Asymmetrical Information

I think Bush did very well. Kerry messed up a lot of opportunities and Bush spoke pretty well.

Bush is doing better, doesn't look half assed like he did last time. He's already been caught in a lie about drug re-importation as well as his baffled look over being a 'small business' using his admins spin.

see http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000347.html

I suspect the last bit about expectations is correct: Bush did much better, Kerry marginally worse. It's a debate which -- like the 2nd debate in '84 -- will reassure people who had doubts about the incumbent after the 1st one.

In fact, even when Bush went wonkish, it probably helped him, as the general perception is that he can't handle details. So even his boring answer on the environment -- an issue which I think most would guess W is uninterested -- was probably a plus.

I would also say that the Sub-S answer was less wonkish than Jane supposes. There are a lot of small businesses, and small business people in this country. They know what Sub-S is (even if they aren't organized under it), and they are probably likely voters. Plus, I suspect that the enormous growth in the investor class over the last 20 years has generally increased awareness of these sorts of issues.

Jane:

"Kerry just said something that's actually untrue: "the president's budget deficit keeps getting bigger and bigger". Actually, it peaked quite a while ago, and it's projected to steadily shrink."

Is this true? I seem to recall that at the beginning of the Bush Apostasy, people were talking about how his economic plans (and the intention to make them permanent) were peculiarly base because they pushed the main pain off until after he was safely out of office in 2008. So I did a quick and dirty search, and found this at DeLong's: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004-2_archives/000245.html.

Am I reading that wrong or isn't the deficit set to go up a fair bit at the end of the Bush term?

Sorry. Looked at the chart again. Looks like it's 2015-ish that we have to worry about. Is that all b/c of SS and Medicare? What the hell is happenning then?

As for the debate, I'd call it a draw. If you were leaning one way or the other, you probably got reassured and are leaning further that way. If the independents are really leaning towards Kerry, ala (IIRC) Zogby, this is good for him. Otherwise, probably no effect, or positive for Bush if the independents were leaning his way. Everyone else has made up their mind. If you've accepted Bush till now, I can't imagine what it would take to change your mind. And Kerry would have pee on himself onstage and then dance happily at the wetness of it all for someone like me to think about voting for Bush. Nah-Gawn-Do-It.

Ahhh, my dear, Bush won. AND Kerry lost. A very
fine distinction.

I will say that your blow by blow is THE best I
have found so far. And that includes some 100
sites.

Thank you.

I will be here for the next ... shudder ... one.

I've made mistakes. Of course I've made mistakes. I've made small mistakes, like that time I ordered moo shu pork but I forgot to order egg rolls too. Where was I? Oh yeah, we were talking about Chinese food. Yeah, I like that orange chicken. What about you folks? You like orange chicken too?

------

Kerry looked and acted presidential, Bush did not. Interrupting that nice Charlie Gibson, indeed.

Kerry inched closer to delivering a full indictment of Bush's complete failure to secure the homeland. He discussed Bush's failures regarding cargo, bagagge, and chem plants. However, he did not (yet) discuss how Bush allows basically open borders. Three million illegal aliens will enter the U.S. this year according to Time Magazine. Yet, at the same time Bush wants to give incentives to illegal aliens, including giving them social security benefits and foreign ID cards.

Out of those three million illegal aliens that will stream across our borders this year, who knows how many will be terrorists? The DHS certainly doesn't; they've admitted that they don't know how many of the thousands of illegal aliens from terrorist countries they've released into the community could be terrorists.

Kerry quoted Richard Luger this time; maybe next time he'll quote Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA): "The Department of Homeland Security's answers about border security and enforcement do not inspire confidence". All on Bush's watch.

Jane: "Personally, I hate the Medicare prescription drug benefit with a passion seldom found in one so young."

And with good reason. If nothing else, any two people reading this blog could sit down over lunch and design a prescription drug benefit that made more sense than what we got.

I think they both did about the same, and I also think all the comments on this thread don't really matter because you all have already made up your minds and are just tallying the various points plus or minus, which the lame people who are still undecided are probably not going to do. They are probably going to decide based on who feels right to them, and on that score I give Bush the edge, in that he seems more sincere. Kerry is a better debater in a style sense, but Bush is what he seems to be, for better or worse, and in the end I think people will trust him more.

Also, the overweening issue is the one Bush raised, terrorism, and although there are a lot of Dems who would like to minimize it, it weighs heavily. I think Kerry pulled the biggest flip flop of all tonight, pretending to be a war monger President when in fact he has spent his whole career as the most pacifist anti-military guy around. Is that who we want in the middle of a war? I don't think so.

Wow, TheLoneWackoBlog is getting pretty annoying, spamming bits of his post in comments across the blogosphere...

Good responses Jane, I feel the same on most points.

Does anyone sense that something is wrong with Heinz-Kerry? She looks out of it, like she's on something or has had too much Botox.

I am sorely tempted to sit this election out, as much as I find the two major candidates wanting. However, I live in a competitive state, and am thus forced to choose. As much as there is to be critical regarding George Bush, John Kerry's campaign rhetoric, should he be elected, has completely undermined any elements in Iraq which might favor anything resembling a decent government. He has consigned Iraq to the butchers. Totally.

The irony lies in the fact that so many Kerry supporters will cast their vote with a less militaristic foreign policy in mind, when in fact the election of Kerry will make it more likley that the American electorate will eventually turn to a 21st century Philip Sheridan to address the relationship with the Persian Gulf populations in an extraordinarily bloody fashion.

Too bad science has not yet advanced to the point to allow the cloning and reincarnation of Dwight Eisenhower.

Bush looked and sounded presidential. Kerry sounded petulant and aggrieved, like an unworthy supplicant.

Both men practiced deception, like true politicians. But Bush has an actual record as president that anyone can judge him on. Kerry is missing in action in the senate.

nathan b
"Does anyone sense that something is wrong with Heinz-Kerry?"

I have picked up on this as well, I suspect that the rigors of the campaign trail began to take their toll a while ago. I'm guessing that Tuh rez ahh is an excitable person who may be prone to outbursts and will likely be medicated for the duration.

Did anyone else notice that during the post debate mingling John Kerry's skin tone appeared unique in comparison to the other human beings in the room, kind of a "My Favorite Venusian" thing?

I have heard talk this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal of people's impressions that John Kerry resembled a car salesman.

At the last debate, he seemed to me to be like one of those late night infomercial guys talking about buying property with no money down.

This time around though, Senator Kerry brought back uncomfortable images from my childhood as severe as those first traumatic public hair cuts.

Last night he was the well groomed and pushy shoe salesman who slam dunked me into shoes I didn't want because he didn't want to take the time to find out what I really did want. Either that, or he was going for a new speed record. He knew what was best, and I was rather insignificant in the entire scheme of things, even though I would be the one wearing the damn shoes.

"Need some wood?"

Well, it certainly resembled the woodshed, and Johnnie was on the receiving end most of the night.

This was a great blow-by-blow.

I'm disappointed that no one in the audience asked the one question I would've especially liked to hear Kerry answer - do you plan to enforce the 'Oil For Food' oil contracts to France and others who worked against us, in order to buy their future support? I heard Bill Richardson responding to the question of how Kerry would get France and others to help us, and he said that Kerry would give them the oil contracts that that they were supposed to get under 'Oil For Food'.

Isn't anyone else upset about this? At least it's logical - how can you buy French support without running up our deficit? Give them Iraqi money. But think of it from the Iraq side: the countries and politicians who took bribes out of the fund that was supposed to feed the Iraqi people, and in turn worked to keep the Iraqis trapped under a vicious, brutal dictator, will now be rewarded with more money taken from the pockets of the Iraqi people? This is how Kerry is going to build a better Iraq?

Has Kerry never heard of video tape? When he claimed he'd never changed his mind about Iraq, he must not have known about:

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Although pundit spin is nice what matters are the polls.

All the polls agree.

Kerry won. Especially among independents (53-37 Gallup and 44-34 ABC).

Lonewacko,
"However, he did not (yet) discuss how Bush allows basically open borders. Three million illegal aliens will enter the U.S. this year according to Time Magazine."
Do you really believe that Kerry and the Democratic Party will support strong sanctions at the US borders with Mexico and Canada?

I would also say that the Sub-S answer was less wonkish than Jane supposes. There are a lot of small businesses, and small business people in this country. They know what Sub-S is (even if they aren't organized under it), and they are probably likely voters. Plus, I suspect that the enormous growth in the investor class over the last 20 years has generally increased awareness of these sorts of issues.

I wonder how the whole 'Timber Company' thing played. On the one hand, did most people understand that Bush's counting was dubious; counting plenty of people like him as 'small business owners' or did they just think Kerry was making an odd assertion that Bush ran a Timber company?

"Kerry just said something that's actually untrue: "the president's budget deficit keeps getting bigger and bigger". Actually, it peaked quite a while ago, and it's projected to steadily shrink."

Is this true?

I didn't look at the DeLong URL but keep in mind that many of Bush's tax cuts were set to expire after a few years. On paper this would give the impression of Bush's deficit falling in the future because the CBO would analyze the law as it is written and assume a massive tax increase in a few years. In reality, the intention was to not let those cuts expire.

Bush gets the both of both worlds, to claim his budget is 'projected' to decline while at the same time fighting to not let his cuts expire.

Out of those three million illegal aliens that will stream across our borders this year, who knows how many will be terrorists?

I don't think Bush's 'guest worker' program has anything to do with terrorism and at least with Bush's program those coming accross the border will be submitting paperwork which will give the DOH at least a shot at screening out known terrorists. This is one area where I think Bush's policy isn't half bad.

While I'm hardly a fan of George Bush, it truly disgusts me that Democrats would run a candidate like John Kerry. This is a man who's never had a day of executive experience. In fact, he has virtually no record of any accomplishment. He's sponsored no bills of any note while in the Senate, and has no real plan for leading the nation. The primary system has served us poorly by choosing someone with scant qualifications as our potential leader.

Do you really believe that Kerry and the Democratic Party will support strong sanctions at the US borders with Mexico and Canada?

If Bush wins, what will stop him from, as they say, four more years of the same?

If Kerry wins, what will stop him from "liberal" impulses? Yes, that's right: divided government, and a Bush-free GOP opposition ready to pounce on every mistake.

From my perspective, I consider border security and ending massive illegal immigration important. I think the chances of doing something about that are better under divided government than with... four more years of the same.

I don't think Bush's 'guest worker' program has anything to do with terrorism and at least with Bush's program those coming accross the border will be submitting paperwork which will give the DOH at least a shot at screening out known terrorists. This is one area where I think Bush's policy isn't half bad.

No, they're two separate issues, but they are related. For the scoop on the guest worker program, see Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee".

Even if Bush's guest worker plan were enacted tomorrow, there would still be illegal aliens trying to cross the border.

Why? Because his program would at least still keep the minimum wage, and some people would work for under the minimum wage, plus some employers wouldn't want to deal with paperwork, safety laws, and the like.

If he won't enforce the laws against illegal immigration now, what makes anyone think he'd enforce the laws making up his plan?

I show how the guest worker plan would drive many jobs down to near minimum wage in the third comment here.

Good to see that this blog has given up the slightly ludicrous claim not to be Republicans.

And, furthermore. Regarding the timber/"need some wood?" thing, see this. As it turns out, the joke is on those who believe that Kerry's tax plan would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses. No doubt you've heard that a few times in each debate. But, they've been counting a small business as anyone who gets any outside business income. That includes Bush because he got $84 from a timber company he used to have an interest in.

Boonton: The guest worker program sounds like it will allow in many more people than our intelligence and police agencies can actually check out, but that's not the big problem. The big problem is that so much of the border is not guarded effectively, so we can't count on stopping even the well-known terrorists. Ranchers along the Mexican border are suffering a crime wave from illegals crossing through the back country. The Border Patrol does catch quite a few of the illegals, but it just ships them south, where they can try again. Rather than trying harder to stop them, the Border Patrol puts out water so they won't die of dehydration out in the desert... I have to think that if Bin Laden himself is still alive and could make it to a Mexican border town undetected, he could buy a ride from there to anywhere in this country he wants, and have a better than 90% chance of getting there.

But terrorists are more likely to cross from Canada. The Canadian border is far less secure than the Mexican - like hundreds of road crossings where most of the time you'll find just a gate and a sign saying when a guard will be on duty to unlock it and check those who wish to pass, and about a thousand miles where it isn't possible to watch all the boat traffic. It wasn't a problem when the main concern was economically-motivated illegals, but Canada has allowed a number of Arabs that we have watch-listed for terrorism to enter and move freely. If they go somewhere they have to show their papers instead of crashing through an unguarded gate or sneaking across an a boat, they must be exceptionally stupid.

Lonewacko - I can understand your contempt for Bush's plans to combat illegal immigration. But I don't follow your argument that, with Bush gone, Kerry and a Republican congress will somehow do something better. Kerry has proposed a plan that is "worse" (from what I am assuming to be your perspective) than Bush's plan. Do you think a Republican congress will treat a Kerry victory as a mandate to oppose Kerry's approach to immigration? I don't.

You might think that Bush's plan is worse than doing nothing about the problem. Again, I don't follow such reasoning. If implemented, Bush's plan would provide much more information about who is crossing the border. That information could be used to better identify and monitor potential terrorists. Given this legitimate way to cross the border, public support for tougher measures to stop illegal crossings MIGHT increase. (As it is, there is almost no support for trying to close the borders. Currently, the US is being sued in federal courts on wrongful death grounds -- because illegals died when crossing our deserts.)

We might all come up with something better than the Bush plan. (It wouldn't be hard.) The hard thing is coming up with something better that might actually be enacted.

I also got the whiff of Kerry intimating that he would reinstitute the draft. He certainly didn't explain where he was going to get those 40,000 extra troops otherwise.

and someone should explain to him how patronizing it is to have some lengthy preoration about how you're right, I underestand, excellent question and then follow it with But... We all know that everything before the but was BS and just ear candy.

My compliments to the host for a great blow by of the debate, I’m just glad that Bush was more animated. Hey, where was Cheney anyway? I was very glad that there was actually a debate. Also glad that the moderator was fairer than I suspected he would be given his networks more open stand. Under the “I wish that he had said” column, when asked about the draft being reinstated, I would have been delighted to have heard that “the republicans have just defeated a democratic bill to reinstate the draft” statement, or at the very least a question to the candidate Kerry as to why his party was trying to reinstate it.

I did think that as to the environmental question he did hit on the uber-conservationist/envioronmentalist demands of leaving “nature to nature”, a failed policy that Silly Willie’s administration enforced with so much success culminating in the San Diego/Southern California tragic fires.

All in all it was a balanced session with both sides not needing drool cups. Although I’m still trying to envision Kerry “looking presidential” with a stage presence of less than 10 moving parts.

Perhaps the Domestic debate will shed light to the little A’le Inn problem helping to exacerbate the job loss problem, Bush does seem to think Fox his Amigo Grande, just as he thought Vlad his Tovaritch, just before we found out that Vlad had been a “bad little Ivan” by giving material support and Security Council votes had been bought off by Sodamn Insane.

I would have to give the head nod to the Republican guest worker program, whose biggest complaint seems to be that it is a temporary reprieve not a full pardon. With the Democratic generated plans in San Francisco, Chicago and other Dem strongholds that want aliens to have the right to vote (because they pay taxes, however illegally) “in local matters”. One of the basic rights of citizenship is the right of citizens to make majority decisions on maters that affect the country. Majority rule is the basic foundation of our system of government. It has always been a right of citizenship, not proximity. Neither party has approached immigration problems with any measure of foresight, both parties are thinking shallow ended gene pool positions of vote capture of voters here illegally. Just seems wrong.

I’m more than a little pleased that Kerry’s feminine side had no real effect on the elections of Australia and that the Afghan’s had election as fair as any in Chicago, (vote early, vote often).

While I'm hardly a fan of George Bush, it truly disgusts me that Democrats would run a candidate like John Kerry. This is a man who's never had a day of executive experience. In fact, he has virtually no record of any accomplishment. He's sponsored no bills of any note while in the Senate, and has no real plan for leading the nation

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

1. Chair of Senate Small Business Committee

2. 19 yrs on Senate Foreign Relations Committee

3. Chairman of Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and Intl Operations

4. Co-sponsored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act.

5. Wrote '97 State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)

Plus there's more inclluding his work with John McCain on POW/MIA's and other assorted things. Try to get some facts before you shoot your mouth off again.

And that's the sum total of 20 years in the Senate? And where in all that is the executive/managerial experience found?

Is any one just a little upset with "I have a plan Kerry." How is it that in 20 years of service he hasn't shared just one of these great plans to cure America of what ails her? Why has he waited all this time to share these great plans? I would like to know his plan to deal with male pattern baldness. I think such a plan could move white males to the dems.
It gets old to hear that he has a plan that cures all our ills. It is a sign of emotional immaturity to make such statements. Kerry may be a closet fairy tale writer.

If he won't enforce the laws against illegal immigration now, what makes anyone think he'd enforce the laws making up his plan?

This is a nice rhetorical flurish but what do you mean immigration law isn't being enforced? Over a million people are deported to Mexico every year plus millions are intercepted at the border before they can cross. You mean that immigration law isn't enforced perfectly in the face of widespread violations of it. You can say the same thing for drug laws, plenty of people violate them but there's quite a few people sitting in jail who would be surprised to be told drug laws aren't enforced.

But terrorists are more likely to cross from Canada. The Canadian border is far less secure than the Mexican -

No terrorists who come not in the millions but in pairs or maybe a dozen at most are more likely to cross as 'tourists' or on student visas. Probably they would be using European passports rather than passports from 'suspect' countries like Syria or Saudi Arabia....or they would recruit American citizens who are immune to any immigration restriction.

And that's the sum total of 20 years in the Senate? And where in all that is the executive/managerial experience found?

No there's quite a bit moew on http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html if you really care. Kerry co-managed the POW/MIA committee with McCain plus all the other stuff mentioned there. He has more experience than Bush had when he ran for President.

Kerry really is qualified to lead.

He managed a committee - WOW! He sponsored a bill (or two) - WOW!!!

As for more experience I must also agree. He has found more wealthy women to support him than Bush ever had or will have.

He can also second quess others while not seeing the fact he waffles. A true sign of a leader. A leader should never see their own flaws, this only hinders their ability to exploit others and use the power that is rightly theirs.

Im surprised Kerry won by such a large margin in most polls. The Bush campaign has to be concerned that his first debate was so bad a good number of undecided voters have made up their minds.

If you want to talk about Kerrys record in the Senate you have to talk about Bushs record in the private sector. Is their any recent major legislation any Senator wants there name on? Mccain/Fiengold appears to be the exact right mix of bipartisan diplomacy on a subject most of America thinks needs to be changed. But with the 527s and how ugly this campaign is, even that legislation would be more of a burden than a benefit to any candidate.

Now I know you reps will want to ignore Bushs bankruptcies, SEC violations, and the trading of Sammy Sosa to focus on his time of governor of big, dumb, Texas. But NAFTA and the Clinton years were huge benefits to border states, and Bush certainly hasnt done much right as President.

I dont think either candidate has distinguished themselves as the cream of the crop. But I think Bushs whole life has been defined by who his father is. Whats really strange to me is Jeb wasnt the first Bush offspring to run for President. Because seeing him speak with all the of the the hurricane damage in Fla shows hes smarter, much better spoken, and has more presence than jr.

One last thing, there are a huge number of frozen embryos originally harvested for artificial insemination purposes. Once a pregnancy has been achieved, these embryos remain frozen to a point in time, then their destroyed. Unless the government were to outlaw certain types of fertility techniques, there will continue to be more embryos harvested than used in certain types of artificial insemanation, and to not use these embryos to the benefit of mankind is a total waste.

He managed a committee - WOW! He sponsored a bill (or two) - WOW!!!

What would you consider acceptable experience? Is it your assertion that 20 years in the Senate is not proper experience to be President? Would you hold by this assertion if Kerry was a Conservative Republican? How does Kerry's experience compare to, say, Dan Quayle?

As for more experience I must also agree. He has found more wealthy women to support him than Bush ever had or will have.

I could say something rude about Bush being born with a silver spoon in his mouth but I'll just note that it is really sad when Republicans have to resort to class warfare in an effort to win an argument. Do you feel your inability to mount a mature argument is evidence of how public education has short changed you? Care to use your own posts as an argument for vouchers?

As it is, there is almost no support for trying to close the borders.

That's completely false on two grounds. First, "closing the borders" is different from "securing the borders." However, the traffic should be monitored as much as possible. As pointed out above, if OBL got to Juarez or Tijuana, he could find someone to hide him among the three million illegal aliens who'll cross this year.

And, there is widespread public support for an end to illegal immigration and even a restriction of legal immigration. Every single poll shows that. The problem is with the elites. The politicians are paid off, the Race Industry engages in scare-mongering, the finance industry wants the business no matter the consequences, the employers want the cheap compliant labor, etc. etc.

Look at, for instance, Prop. 200 in Arizona. It requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote and seeks to prevent state-mandated services from going to illegal aliens. About 66% of Arizonans support it, but the establishment is against it. Why they're opposed is obvious: follow the money.

Or, see this. 80% of those in NC and SC want stricter immigration control.

In Texas, 86% say illegal immigration is a very serious or somewhat serious problem.

We might all come up with something better than the Bush plan. (It wouldn't be hard.) The hard thing is coming up with something better that might actually be enacted.

I included this link above: Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee".

By "any type of employee", they don't mean various types of serf laborers. They mean millions of high-wage jobs in all sectors: "nurses, teachers, high-tech workers", the "concept can apply broadly." Now, we're told that this only applies to, harumph, jobs Americans won't do. And, we're told this will be open to the world. How many Americans will teach or nurse or write software for the minimum wage? Now, how many Chinese or Bangladeshis or Filipinos would jump at the chance?

Some libertarians might like this plan, but as public policy for America it's just wrong. Perhaps they should try it in some other country instead.

This is a nice rhetorical flurish but what do you mean immigration law isn't being enforced?

In the first five months of this year, just one company in the whole United States was fined for immigration violations. Employer sanctions is the time-tested way to reduce illegal immigration. If hiring someone illegally could result in a big fine or even jail time, most companies will make sure they're hiring legal workers.

Not only is the stick not being used, but more carrots are being put out. The Bush administration worked to allow banks to accept Mexican ID cards. Those IDs are only of use to illegal aliens, the FBI and the DOJ call them a security threat, and Mexican consuls criss-cross our great land handing those cards out to their citizens who are here illegally. See "Consular IDs help illegals evade immigration law" or Their Money or Your Safety.

In the first five months of this year, just one company in the whole United States was fined for immigration violations. Employer sanctions is the time-tested way to reduce illegal immigration. If hiring someone illegally could result in a big fine or even jail time, most companies will make sure they're hiring legal workers.

Except for under the table employment in businesses with lots of cash moving around (think dishwashers in diners, helpers for contractors, landscaping etc.). Who exactly are the 'elites' here too?

Allowing that smarmy three mistakes question in blew any pretense of ABC moderation. I believe the president should demand that Fox take over the third debate.

Interesting comments. Very revealing, I think.

Who exactly are the 'elites' here too?

I don't understand exactly what you mean. But, if you're asking, is Tommy Lasorda, owner of a once-shutdown L.A. restaurant, an "elite", well then:

No, those who own small restaurants are not part of the elite. However, they're part of their local Chambers of Commerce, which is part of or affiliated with the state CofC, which is part of or affiliated with the national CofC.

And, in the case of Proposition 200 (mentioned above), the Arizona CofC is one of the main opponents, and the national CofC is involved or was considering getting involved.

Illegal immigrants are in the interest of restaurant owners and illegal immigrants being able to use public services mean less demand that the employers of illegals provide health care (or sufficient pay for illegals to buy their own). Its also in the interests of the numerous people who hire day laborers, babysitters, nannies and so on. In other words, the 'elites' probably look a lot like your neighbors and a lot less like the heads of giant, shady, corporations.

There are many circles of elites. There are national elites, state elites, and local elites.

Here's a tangible example. Grant Woods is the former AG of AZ. He's the spokesperson for the anti-Prop. 200 forces.

A few years ago, he was fined for illegally employing an illegal alien nanny.

You've probably never heard of Grant Woods before. Yet, he's a member of the Arizona elite. They "send a delegation" - so to speak - to the national elites. Circles within circles or food chains would be another way to look at it. I'm pretty sure there are only a few steps between the national elites and those who employ the vast majority of illegal workers.

I think if you are relying on debates at this late date to point the way then you are pretty screwed.

Comments are Closed.