Democratic governor says no to refugees; and Post misfires at Obama

Here is Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s cogent argument for not wanting Iraqi refugees to come to his state, as reported by the AP:

I think Ohio and Ohioans have contributed a lot to Iraq in terms of blood, sweat and too many tears. I am sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Iraqi people who have fled that country. However, I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration’s failed policies.

In other words, the Bush policy has already been a disaster for America, and admitting masses of Iraqi refugees would pile disaster on disaster.

Strickland, as a Democrat who opposed the invasion of Iraq, naturally wants to stick it to the president. But, whatever Strickland’s motive may be, this is the first time I can remember that a Democrat said no to any proposed expansion of immigration. It is a further indication of an amazing trend I’ve been noticing in recent weeks: the Democrats, who for the last several years have been certifiably insane, have been making more sense than the Republicans. The Democrats are becoming more rational, the Republicans less rational.

An example of this was seen in a remarkably inapt editorial in the New York Post the other day, entitled “Barak’s Blunder.” After Australian prime minister John Howard had criticized Barak Obama’s call for a pull-out from Iraq by March 2008, Barak replied that for Howard to claim that the war in Iraq is the most important thing in the world, while Australia has only a thousand troops there, renders Howard’s position “a bunch of empty rhetoric.” The Post gleefully mocked Obama for showing himself “not ready for prime time,” whereas Obama had in fact made a smart and valid point and won the exchange. When Democrats are making better arguments than Republicans, and when the Republicans are so full of themselves that they do not even see this, something big is happening.

- end of initial entry -

Spencer Warren writes:

I wouldn’t go so far as to praise the Dems for anything, Larry. They are still more dangerous than the Reps. They are led by traitors.

Chris L. writes:

Ohio is pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans which makes for interesting politics. Although rapidly changing, the state is still heavily blue collar. What this leads to is a moderating force on politicians from the state since the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority like most blue states and a sizeable portion of their base is older style Democrats. It also means the state is fairly anti-immigration. The Feds have helped increase this feeling by settling a large number of Somali “refugees” in Columbus. The result has been the usual increase in crime, cries of victimhood, and multicultural nonsense. Strickland is wisely playing to his blue color base while couching it in anti-Bush and anti-war terms.

Stephen T. writes:

Would it surprise you if Bush, Rove et al privately regard the coming influx of Iraqis as a significant silver lining of the losing war? There is probably no issue on which the ruling elite is so rock-solid consistent, and so eternally devoted, than the imperative to flood as many non-European immigrants into this country as possible, whenever possible, and at whatever cost. To the Bush mentality, the loss of thousands of American lives as well as the degradation of American military stature in the world may be considerably counterbalanced by the golden opportunity to force a few million more third world immigrants upon the American people.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 16, 2007 04:37 PM | Send