The American Spectator : Painkillers and Palin

Text Size

Painkillers and Palin

4.23.10 @ 6:01AM

Problems with Palin. Reagan vs. Obama. Republicans and repeal and more.

IN A HEARTBEAT
Re: Quin Hillyer's The Problem With Palin:

It's always a pleasure to read Mr. Hillyer's columns, filled with insight and commanding respect and attention given his able research and rational analysis. His "The Problem With Palin" invites sequels on other political figures and, were I to do one on say, President Obama, it would contain a near infinite number of problems and be book length. A gifted journalist of Mr. Hillyer's caliber should research, analyze and opine while us readers need to absorb all rational opinion and make our own decisions, in the voting booth for instance. Faced with few options or choices unless one is a party apparatchik, we often find ourselves having to pick between 2 or 3 negatives. Even if one assumed all of Mr. Hillyer's commentary on Governor Palin to be accurate, and the presidential election were to be a contest today between Obama and Palin, I would "in a heartbeat" and without hesitation, vote for the governor......
-- A. Corey
Maine

Quin Hillyer replies:
I appreciate Mr. Corey's compliments, and entirely share his conclusion about voting for Ms. Palin in a heartbeat if the final choice were between her and Mr. Obama. Other letter writers seem, unfortunately, to miss the point that my piece was hardly a full-out attack against the admirable Ms. Palin, but an analysis of her strengths and weaknesses of the kind I do frequently in my columns. My article should indeed, however, be read as an implicit criticism of all political boosters who look at any questions about their favorites as if the critic is an utter apostate -- rather than as an opportunity for the political figure to take stock, to learn, and to improve. If we don't criticize ourselves constructively, our political adversaries will blind-side us with far harsher criticisms based on the same evidence, twisted around into ominous warnings, that are far more destructive to the conservative cause than any honest self-critiques ever could be.

Good points, Quin. And I too, am uncomfortable with Palin 2012 for the reasons you cite. But I believe, with just a little more seasoning, she could be ready much sooner than 2024. A little observation, though. Why did John McCain choose her as a running mate, and what does that say about HIS "experience"? Hmm, perhaps Palin has a point after all, "government experience doesn't necessarily count for much."?
-- Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

I thought there was something curious in this month's TAS.

You have Quin's deconstruction of Sarah Palin juxtaposed to Tyrrell's new book excerpt where he points out that "conservatism" isn't so much an ideology, as much as a disposition.

Sarah represents that conservative disposition.

And why the ink spilled on comparing the Republican Vice Presidential candidate with no contrast to the Democrat's Presidential candidate? We (ostensibly, the Republican Party as a collective) were not putting
Sarah Palin up to run against Barack Obama.

Who, exactly, are you, Quin Hillyer?
-- Bill
New Jersey

A TELL SIGN
Re: W. James Antle, III's Crying Hate, Suppressing Debate:

Anytime Bill Clinton furrows his brow, you can rest assured that he's about to lay another whopper on you. That's true whether it's about "protesters rudely demonstrating their ingratitude to benevolent old Uncle Sam," or "that woman," or "I didn't inhale," or anything else coming out of the man's mouth. My poker-playing acquaintances would shake their heads and call it a blatant "tell."
-- Rush Elkins
Huntsville, Alabama

Dear Ole Bill Clinton...yes, I recall this president, the draft dodger, the guy who chased Hillary..or did she chase him?

Bill is a "coward," although after all these years of learning how to prattle for cover, he still can con many into believing his dreamy pictures of what reality ought to be.

As with all narcissists, we must do their bidding, must follow their dreams, and must never question their decisions -- especially as it relates to what we need to do for them!

We citizens should spend more time reading about true and great leaders before the next election. I doubt such will occur, therefore, we will wait until after the smoke clears from the forthcoming calamity.

Page: 1 2 3 >

Letter to the Editor View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Alan Brooks| 4.23.10 @ 11:52PM

"and entirely share his conclusion about voting for Ms. Palin in a heartbeat if the final choice were between her and Mr. Obama."

The above is hypothetical, of course (meaningless), but Palin would not have the experience to beat Obama, you educated fool, Hillyer.
Since Reagan left office, you people have lost your bearings. no wonder you admire Reagan, he was the last great American.

Alan Brooks| 4.24.10 @ 1:58PM

This is the most important piece written in the last month:
------------
Geo F. Will
A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."