JD voted for the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society (Medicare Pt D), onerous regulation (Sarbanes-Oxley), No Child Left Behind, and pretty much every government expansion that came down the pike. Sure, he voted for the tax cuts; who (besides McCain and his merry band of “moderates”) didn’t? The truth of the matter is, JD didn’t care about spending unless it involved illegal immigrants.

almost every time that JD has come up as a topic, and some others (an expansion to McCain-Feingold, for instance). I like to compare the Republicans I support to other Republicans, not Democrats: that’s a rather low bar to trip over, and of course they’re going to beat the Rep on spending etc., if simply because of inertia! We’ll have to disagree (quite strongly!) on Medicare Pt D and NCLB, especially NCLB, which worsened the already-bad education in this country immeasurably and essentially nationalized portions of K-12 education. (Medicare Pt D met the objectives it set out to achieve, yes, but I didn’t agree with the initial objectives or the outcome, which was to produce the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society.) JD’s a more reliable party vote than McCain, but I’m not sure that he’s more conservative than McCain, especially on spending, where McCain’s bad record is made better in light of JD’s.

First, he’s great on taxes. He’s sponsored and co-sponsered several bills cutting taxes, including one that nixed all state income taxes for active-duty military. Sweet deal. Second, he’s put the legwork into reforming Child Protective Services, and it’s been a pretty nice improvement.

but an ad hominem is not the same thing as an insult; to wit, an insult is delivered for the sheer gratification of the thing and is an end unto itself (or very near it), while an ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by drawing attention to a personal failing of the person making said argument (example: “you’re one to talk about the benefits of the free market: didn’t your farm receive agriculture subsidies).

Becker insults, but I haven’t seen him us an ad hom in my time on RS.

except as it pertains to JD’s chances for victory (and yes, it shot what credibility he had with the Tea Party, which was kinda sorta 50/50, down in flames). A “buffoon” is defined as being, “A ridiculous but amusing person; a clown.” No mention of intelligence, and a perfect definition of JD. Heck, it’s not so much an insult as it is an accurate pseudonym at this point.

And no, I’m not wrong on the ad homs. If I were saying that everything JD says on immigration is wrong because he’s a buffoon, I’d be employing ad hom. If, on the other hand, I were saying that the claim that JD is a good candidate is wrong because he is a buffoon (which, hey, is exactly what I’ve been saying), I would not be employing ad hom, as such a factor may be relevant to your proposition, depending on your criterion for a good candidate. Showing JD’s voting record on spending is, likewise, relevant to the question of whether JD is a True Conservative? — or maybe not, seeing as how the term seems to mean whatever its user wants it to mean at a given juncture. If you’re a one-issue conservative on border security and you use money like it’s confetti, then JD’s the perfect candidate for you! For those of us who care about spending, and who have other seats with better candidates opposite worse opponents than McCain (such as all of our D house seats but Grijalva’s), not so much.

BTW, I’ll reply to a post on JD’s immigration record when I find one — maybe you can write it, seeing as how you seem to have a passion for the issue. The posts I’ve come across either say “we’re thiiiiis close to unseating McCain with stellar candidate JD”, or “damn the torpedoes, JD’s a grrreat conservative, and we should all support him”, both general statements about JD’s viability and conservatism that I find fault with. If you’re angry that we’re staying on topic, and not making it about JD’s immigration views (which wasn’t the subject of this sub-thread till you mentioned it), go right on ahead, Aaron. Meanwhile, I’ll comment on the issue when someone brings it up.

Where did I imply that I did? I said that I’ve posted many comments to that effect, and recommended the diaries of AZ residents dealing with the issue, and explicitly stated that I’d write a more complete diary if I see $25 worth of interest in the race.

The only reply I made to your posts was to note that you were (and still are) wrong about ad homs and their definition, and then to reply to your post concerning my use of ad hom. If that’s a “dig”, then I stand by it.

I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m a liar, dissembler, or “weasel” and would like an apology for words rendered to that effect. This discussion has become overheated, and for little reason, as far as I can tell. I wouldn’t care if you were a troll or a one-day wonder, but given your status here on RS, and my personal respect for your postings, you’re better than that and should post accordingly. I’m out; I sincerely hope that you enjoy the rest of your day.

We’ve passed several laws dealing with the issue of illegal immigration before SB 1070, among them a couple dealing with employers who hire illegals. We have one that requires businesses to use E-Verify, a virtually costless system, and though it could use some tweaking, it works quite well. Welfare reform in the 90s, though it didn’t directly concern illegal immigration, barred immigrants from receiving government entitlements and Social Security (these efforts have since been weakened by executive orders and subsequent legislation, I’m afraid). The Republicans got Clinton to lower the legal immigration quotas in the 90s, as well (which was ultimately counter-productive, but still an effort to do something about the problem). I’m not sure about the specifics of the following states, but Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, and even non-border states, like Georgia and Philadelphia have anti-immigration laws on the books. All of the examples cited attempted to curb illegal immigration in some fashion or other, without using amnesty.

getting illegals; it only allows checking of ID upon “lawful contact”, not mass immigration sweeps, which would unquestionably be un-Constitutional. The police, btw, already did that before SB 1070. The only things added to the books that weren’t already there were 1) a provision allowing the police to be sued if they don’t prosecute this duty with sufficient vigour. I have no idea who would have legal standing to sue for a victimless crime, but there it is. 2) Some new employer sanctions, which I agreed with, but which will never be implemented because of the giant red target that the rest of the bill is for lawyers. SB 1070 was almost completely -completely!- unnecessary, because police were already doing everything mandated by the law as a matter of policy, and as a result of some earlier state laws. Your argument seems to be that, because illegal immigration didn’t cease in the 90s, there weren’t efforts to stop it. BTW, SB 1070 won’t stop illegal immigration, and it probably won’t even slow it down (though lower demand for construction work just might). It’s purely symbolic, and won’t do anything to solve the problem. The best things states can do is disbar illegals from accessing our public services (perhaps sans emergency rooms) and stiff employer sanctions. Rounding up the illegals would be prohibitively costly and a waste of limited police resources.

In reality, the only part of the bill that is peripherally related to that issue is the provision wherein a private citizen may sue police officers for not executing the provisions of this law to their fullest extent. This has two problems: 1) I have no idea what private citizen would have legal standing to sue for a victimless crime, or what damages they might receive. I assume that the drafters of the bill have thought this through, but if they have, they haven’t filled the rest of us in, and it could get hairy. 2) The sanctuary cities’ (Tucson, and now, Phoenix) problems run a little deeper than police checking immigration status (something that is already done by the police force in both cities). The problem is more with use of city, municipal, and state services without having to provide documentation, IMO. So to answer your question, yes and no.

the biggest reason being that there is no incentive for government officials to go after them. IMO, we should increase the fines to a punitive amount, and allow the prosecuting agency to keep a cut of whatever that fine is for every company that is successfully fined/sued.

“SB 1070 is pointless symbolism” = “I hate you all, agree with Obama on every count, and yearn for your destruction”. Scope, I try to at least parse the meaning of your words before replying caustically. I’d appreciate if you did the same, and tbh, you’re not doing much to disprove my theory that support for SB 1070 is mostly based on emotion (there are some outliers, like George Will).

BTW, it wasn’t a battle between right and wrong, it was a battle between “well reasoned” and “insane”. As usual, the 9th went with “really, really insane”.