Post by bergsteiger on Sept 11, 2007 6:10:54 GMT -5
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Univision’s Spanish-Language Panderfest—A Black Day For America
"It was remarkable. We made history". That’s what Joe Uva said about the Univision-sponsored Democratic debate/forum/pander-fest, held on Sept. 9th, in Miami. [Joe Uva: "Hicimos historia" By Eduardo Orbea, Univision Online, September 10, 2007.]
Joe should know. He’s the CEO of Univision, America’s most-watched Spanish-language network. (Not only that, but during the week of August 27th to Sept. 2nd, Univision was the #1 rated network among all 18-34 year old adults, with 9 of the 20 highest rated programs—beating CBS, NBC, ABC, CWTV and Fox.)
Of course the candidate face-off was good for Univision’s profits—but was it good for the country?
The Univision forum (it really wasn’t a debate) involved seven Democratic Party candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Christopher Dodd, and Bill Richardson. All seven groveled before two blond Univision moderators, Maria Elena Salinas and Jorge Ramos, and pledged their undying loyalty to Hispanic Manifest Destiny.
Down here in Mexico, I watched the whole broadcast in Spanish. Its use of languages was a little convoluted, but all the candidates agreed on it beforehand. First, Maria Elena or Jorge asked the questions in Spanish, which were translated to English for the benefit of the candidates, only two of whom understand Spanish, and transmitted to them via earpieces. Then the candidates answered in English, while a nearly simultaneous voice-over Spanish translation was broadcast. I found the effect of two languages simultaneously spoken to be rather cacophonous. But perhaps it’s appropriate—a symbol of what our nation might become.
A few questions are in order.
Isn’t speaking English a condition for getting U.S. citizenship? (Answer: Yes). Why then have a candidate forum (or any other campaigning) in a foreign language?
Why do U.S. citizen Hispanics need a debate directed towards them? Do Hispanics have the same interests as other Americans or not?
If the answer is yes, then what’s the big deal? Treat them like everybody else.
If the answer is no, maybe we need to spell out exactly what the differences are. Because maybe the non-Hispanic majority ought to have some kind of say in the nation’s future too. You wouldn’t get that impression from the Univision event, however.
Patriotic Americans of Hispanic ancestry don’t need to be pandered to and they don’t need a special tailor-made forum to attract their attention. But obviously, this media event wasn’t staged for them—it was staged for Hispanics who put their ethnicity before their American citizenship.
Furthermore,
does Jorge Ramos, a Mexican citizen, have any business moderating an American political debate?
Would Mexico allow Lou Dobbs to moderate a debate for Mexican presidential candidates? Of course not.
As a foreigner here in Mexico, I am strictly forbidden by law to meddle in Mexican politics. If, for example, I did something as seemingly harmless as march in a protest demonstration, I could be immediately booted from the country. It’s happened to other human beings.
And Jorge Ramos does much more than march in demonstrations. He is an open promoter of the transformation of the United States into a Latin American country. Ramos predicts that transformation will be complete within a century. And if present trends continue, he’s right.
Of course, he’s doing his part to bring such a transformation about. But maybe American citizens, and not just blond Mexican anchormen, should have a say in the matter.
Any self-respecting country would have given Ramos the boot years ago.
But the seven Democratic candidates were more than happy to pander. And not only did they bend over backwards to pander to Hispanics, they all displayed their fundamental socialistic orientation. They all want to spend more of your money to fulfill their promises to Hispanics and others.
The Democratic demagogues want universal health care, more spending on education and housing, and (in some cases) aid programs for Latin America. The discussion of each social crisis: health, education, housing, was prefaced with how it affects the Hispanic community.
(No mention of crime, however).
None of the candidates talked about the Constitution or traditional American political principles. It was all about feelings, slogans and anecdotes.
And there were plenty of anecdotes. Barack Obama talked about his father, from a small African village, not mentioning that his dad abandoned him. John Edwards talked about his hardworking old man and about an illegal alien who got hurt in a factory. Edwards also boasted that his hometown is now 50% Latino. Mike Gravel talked about a slain soldier in Iraq whose father was about to be deported, and bellyached about having to wait two hours to enter the U.S. from Canada.
None of the candidates shared any anecdotes about Americans harmed by illegal immigration.
As for Dennis Kucinich, he signed up for the wrong campaign. His "human unity" rhetoric more closely resembled that of a candidate for President of the World than for the U.S.A. Alone among the candidates, he agreed with the idea that Spanish should be made America’s second official language.
Here's what the candidates had to say about immigration:
Obama: "We can't just have hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country without knowing who they are. It also means, though, that we have an employer verification system that works, and it means that we provide a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers who are already here. And that is something that I have championed, and that is something that I will pass when I am president of the United States; we will begin working on it the first year.''
Clinton: "I have championed comprehensive immigration reform, and it includes starting with securing our borders in order to give people the support they need to come over and support us when it comes to having a pathway to legalization. We all know that this has become a contentious political issue. It is being demagogued, and I believe that it is being used to bash immigrants, and that must stop.''
Kucinich: First of all, a Kucinich administration will build relationships between nations, not walls. We need to move forward with an America that remembers where we came from, and that is—immigration reform has to be central to it. That means there must be a path to legalization, because there are no illegal human beings. We have to start looking at our policies, which are aimed at separating people.''
Richardson: "This is what we need to do in immigration my first year. One, yes, more border security, technology at the border. Number two, a stronger relationship with Mexico and Central America, to create jobs so that flow doesn't come here. Third, enforce the law. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished.''
Edwards: ''You know, it's interesting to me. When you walk into a Blockbuster to—to rent a movie, you don't see anybody, but you hear a voice saying, ‘Welcome to Blockbuster.’ We can figure out when somebody's walking into a Blockbuster. It seems to me we can figure out when somebody's coming into the United States of America, and especially if we use the technology that's available to us. And I think that's what the focus should be on—more Border Patrol, better use of technology, as absolutely a path to—to earn citizenship for those who are living here and who are undocumented.''
Gravel: "I think it's abominable that they go out and do these raids, separate families. ... Stop and think—all these people want to do is earn enough money to feed their families, whether they send them money back home or they bring their families here. If we made it easier for them to go back and forth on the borders, you wouldn't have this problem.''
The Univision-chosen subject matter was also telling. There were the Hispanic-related issues (immigration, Spanish, racism) and the welfare issues (health, education, housing). But nothing about the social/family values issues Hispanic voters are supposedly so concerned about. It was all about "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!"
As for foreign policy, the only countries specifically mentioned were Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Iraq. And the Iraq questions were prefaced with the statement that the majority of Hispanics favor a troop withdrawal. The implication was that it’s what Hispanics want, not what U.S. interests are, that should be considered.
With the exception of World Citizen Kucinich, the candidates did make an attempt to say that securing our border was important. But they all support a "path to citizenship" (amnesty), they don’t want to separate families (anchor babies) and want to stop raids.
The questions themselves were carefully crafted to advance the Hispanic agenda. The first one was "Why is it important for you to be in this debate and is it a risk?" Candidates were also asked if they would promote Spanish as a second language.
Another question began by referring to the "negative tone" of the immigration debate and asked the candidates how they would fight "anti-Hispanic" sentiments. (Is the president’s job to uphold the Constitution or to fight "sentiments"?)
Hillary’s reply was:
"Well, I think this is a very serious problem…there are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. [VDARE.COM NOTE: She means Lou Dobbs, and she's wrong. Dobbs isn’t criticizing "our Latino population", he's criticizing that portion of Mexico's' Latino population illegally resident in the United States.] And I think it’s very destructive. It undermines our unity as a country."
Notice how politicians talk about "unity" when they want you to agree with them and decry division when people don’t agree with them?
Another loaded question began by stating that none of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Mexico, so why should we build a wall on the Mexican border and not the Canadian border?
While they all talked around the issue, none of them was willing to answer the question "Why not a Canadian Wall?" which, aside from the unmentionable cultural problems, is that Canadians aren't wading the Niagara River in any great numbers.
The last question asked the candidates to tell what they thought was the biggest contribution of Hispanics to the United States. John Edwards replied that there were so many ("in every conceivable way") it would be a mistake to mention just one.
Bill Richardson, of (mostly) Hispanic origin himself, tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he said Hispanics have the same interests as everybody else, but he missed no opportunity to play up his own Hispanic identity.
Upon being asked if he would promote Spanish as the nation’s second language, Richardson broke the rules of the debate by asking if he could respond in Spanish. Told he couldn’t, Richardson started talking about his Latino pride, his disappointment that Latinos couldn’t hear "one of their own" (i.e., Bill) speaking Spanish:
"…I was under the impression that in the debate Spanish was going to be permitted because I’ve always supported Univision all my career, but I’m disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country, for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish—[applause] is unfortunate. In other words Univision has promoted English-only in this debate."
And then he started speaking Spanish anyway, until Ramos cut him off.
All in all, this was a black day for America.
Democratic candidates self-righteously present themselves as being polar opposites of President George W. Bush. But their answer to the National Question is, for all practical purposes, identical to that of the president they so love to loathe: abolish America.
When the forum was finished, arrogant Mexican meddler Jorge Ramos reminded Hispanic viewers that "You have the opportunity to change history."
So do we, Senor Ramos. So do we.
Univision’s Spanish-Language Panderfest—A Black Day For America
"It was remarkable. We made history". That’s what Joe Uva said about the Univision-sponsored Democratic debate/forum/pander-fest, held on Sept. 9th, in Miami. [Joe Uva: "Hicimos historia" By Eduardo Orbea, Univision Online, September 10, 2007.]
Joe should know. He’s the CEO of Univision, America’s most-watched Spanish-language network. (Not only that, but during the week of August 27th to Sept. 2nd, Univision was the #1 rated network among all 18-34 year old adults, with 9 of the 20 highest rated programs—beating CBS, NBC, ABC, CWTV and Fox.)
Of course the candidate face-off was good for Univision’s profits—but was it good for the country?
The Univision forum (it really wasn’t a debate) involved seven Democratic Party candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Christopher Dodd, and Bill Richardson. All seven groveled before two blond Univision moderators, Maria Elena Salinas and Jorge Ramos, and pledged their undying loyalty to Hispanic Manifest Destiny.
Down here in Mexico, I watched the whole broadcast in Spanish. Its use of languages was a little convoluted, but all the candidates agreed on it beforehand. First, Maria Elena or Jorge asked the questions in Spanish, which were translated to English for the benefit of the candidates, only two of whom understand Spanish, and transmitted to them via earpieces. Then the candidates answered in English, while a nearly simultaneous voice-over Spanish translation was broadcast. I found the effect of two languages simultaneously spoken to be rather cacophonous. But perhaps it’s appropriate—a symbol of what our nation might become.
A few questions are in order.
Isn’t speaking English a condition for getting U.S. citizenship? (Answer: Yes). Why then have a candidate forum (or any other campaigning) in a foreign language?
Why do U.S. citizen Hispanics need a debate directed towards them? Do Hispanics have the same interests as other Americans or not?
If the answer is yes, then what’s the big deal? Treat them like everybody else.
If the answer is no, maybe we need to spell out exactly what the differences are. Because maybe the non-Hispanic majority ought to have some kind of say in the nation’s future too. You wouldn’t get that impression from the Univision event, however.
Patriotic Americans of Hispanic ancestry don’t need to be pandered to and they don’t need a special tailor-made forum to attract their attention. But obviously, this media event wasn’t staged for them—it was staged for Hispanics who put their ethnicity before their American citizenship.
Furthermore,
does Jorge Ramos, a Mexican citizen, have any business moderating an American political debate?
Would Mexico allow Lou Dobbs to moderate a debate for Mexican presidential candidates? Of course not.
As a foreigner here in Mexico, I am strictly forbidden by law to meddle in Mexican politics. If, for example, I did something as seemingly harmless as march in a protest demonstration, I could be immediately booted from the country. It’s happened to other human beings.
And Jorge Ramos does much more than march in demonstrations. He is an open promoter of the transformation of the United States into a Latin American country. Ramos predicts that transformation will be complete within a century. And if present trends continue, he’s right.
Of course, he’s doing his part to bring such a transformation about. But maybe American citizens, and not just blond Mexican anchormen, should have a say in the matter.
Any self-respecting country would have given Ramos the boot years ago.
But the seven Democratic candidates were more than happy to pander. And not only did they bend over backwards to pander to Hispanics, they all displayed their fundamental socialistic orientation. They all want to spend more of your money to fulfill their promises to Hispanics and others.
The Democratic demagogues want universal health care, more spending on education and housing, and (in some cases) aid programs for Latin America. The discussion of each social crisis: health, education, housing, was prefaced with how it affects the Hispanic community.
(No mention of crime, however).
None of the candidates talked about the Constitution or traditional American political principles. It was all about feelings, slogans and anecdotes.
And there were plenty of anecdotes. Barack Obama talked about his father, from a small African village, not mentioning that his dad abandoned him. John Edwards talked about his hardworking old man and about an illegal alien who got hurt in a factory. Edwards also boasted that his hometown is now 50% Latino. Mike Gravel talked about a slain soldier in Iraq whose father was about to be deported, and bellyached about having to wait two hours to enter the U.S. from Canada.
None of the candidates shared any anecdotes about Americans harmed by illegal immigration.
As for Dennis Kucinich, he signed up for the wrong campaign. His "human unity" rhetoric more closely resembled that of a candidate for President of the World than for the U.S.A. Alone among the candidates, he agreed with the idea that Spanish should be made America’s second official language.
Here's what the candidates had to say about immigration:
Obama: "We can't just have hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country without knowing who they are. It also means, though, that we have an employer verification system that works, and it means that we provide a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers who are already here. And that is something that I have championed, and that is something that I will pass when I am president of the United States; we will begin working on it the first year.''
Clinton: "I have championed comprehensive immigration reform, and it includes starting with securing our borders in order to give people the support they need to come over and support us when it comes to having a pathway to legalization. We all know that this has become a contentious political issue. It is being demagogued, and I believe that it is being used to bash immigrants, and that must stop.''
Kucinich: First of all, a Kucinich administration will build relationships between nations, not walls. We need to move forward with an America that remembers where we came from, and that is—immigration reform has to be central to it. That means there must be a path to legalization, because there are no illegal human beings. We have to start looking at our policies, which are aimed at separating people.''
Richardson: "This is what we need to do in immigration my first year. One, yes, more border security, technology at the border. Number two, a stronger relationship with Mexico and Central America, to create jobs so that flow doesn't come here. Third, enforce the law. Those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished.''
Edwards: ''You know, it's interesting to me. When you walk into a Blockbuster to—to rent a movie, you don't see anybody, but you hear a voice saying, ‘Welcome to Blockbuster.’ We can figure out when somebody's walking into a Blockbuster. It seems to me we can figure out when somebody's coming into the United States of America, and especially if we use the technology that's available to us. And I think that's what the focus should be on—more Border Patrol, better use of technology, as absolutely a path to—to earn citizenship for those who are living here and who are undocumented.''
Gravel: "I think it's abominable that they go out and do these raids, separate families. ... Stop and think—all these people want to do is earn enough money to feed their families, whether they send them money back home or they bring their families here. If we made it easier for them to go back and forth on the borders, you wouldn't have this problem.''
The Univision-chosen subject matter was also telling. There were the Hispanic-related issues (immigration, Spanish, racism) and the welfare issues (health, education, housing). But nothing about the social/family values issues Hispanic voters are supposedly so concerned about. It was all about "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!"
As for foreign policy, the only countries specifically mentioned were Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Iraq. And the Iraq questions were prefaced with the statement that the majority of Hispanics favor a troop withdrawal. The implication was that it’s what Hispanics want, not what U.S. interests are, that should be considered.
With the exception of World Citizen Kucinich, the candidates did make an attempt to say that securing our border was important. But they all support a "path to citizenship" (amnesty), they don’t want to separate families (anchor babies) and want to stop raids.
The questions themselves were carefully crafted to advance the Hispanic agenda. The first one was "Why is it important for you to be in this debate and is it a risk?" Candidates were also asked if they would promote Spanish as a second language.
Another question began by referring to the "negative tone" of the immigration debate and asked the candidates how they would fight "anti-Hispanic" sentiments. (Is the president’s job to uphold the Constitution or to fight "sentiments"?)
Hillary’s reply was:
"Well, I think this is a very serious problem…there are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. [VDARE.COM NOTE: She means Lou Dobbs, and she's wrong. Dobbs isn’t criticizing "our Latino population", he's criticizing that portion of Mexico's' Latino population illegally resident in the United States.] And I think it’s very destructive. It undermines our unity as a country."
Notice how politicians talk about "unity" when they want you to agree with them and decry division when people don’t agree with them?
Another loaded question began by stating that none of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Mexico, so why should we build a wall on the Mexican border and not the Canadian border?
While they all talked around the issue, none of them was willing to answer the question "Why not a Canadian Wall?" which, aside from the unmentionable cultural problems, is that Canadians aren't wading the Niagara River in any great numbers.
The last question asked the candidates to tell what they thought was the biggest contribution of Hispanics to the United States. John Edwards replied that there were so many ("in every conceivable way") it would be a mistake to mention just one.
Bill Richardson, of (mostly) Hispanic origin himself, tried to have it both ways. On the one hand, he said Hispanics have the same interests as everybody else, but he missed no opportunity to play up his own Hispanic identity.
Upon being asked if he would promote Spanish as the nation’s second language, Richardson broke the rules of the debate by asking if he could respond in Spanish. Told he couldn’t, Richardson started talking about his Latino pride, his disappointment that Latinos couldn’t hear "one of their own" (i.e., Bill) speaking Spanish:
"…I was under the impression that in the debate Spanish was going to be permitted because I’ve always supported Univision all my career, but I’m disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country, for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish—[applause] is unfortunate. In other words Univision has promoted English-only in this debate."
And then he started speaking Spanish anyway, until Ramos cut him off.
All in all, this was a black day for America.
Democratic candidates self-righteously present themselves as being polar opposites of President George W. Bush. But their answer to the National Question is, for all practical purposes, identical to that of the president they so love to loathe: abolish America.
When the forum was finished, arrogant Mexican meddler Jorge Ramos reminded Hispanic viewers that "You have the opportunity to change history."
So do we, Senor Ramos. So do we.
