Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Minding the Store | Nicole Brodeur Drives Everywhe... »

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Family Feud. Now there was Good Television

Posted by on May 31 at 10:53 AM

So, Democratic State Party Chair Dwight Pelz is scheduled to square of w GOP State Party Chair Diane Tebelius on the Lou Dobbs show tonight.

They’re going to do a 5 minute round (6:15 EST) about the state GOP’s new plank which opposes granting citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

The question, however, is this: Why is Pelz debating Tebelius? Shouldn’t someone from the GOP, someone like the highest elected GOP official in the state (AG Rob McKenna), go on Dobbs and debate Tebelius? McKenna told Seattle Times reporter David Postman that he thinks the GOP plank is unconstitutional.

Let me repeat that: The highest elected GOPer in the state thinks a new GOP party plank is unconstitutional.

Watching the Democrats attack a GOP plank is not so much interesting television. I’d rather see the Rs duke it out.


CommentsRSS icon

well there's your story idea for next week. compile quotes from mckenna and tebelius and add illustrations of mexican wrestlers and have them duke it out.

Host: Stranger Writer, name a popular Democratic party talking point.
SW: The Republicans suck.
Host: :DING: NUMBER ONE ANSWER!!

Stranger Writer do a better job then Pelz. Are you free then?

I expect the setup will be for Tebelius and Dobbs, who is a cheerleader for the anti-immigrant movement, to tag team Pelz. Don't expect him to get a fair shake - interruptions, cut mikes, etc. But you're right - Dobbs should have had McKenna on instead.

Tebelius became Chair of the state Republican Party in part because the socially conservative wing didn't think their candidates or issues were getting their due. McKenna has the ear of the corporate/business wing of the party. (Rossi played to both sides - McGavick is failing to repeat his performance.)

Given that, there are bound to be major sparks between McKenna and Tebelius. They both serve different masters within the state Republican Party.

Given that McKenna is in the traditoinal spot - the state Attorney General's office - from which Gubernatorial bids happen, and given that immigration in general seems to be a hot issue for segments of the state Republican Party, one has to wonder if Tebilius or others high up in her camp will consider pulling the rug out from under McKenna regarding 2012, once Rossi has tried and failed in his second campaign against Gregoire come 2008.

Josh, WTF? Yesterday you told us to be sure to watch, and to "look for Pelz to be in rare form." Today you say no, it's not going to be good TV. A little problem with the attention span, maybe?

Josh, you're making a mountain out of nothing here. Of course this particular plank is unconstitutional. Who cares? It's a symbolic statement that represents nothing more than the wishful thinking of the grassroots convention delegates. It's not like this in and of itself is going to cause elected officials to try to enact this into law. (and the same of course holds true for the unrealistic platform planks that get passed by Democratic conventions ) At the same time I'm not convinced that this is an issue that the Democrats should try too hard to beat up the Republicans with. Even though it's highly unlikely that the Constitution is going to be changed any time soon to incorporate this particular proposal, I suspect that a very large number of Americans would prefer that the American-born children of illegal immigrants do not receive automatic citizenship

Stefan,

I don't think the Dems are passing planks that violate the 14th Amendment.

I think it's creepy that the "wishful thinking" of the GOP "grassroots" is to ice the 14th amendment.

You dismiss this by saying no GOP lawmakers are going to rush out and do this. So are you saying the GOP has no respect for its rank and file?

Hey Shark, thanks for those great links to Zinn and Chomsky on Sound Politics. It's nice to visit your blog and have something to read besides your truck loads of total crap.

Well, Tebulius didn't put up much of a fight. Dobbs got all the hits in for her. You could tell where he was going by the lead-ins earlier in his show: "Some people think that the children of illegal immigrants born in America should automatically receive US citizenship. Later, we'll hear from the Republicans in Washington state who are against that." No mention that the constitution mandates this, and this has been the law for over a century.

Pelz did a good job painting this as a point of contention between Republicans, and showing how it was unconstitutional. Dobbs tried to pin him down on where the Democrats stood on the issue, asking where Washington senators and representatives had voted. Pelz said they voted with McCain and Fritz in the bi-partisan vote. Dobbs said he didn't think it was bi-partisan (the actual vote was 38 dems and 23 republicans for, 4 dems and 32 republicans against).

Tebulius's said this wasn't a divisive issue for the Republican party, and that Washington Republicans who had come out against it were only responding to media distortions of the plank, not the plank itself. She said this after Pelz talked about the comments of Rob McKenna and senators from agricultural areas of Eastern Washington.

Tebulius said that the 14th amendment had been misused, that it has been distorted from it's original purpose of ensuring that freed slaves had full rights as citizens. Pelz said the language of the 14th amendment is pretty clear.

Dobbs ended things by asking Pelz where he stood on amnesty. Pelz said he supported a path to citizenship for hard working immigrants. Dobbs asked him how he felt about hard working Americans. Pelz said he was for them, too, and that he and his wife were both hard working Americans.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).