Californians voted.


Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a
larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds
of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of
Hispanic voters.


It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where
intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is
not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187
passed with a 12-point margin.


I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an
off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.


In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician
could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York
Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to
defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!


The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana
Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of
decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on
appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals.
Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California
history to be recalled.)


The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its
thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads,
schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line
incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did
Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in
Arizona."


How many times do we have to disprove this canard?


As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B.
Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better
when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:


Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal
immigration?


A: No.


Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if
it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?


A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the
Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box
also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny
bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being
awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from
receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to
declare English the state's official language.


Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that
they were too tough on illegals.


My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times
reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting
circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is
what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)


My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But
unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other
evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and
also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the
very same election.



COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)