Another Correction: Fiorina's Official Statement Says She Supports the Bill

Supports it with some misgivings and worries, it seems, but that shouldn't freak people, as polls show that 62% or so of us support the law, with those same misgivings and worries.

Here's Fiorina's official statement:

U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina today issued the following statement calling on President Obama to take action to secure the border, rather than attack the people of Arizona:

“Barbara Boxer and President Obama are playing politics with an issue of vital importance to the people of California. No legislation is required for the federal government to do its job and secure the border. It was the height of hypocrisy for President Obama to attack the people of Arizona in light of his refusal to use his presidential powers to secure our borders. Barbara Boxer should do her job by asking President Obama and the federal government to do their jobs.

“Instead of vilifying the people of Arizona, we should be demanding that the federal government do its job and secure the border. The federal government has failed to uphold its most basic function – ensuring the safety and security of its citizens. The Arizona law is a reflection of the outrage felt by the state’s residents, and it underscores the need for the federal government to make border security a top priority.

“While I do believe it is problematic when states take on responsibilities of the federal government, the people of Arizona are justified in their frustration, and I support their efforts to protect their citizens. The exact wording of the law says officials ‘may not solely consider race, color or national origin’ in its implementation, and I am confident it can be enforced responsibly. It is my hope that this bill serves only as an interim measure until the federal government takes the right kind of action to secure our border.”

I think she's talking in a very nuanced way which is why reporters keep reporting contradictory stuff about whether she supports the law or not. But unless she equivocates the heart of the statement away, it seems like she supports the law.

I don't think nuance is a bad thing on this issue -- indeed, the only way a politician is going to sell this is in a more-in-regret-than-anger sort of way. People insisting that politicians not only support this, but do so eagerly, are basically asking politicians to cut their throats.

Conservatives get pretty hardened in our positions, partly because we got so sick of the media and left shellacking us about not caring sufficiently about this or that that we ultimately sometimes start saying, "You know what? You're right, I don't care. FYNQ."

What we really mean is that we're pissed off at being instructed in not caring about the environment or whatever it is this week.

But average voters want to be reassured that a politician does care about stuff even as they vote for tough stuff. It makes sense for a pol casting an pro-oil-exploration to talk up how much he cares> about otters, for instance.

And it makes sense for a politician supporting a tough illegal immigration stance, which will inconvenience and stress a lot of people, to talk about caring for those people.

If you're coming down 99% on one side of an issue substantively, it helps to balance that out with a few rhetorical nods to the other side of the see-saw. Rhetoric doesn't cost nothin'.

The opposite position is to say I support this law and I don't care who it hurts, which is fine if that's what you really think, but a pretty dumb message to insist a politician go into an election with.

posted by Ace at 11:15 PM

| Access Comments