C Stanley Paul: It's the job of the state government in Arizona to enforce the laws, not the job of their US Senators. I agree with you that better enforcement of existing laws, including harsh penalties for employers, will help a great deal. One reason I'm not so willing to say that all illegals currently here need to get to the back of the line is that we haven't HAD a reasonable path to legal citizenship that reflected the reality that our companies were welcoming the cheap labor. I don't feel it's morally right to have neglected our immigration policy so that there wasn't enough opportunity for all who wished to come (and could find gainful employment) to have the chance to become legal. I don't think those individuals should be punished for the neglect of our government officials. I do acknowledge though that other people who perhaps also wished to come here but were more respectful of the laws, would be disadvantaged if the opportunities for legalization made it too easy for those who were already here to 'cut in line'. It's a complex problem (and again, it's complex because we've neglected to deal with it for so long and looked the other way when business profited from the status quo.)

Clifford As a Democrat who will be voting for the Democratic nominee in November, even if (sigh) it is Hillary, I thank you guys for putting on so entertaining (if unedifying) a race.   I have my own idea as to which of the Republican candidates has the best chance of winning the general election; though I do not propose to share it with you, lest some of you might take it seriously and help nominate him.  I will merely say that I wish the Republican nominee were Huckabee (it won't be), as he would carry only a few Southern states a few other peculiar places like Kansas, Nebraska and (probably) Utah.

Jay Bob, "Add the fact that he is Mormon and he is doomed".  You later say you don't hold that against him.  I don't buy it.  Imagine if you had replaced, "Black" or "Female", or "Jewish" instead of Mormon?  Do you think that would be offensive?  Why would you bring it up if you don't think there is an issue with his religion? Now, another question.  Romney won Nevada even without the Mormon vote, but can Republicans win the general election in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, or Arizona without the Mormon vote?  Assuming you know anything about those states, you know they can't.  Do you think it wise for Republicans to eat their children?  I'm happy to see that Romney is starting to take a share of the evangelical vote.  It shows Huckabee's attempt at drumming up religious bigotry for his own personal gain has its limits.

OLD dude     The G.O.P. ought to be happy w all the illegals gaining amnesty.  A nice pool of cheap labor is what your view of a free market economy is all about, right?   So more "wink and nudge" rhetoric might induce Earl in the trailer to vote for a fiscal conservative that will rape his wallet but keep the Bible in politics is what wins conservatives the WHouse.   Conservatives should stop the lie that they care about illegals and focus more on prayer in school and gay marriage.  After all, that's where their real idiot base resides.

Kevin I'm just curious why people still believe that we should be policing the world (to use the political line). Can someone please explain how our presence in Japan, or Korea, or Italy, or [fill in country] helps us or the world? Someone wrote a few entries back that us leaving such countries would create something like WWII?  Is this really something that people in our country believe?  What level of propaganda must permeate the mind for that notion to sink in? Meanwhile, I visit cities like New Orleans in the US that desperately could USE help and yet we do little or nothing to fix these places. Let's just keep the argument simple: How can we possibly justify the operating cost of our Okinawa military bases over the cost of rebuilding New Orleans?  Wouldn't it make more sense to close our Japanese base and open it in say, New Orleans???

C Stanley

Wouldn’t it make more sense to close our Japanese base and open it in say, New Orleans???

Kevin, You ask what level of propaganda people have had to have fallen for. I ask, what level of naivete doesn't understand that if America were attacked, we'd need bases from which to stage a response and that allies provide an opportunity for us to use their territory for that advantage (which also of course affords them protection-that's how alliances work.) It's like you're giving the opposite of the Sam Kinison classic line: "Go where the food is!" You're saying our military should stay home, not go where the fighting will be. And you were obviously a visitor without inside understanding of NO. There's lots of money that's still in the pipeline to help rebuild NO- the bottleneck isn't lack of funds, it's the local infighting over how to rebuild.

Kevin "...not go where the fighting will be" Exactly my point.  We've occupied bases in Okinawa, as an example, for the last 50+ years.  Has there been fighting in that time?  You allege we should be where the fighting WILL BE.  Isn't that the future tense? Have you [generic you] some glimpse to the future that the rest of us don't? The reality is, you have no idea WHERE this 'fighting' will be, if at all, and meanwhile, people like me (and you) pay the bill.  I for one don't want to see hundreds of billions of dollars going overseas to fight the imaginary wars of a fortune teller especially when those dollars could have such a profound impact here in the United States.

Jason Steck Potential Chinese moves to subjugate democratic Taiwan are unlikely to be deterred by a fleet based in New Orleans. Potential North Korean moves to overwhelm democratic South Korea are unlikely to be deterred by forces based 10,000 miles away. Also, bases in Japan have historically been important at preventing the reemergence of conflict between Japan and its traditional rivals in China and Korea. Same with U.S. bases in Germany. In fact, an original purpose of NATO was once expressed by a European as "keep the U.S. in, the Russians out, and Germany down". The fact that you do not agree with the U.S. goals of maintaining the safety of our allies does not alter that those goals do exist. Your problem is a disagreement with the reason for some of our deployments, but you cannot deny that the reasons themselves exist. BTW, the choice between funding military bases in Okinawa or paying to rescue New Orleans is what is called a "false dichotomy". I say do both. I am aware of no causal story that links FEMA's failures in New Orleans to the cost of Okinawa military bases.

Kevin I was using New Orleans simply as an example.  There are thousands, tens of thousands, of better uses of the costs of military installments around the world.  I think if we could afford to run the world, it would be less of an issue.  Though you might say do both, we can not.  As it happens, we can not even do ONE at the moment. Take a moment and watch this video.  Politics aside, this is the United States comptroller general's current analysis on what we can afford.  My guess is he can explain this position better than I can: http://youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

Jason Steck Kevin, You rely on the assumption that if we chose not to "run the world" (as you inaccurately put it) that the result would be that the rest of the world would leave us alone and unaffected by the consequences of our abrupt withdrawal. Because the world is, in fact, interdependent, I do not agree with your assumption. Instead, I think that the consequence of choosing to withdraw from "running the world" would be global chaos and deprivation that would wind up costing far more than what you think "running the world" is costing us now. Are there some areas from which the U.S. could consider withdrawing or decreasing our presence in light of the cost-benefit analysis? Certainly. But your sweeping and vague comments do not display what I would consider to be an intellectually responsible engagement with the true complexities of the issues involved. Reconceiving U.S. global strategy is not something that can be covered in a sound bite or a blog comment or a YouTube video.

C Stanley

We’ve occupied bases in Okinawa, as an example, for the last 50+ years.  Has there been fighting in that time?

By that logic, when we go a certain length of time without a war, we can dismantle our entire military. Cool! Think how much more money we'll have for domestic spending! Come to think of it, there's been no crime in my neighborhood. I'm going to go call City Hall and tell them they definitely can lay off some of the police force and stop patrolling this area.

Jason Steck Christine, The more accurate analogy might be "since Hoover Dam was built, there has been no flooding of the Colorado River in Arizona. So let's blow up the Hoover Dam." In the case of Korea, the presence of a U.S. trip-wire force is the reason for the lack of fighting. Deterrence works that way. But Kevin says that the fact that it has been successful is the reason to stop doing it? That's just wildly illogical. Then again, I have a funny feeling I've seen his talking points before....And that the source of those talking points is not known for a solid connection with the mundane realities of the practical world.

C Stanley That's absolutely right! Why in the world did we ever waste so much money on that thing? LOL

Jason Steck And another thing.  I haven't had a power outage at my house in several months now.  I guess that means I can stop paying those annoying and expensive electrical bills.  I have much better things to spend the money on.

Jason Steck Also, my car has not run out of gas for over a decade.  Given the current high gas prices, I am pleased to know that I can stop paying to fill it up. (I think we can come up with a million of these.)

Kevin Yes that's all very funny.  The analogous nature you've captured is indeed right on the money. [/sarcasm] My first comment to Jason would be to once again watch the video because due to your reply, I'm fairly certain you did not.  While I fully agree that sound bites can not explain the complexities of this argument, a textbox at the bottom of a website cannot either and thus we're reduced to do the best we can with the tools we have.  I'm sure it's easier to ignore it and tell me that you can't learn anything from it.  If so, I can't say much else. Jason said that my comment of us 'running the world' is inaccurate.  I'm curious as to who would disagree that the United States - at least to a fair degree - runs the world. I won't waste time here quoting old rhetoric and such, but the reality of our current (and very real) situation isn't the age old dichotomy of good vs. evil as it seems would be a popular thought to people on this site, but rather an issue of fiscal ability and responsibility. I think sometimes people deem it un-American (whatever that even means) to suggest that our country could be in trouble, that we're failing, or god forbid that we might even be wrong on some fronts.  The fiscal reality is that we ARE failing.  My only argument is that ONE area we could heavily slim back on would be our foreign occupations (not even touching the whole mid-east occupation argument). You can say what you will regarding my philosophy, but the numbers don't lie.  This country is in a nose-dive towards a terrible recession and the only thing people seem to be interested in doing is 'protecting ourselves' from these so-called invaders.  With the amount of force we have in the eastern Mediterranean and into the mid-east, why do we need to be wasting money in Italy for example?  Look it up; we don't have the money! From most of your comments I'd guess you're not one to want to raise taxes either?  So where is this hidden surplus of wealth to come from?

Jason Steck

My only argument is that ONE area we could heavily slim back on would be our foreign occupations (not even touching the whole mid-east occupation argument).

Yes. If you bothered to read before responding, you might have noticed that I already conceded the point that decreases are possible. But they have to be evaluated case-by-case with attention to the specific needs and benefits of each situation rather than embracing sweeping claims, false dichotomies, and blindly regurgitated talking points. Your fundamental error remains: You make bad assumptions that then refuse to question them. You assume that withdrawal is always cost-free and without consequences. You assume that "running the world" (as you call it -- a more accurate term for the role of hegemon is "managing the world") involves only costs and never benefits. You also assume that the withdrawal of U.S. hegemony will not involve any negative consequences for the U.S. from an alternative hegemon stepping into the vacuum. You assume, you assume, and you assume and all that comes out are vague and sweeping talking points that are as disconnected from reality as you believe (based on no actual knowledge about my beliefs because you never bothered to ask before assuming (again)) that I am. Until you are willing to investigate and discuss specifics and consequences, you will continue to wallow in ignorance and frustration.

Kevin Yes a pity indeed that we've not the lengthy forum to more properly discuss this in depth. At least we can both agree that perhaps one area of cutbacks worth examining COULD be in our foreign occupations.  And yes, withdrawal obviously has costs too, both tangible and otherwise.  As noted several times, I've not forgotten said costs, I just haven't the ability to note every cost benefit and consequence, and every possible outcome in this forum. 

Paul McCain's the Real Flip-Flopper http://presidential-election08.blogspot.com/ By Paul Campos Wednesday, January 23, 2008 One of the curiosities of American politics is the media's ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain's opposition to torture (unfortunately we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with McCain is based on other factors. Consider this typical endorsement from The Orlando Sentinel: While McCain "has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign," Mitt Romney "has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party's conservative base." (Indeed I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain). This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here's just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk's recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances: * On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately. * McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics, into someone who sounds like he's drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts - for example federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases - that it's either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance). * In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland. * Six years ago McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance." Eighteen months ago he gave the commencement address at Falwell's university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right. These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views, or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week. Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc. Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they've repeated for years still has any relationship to reality. But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn't even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor. All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.

Jay_C I'd like to piggyback on what Kevin said.  It's not a question of costs and  benefits of withdrawal, it's a question of what should or should not be done regardless of the costs or benefits.  Here's an analogy: Should I tell my neighbor how to run his household if there is not a problem? No, I have the ability to, but it is none of my business, even if it is to my benefit.  If I by chance happen to see something is wrong in that household, that is a different story, I call the cops to look into it and again, after that it is no longer my business.  Unless there is a problem (infringment on others rights), I have no reason to be involved, I have my own household that need my resources. What do I ethically have the right to do.  So yes, unless we are at war (a war that was declared by congress, not by UN resolution), a standing army in another country should be recalled.

Jay_C I'd like to turn this around and say that all of the humerous analogies above are off base.  All you are saying  is similar to since I am holding this wall of the building, it has not fallen down, therefore I should keep holding the wall up. Christine also said that "after we go a certain length of time without a war, we can dismantle our entire military.:" Not our entire Military, only take troops home where there is not a war that was declared by Congress.

C Stanley Jay_C, if you feel that way it's only because you apparently don't believe in the power of deterrence. Because in your analogy, I'd say it's more similar to saying that if the wall of the building hasn't fallen down you don't decide to take down the load bearing beams. And it's fine to disagree about whether or not deterrence and projection of strength (not to mention readiness-it's much more difficult to deploy around the globe if we don't already have bases there) are important in maintaining stability and peace. But I think that history is on our side of that argument.

Jay_C I beleive in the poser of deterrence.  (It exists, it's not made up) However, it's not my place to use deterence outside my household.

Jay_C Would anoyone here approve of Chinese Bases on US turf?

Jay_C sorry, typo, power of deterrence, not poser.

C Stanley Jay_C: the US isn't a household, it's a nation which happens to also be very powerful. And if it were to become less powerful either be choice or by circumstance, then other players on the global scene would step into the void (funny that you mention China, which is potentially one such player.)

Jay_C "I’d say it’s more similar to saying that if the wall of the building hasn’t fallen down you don’t decide to take down the load bearing beams."  Well, that's the rub, with our current US deterrence measures overseas.  We debate weather we are the person holding the wall for no good reason, or the beams in the wall.    To keep going with the wall / neighbor analogy...It's like trying to tell your neighbor that his wall will fall down and we contributed to the wall falling down to begin with.  It  turns out that previously before getting involved with our neighbor we happened to have raised a colony of termites that live just outside our neighbor's wall and they have started to infest the wall.  Ooops our bad! Guess we have to stay here to keep the peace since we started the problem in the first place (Moral of the story, get out of other people's business, we have our own walls, beams and termites to worry about, and the wall and beams are not looking like they can hold much more weight.)

Jay_C I mention China for that very same reason! and I can't beleive you just said this: "And if it were to become less powerful either be choice or by circumstance, then other players on the global scene would step into the void (funny that you mention China, which is potentially one such player.)" That is what is scaring me... I (and the majority of Amercans) don't want another country to hold power over this great country.  Apparently, that doesn't bother you so much (Thanks, now I understand your viewpoint)

Jay_C ..."Jay_C: the US isn’t a household, it’s a nation which happens to also be very powerful."... I was going with the "Analogy" game that was started earlier in this thread.