Raul Labrador
Muckraking and In-Fighting
Have you seen the attack ad from a Florida Congressman, calling his opponent “Taliban Dan”? It claims his challenger, who is a long-time conservative Christian member of the state legislature, wants to see women subjugated and in burkas. The TV ad takes a nice comment from the challenger and turns it completely around to make it sound the opposite. It’s terrible.
I am hoping that WE, the voters, have had enough of this type of politicking. No matter which political party it comes from, this is wrong and we have to be smart enough to check into these deceitful claims.
This same thing is happening in our backyard right now. Walt Minnick, the Democrat congressman from our Idaho district, has a TV ad attacking his opponent, Raul Labrador. Minnick’s assault is right up there with the Florida ad. He takes a comment Mr. Labrador made and alters it into something that was never intended.
Minnick’s nasty twist was made from words pulled from a speech Raul Labrador gave to a conservative Boise group. What Labrador really said was: “Our system is broken and this is where I work with the system all the time. I’m trying to get people to go through the legal immigration system. They have to pay me thousands of dollars just to bring somebody to the United States. That’s ridiculous. Now I like it because I make a good living because of it, but they shouldn’t have to pay an attorney thousands of dollars to bring someone legal into the U.S.”
What Walt Minnick sliced out was just the one part that I’ve highlighted in red. Minnick used it in his TV ad to claim that Labrador likes illegal immigration because it pays him well. That is so bogus! The Washington Post said Minnick’s attack ad, “stinks of fear and desperation”. Boise TV Channel 7 did an in-depth investigation of Minnick’s ad and concluded there was absolutely no evidence to back up his assault on Labrador.
What is even more disingenuous is that Walt Minnick hired the law firm Labrador worked for to help with the immigration papers on the child Minnick and his wife adopted from China. Here’s what Raul Labrador said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman: “Finally, I would like to take this moment to ask if Walt Minnick remembers the young adoption and immigration attorney in the mid-1990s that worked at the same law firm that helped finalize the international adoption of his foreign-born child. That would be me. Walt Minnick should be ashamed of himself.”
Raul Labrador’s stance on immigration cannot be more clear and is listed on his web site: www.labrador4idaho.com He is against illegal immigration. He is against amnesty. He wants serious sanctions on employers who hire illegals and he and favors a guest worker program only if it is strong and secure.
Mr. Labrador is a natural American citizen, born and raised in the US territory of Puerto Rico. (as a little side note, my husband was born in the US territory of Hawaii before it became a state.) At the age of 13, Raul and his mother moved to Florida. Later, during college, Raul met his wife who is a 4th generation Idahoan. They have lived in Boise now for 14 years, and they have five children.
Is Walt Minnick trying to play on Raul’s slight accent and his olive complexion, to make people think perhaps he favors illegal immigrants? That sounds like subliminal racism to me, Walt.
But let’s look at Walt Minnick’s stance on illegal immigration: Oops! I could find no statement on the issue on either of his two official web sites. He bashes his opponent in a vicious, untrue TV ad, but doesn’t offer his own views and plan to deal with this important problem?
Minnick does not advertise his association with the Democrat party either. He does not tell people that he voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. He waited until the very last moment to vote against the healthcare bill, and now Walt Minnick does not support the efforts underway to repeal the bill.
Enough is enough. Walt Minnick has lots of money in his political war chest, so he can continue these dishonorable attacks. But his actions have already shown me the measure of the man, and it’s not one I admire. We must work hard to get these kinds of politicians out of our government. We need to elect those who will honestly represent the rights of WE, the people.
But there’s a problem. WE, the people, are fighting and squabbling. We say we want better government, but we are letting internal rifts get in the way. We are grabbing for power and scuffling on the sidelines while the big game is playing out on the field.
It’s time to straighten up, people. Dust off the offenses and tuck in your egos. The team needs our support! We must keep our eyes on our goal of an honest, smaller, more fiscally responsible government that promotes individual responsibility, states’ rights and the values upon which this country was established.
As we all know, timing is everything. Now is not the time for internal restructuring, that can wait. If we don’t want to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory, we must come together and work as one team. Let’s not let anyone or anything distract us from our mission.
The fact that Minnick came right out of the chute with that bad, negative ad tells me something about his campaign: He’s worried. Rather than take the “elder statesman” role, Minnick decided to sling mud and get nasty right away. Seriously, I though he’d be a shoe-in: He’s conservative, and his votes aren’t terribly outrageous. He has a good record. He has millions in his war chest. But he begins the campaign with an elbow jab and a pie toss. To me that mean’s he’s afraid he’s going to lose. Such a choice speaks volumes about Minnick’s character.
Comment by Dan — September 30, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Politicians are always taking things their opponents say; out of context.
Nothing new there. Having not followed the Minnick, Labrador race that closely. I found that Walts ad was extremely effective esp. in North Idaho. Raul,needs to make an ad to rebut the Minnick ad imo, because it was damaging.
To me, Minnicks a renegade who is loyal to no one, but himself.He voted with the Democrats 70% of the time; even tho he’s a supposed conservative. But, I’m a little uncomfortable voting for an immigration attorney, because there are not enough jobs to go around for the US citizens who already live here;let alone allowing many more immigrants in to compete for jobs.
Comment by kageman — September 30, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Come on, Kageman, please don’t buy into that myth! And don’t you think any legal citizen of our country deserves to compete for any job? Labrador has a strong, conservative voting record. Minnick even bashes Labrador for voting to require I.D. to vote in our elections! But here’s how he words his attack on his campaign web site: “He (Labrador) voted for a bill to force Idahoans to buy and show a government-issued ID before they can vote.” (like that’s a bad thing?)
Comment by mary — September 30, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Kageman, Minnick is like all the rest of the self serving incumbents, its all about them, plus he doesn’t have the backbone to say what he really stands for. His ads/signs don’t even mention that he’s a Democrat.
Labrador wasn’t my first choice but now he’s my only choice…..for the sake of the Union, “These United States”.
Comment by Ancientemplar — September 30, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
For me Ward would have been the best choice. I’m very leery of Labrador. Remember, he won the primary largely based on a spurious video attacking Ward. Labrador never condemned the video, even said it helped him and he knew it was phony. And Labrador voted against banning texting while driving. But I cannot in good conscience be a part of returning Minnick to DC. Labrador is the lesser of two evils. But I don’t trust him…I don’t trust any politician, so nothing new there.
Comment by rochereau — October 1, 2010 @ 8:29 am
Look Mary!!!!!! this just came over the wire. Rahm Emanuel may not be eligible to run for mayor in Chicago. Maybe if he moved to Canada for 22 years he could be the Cd’A mayor or at vote.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/01/birthers-chicago-style-some-question-rahms-residency
Rahm Emanuel’s eligibility to run for mayor of Chicago has become the subject of scrutiny, even before the soon-to-be-former White House Chief of Staff officially announces his candidacy.
At issue is Emanuel’s residency. Illinois election laws dictate that a candidate is only eligible to run for city office if he or she has been a legal resident of that city for a year prior to the election. For the Chicago mayoral election, this means Emanuel would need to have been a Chicago resident since February 22, 2010.
Critics say that because he decided to lease his North Chicago home last year, Emanuel forfeited his Chicago residency and thus can’t run.
In an ironic twist, Mayor Richard Daley announced he would not seek reelection, thus opening the door for a possible Emanuel run, just days after the couple to whom Emanuel rented his house reportedly renewed their lease. And the couple apparently refuses to terminate their lease early to allow Emanuel to move back in.
Election attorney Burt Odelson told Chicago radio show hosts Thursday that “the law is clear” in this case. “He rented his house out in September ‘09 and has not been back since, and has no residency in Chicago,
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 1, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Ancientemplar, That’s an interesting article!
Rahm Emanuel just needs to find a friend inside the city limits who has a basement bedroom, which is what Mike Kennedy did here back in 2005. But our law only requires a 30 day residency in the City of CdA before someone can run for office. That’s much easier to fake than Chicago’s law which impresses me because they require a person to live in the city for a full year before they can try for public office.
But I’m sure Rahm will end up getting around the law, they’ll figure a way.
Comment by mary — October 1, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Rochereau, I have asked Labrador some tough questions, especially about illegal immigration, and his answers and ideas are very good. He also told me he voted against the texting-while-driving bill because he said we don’t need another law, we have a negligent driving law already. We need to enforce it. He said the texting law would be unenforceable, according to what he was told by the state patrol, because you’d have a hard time proving someone was texting rather than dialing their phone. In any case they can use the existing negligent driving laws.
I have also heard that the Minnick camp was behind the nasty video about Vaugh Ward. That makes more sense to me because think about it, who would have more quick connections with Jay Leno and those outlets, the Democrats who are so well-connected with Hollywood/TV land, or the fledgling campaign of an underfunded conservative out of Idaho?
I was a Vaughn Ward supporter but have always liked Labrador as well, ever since the first time I talked with him. I was much more impressed with Labrador than I ever expected to be. I think Minnick saw the money Vaughn Ward had raised and wanted him out, hence the probable dirty tricks.
And we can see now, after this latest attack ad, that dirty dealings are part of Minnick’s methods.
Comment by mary — October 1, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Saw the commercial again this morning. It begins with Walt saying, “I’m Walt Minnick and I approve this message.” That pretty much says it all for me.
Comment by Dan — October 1, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Hey Minnick must be playing for the ten last Aryan votes in North Idaho. 🙂
I find his add offensive and borderline racist.
Comment by WannaBe JD — October 1, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
My point Mary wasn’t who was behind the anti-Ward video. What bothered me was Labrador finding it to be amusing. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that Minnick was behind that video. Labrador showed very questionable judgement in laughing about it. Were that me, I would have condemned and distanced myself. His attitude demonstrates a form of arrogance. And I’m sure he is delightful and insightful in person….he’s running for office after all. I stick with my feeling of the lesser of two evils. I doubt that Labrador cares what I think as long as I vote for him. As for the texting, what harm in voting for it. Negligent driving covers a multitude of sins. Texting is specific. As for mistaken for dialing, come on Raul, once texted it remains on the phone. Of course, I think driving and talking on the phone is right up there with driving and drinking. I’m always glad to get away from the phone.
JD…the ad is seriously offensive, racist not so much. Minnick found a sound bite that would resonate and he used it…very much like the anti Ward video. Could this be karma??
Comment by rochereau — October 1, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Is this attack business the Democrat’s game plan this election? It seems that all across the nation, the Dems are not talking about issues or their accomplishments while in the majority, they are bashing their opponents. Patty Murray in Washington State, the horrid guy, Greyson, in Florida (who made the commercial I referred to at the beginning of my newsletter above), Minnick of course, and now Jerry Brown in the California governor’s race. Brown’s good friend shock-attorney Gloria Allred, says opponent Meg Whitman had an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper.
So now the news comes out that the housekeeper, Nicki, had a Calif. driver’s license and a Social Security number. If Meg Whitman had asked for more proof, or didn’t believe her documentation, she’d be deemed a racist who profiled! The Dems can’t have it both ways: Don’t anyone dare ask people in Arizona to show any proof of citizenship if they break the law, but if you run for office and have a housekeeper, no amount of documentation is enough!
Oh, and it’s pretty amazing this housekeeper is complaining–she was paid $23. per hour. I bet there are a lot of legal citizens who would have loved that job!
Comment by mary — October 1, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
The sad thing is that the Dems are running on the status quo, which sucks. They’re going to lose. Simple question: Are you better off today than you were two years ago? Only partisan Democrat idiots will lie and say, “YES!”
The east-coast libs see Idaho is heavily racist. I believe they preferred Labrador over Ward because they don’t see conservative Idaho voting for a brown-skinned person. Of course, that philosophy is blatantly racist in itself, not to mention dumb. Walt should run in the middle. Instead, the socialists and lefty-loons are pushing him to the left. He’s going to lose.
Comment by Dan — October 1, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
In CA, we call Jerry Brown “Capt. Moonbeam”. He’s a little out there. When he was gov. he appointed a woman to the supreme court who had never heard or tried a case. She was anti- death penalty. It took a long time, but Ca finally dumped her. The Dems don’t dare talk of their “accomplishments”. Thats the problem they face. Obamacare, bailouts, they are afraid of the accomplishments they foisted on the public. Apparently profiling is only bad if the Reps do it.
Comment by rochereau — October 1, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
I just heard on the news that the housekeeper in the California kerfluffle was hired through a legitimate employment agency and the Whitmans specifically asked the agency to verify her LEGAL immigration status. The housekeeper presented a copy of her social security card, her driver’s license, and she signed a Federal document swearing, under penalty of perjury, that she was legal to work in California!
How can they possibly hang this on Meg Whitman and her husband?
The letter from the government, that was sent to the Whitmans in 2003 about more info on this housekeeper did not say there were problems with her status. In fact it said her situation was NOT a problem and if the Whitmans used it to fire her or any other negative action, they could be breaking some laws.
But what’s scary is that this thing was so orchestrated. (It reminds me of the Jim Brannon firing right before the city council debate) Gloria Allred is a well known Democrat and supporter and friend of Jerry Brown. Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown are scheduled to debate on the Spanish-speaking TV station within the next couple of days and the SEIU (Service Employees Internat’l Union) had an advertisement all ready to go, before this thing even broke in the news, condemning Meg Whitman!
Comment by mary — October 1, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
I don’t want to get off message at this point but I would like to address Texting while we’re here. Idaho does have a distracted driving law. It needs to be enforced as it is. The Idaho legislature doesn’t pass laws without overwhelming evidence of need. Their citizen politicians.
That said, Maine has passed a law authorizing the prosecutors and law enforcement to subpoena cell phone records in accidents and injury/fatal accidents to determine if the phone was in use. If it was in use the penalties are tremendously enhanced. .
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 1, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Now that sounds like a great idea, Ancientemplar. That would offer proof in court.
Comment by mary — October 1, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
My earlier point. Records show texting. Therefore, Labradors reasoning is false. There is always a way to enforce laws. I would be interested in commentary about Thom Georges article this morning. Yes, I know, consider the source. But…does Labrador wish to rescind our right to vote for our reps? This sounds disturbing to me. The more I hear about Labrador, the less I like or trust him.
Comment by rochereau — October 2, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Rochereau, my understanding of the voting issue is that the Constitution originally set out that people running for the U.S. House of Representatives would elected by a direct vote of the citizens but the two Senators from each state would be chosen by the State legislature. States’ rights. In the late 1800’s after the Civil War, some state legislatures had trouble agreeing upon and appointing Senators, and a third party called the Populist party, started the move to have the senators elected by direct vote of the people.
It took until 1913 for enough states to ratify it, and the 17th amendment was passed.
The issue has come to the surface now, I think, because states’ rights have been eroding and now the balance of power is seriously on the side of the Feds.
While I think Labrador supports a repeal of the 17th amendment, he is not pushing it as an important issue right now.
I know there are folks out there who are far better versed in the 17th amendment history and meaning than I am, so please jump in and clarify this topic for us!
Comment by mary — October 2, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Thanks Mary. Of course he’s not pushing it. That would be a very unpopular position during an election. But if he supports reversing the amendment, that is how he will vote. Agreed that the balance of power has shifted, taking the decision from the voters is simply wrong. Ironically, that is exactly what the CDA council does. It is wrong on that level and wrong on any level. I cannot vote for Labrador or Minnick. On my ballot, that box will remain un-ticked. And that is very sad…
Comment by rochereau — October 2, 2010 @ 10:39 am
The original thought was that Senators would act like ambassadors from the states, and that a governor could recall the Senators if a state were displeased with the actions of the Feds. After the 17th Amendment was passed, I read that a governor tried to recall his states senators, but the senators told him to pound sand, that they were elected by the people and could only be recalled by a new election.
I don’t favor a repeal of the 17th Amendment and believe that efforts to do so now are misdirected. There are far larger problems, such as massive public corruption in Idaho, that go unheeded by both political parties. I would prefer efforts be made to fix that issue.
Comment by Dan — October 2, 2010 @ 11:00 am
“And don’t you think any legal citizen of our country deserves to compete for any job”? Mary
Mary, I’m all for competition for jobs and contracts as long as it is equal and fair. Since the 60’s Idaho has allowed hispanics to venture into Idaho to work on S.Idaho farms and later to work on Forest Service contracts etc. The problem is:alot of these workers are illegal aliens;
whom alot of contractors hire, because they can pay them less and they don’t insure them, which saves them alot of money. So, for the past 25 years or so it has become an unfair advantage to compete with these contractors who hire illegal aliens.
For obvious reasons, the southern Idaho legislators have dragged their feet on the ‘Illegal Immigration issue’. Sure, there is E-verify to cross check Social Security numbers and names but, that is only voluntary on the employers part, as far as I know. Idaho needs to get a handle on Illegal Immigration imo,
because our social services can get bogged down and it will end up costing taxpayers more money to cover their needs; than any savings to be had at the grocery store.
I’m glad that Labrador is for legal immigration, but I want to know what he would do about illegal immigration.
Comment by kageman — October 2, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
“Labrador wasn’t my first choice but now he’s my only choice…..for the sake of the Union, “These United States”.Comment by Ancientemplar — September 30, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Ancientemplar; can you give me three good reasons to vote Labrador? Besides, voting for him, because he’s a conservative and the ‘throw the bums out’ mentality.
Comment by kageman — October 2, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Rochereau an empty ballot is a vote for Minnick. Please, please don’t.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 2, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Kageman, our country can’t handle another two years of San Fran Nan Pelosi. Nuf?
Minnick is about as conservative as Al Franken.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 2, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Sorry Kageman #3 he has served in the state house and hopefully is more aware of the problems of and the desires of the Idaho populace.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 2, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Apparently, Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsed Raul Labrador for US Rep.
Dist.1. I would think that endorsement would carry alot of weight with North Idaho voters. I know it does with me. The sheriff is speaking tonight. I consider the Sheriff of Maricopa Co. Arizona a patriot.
Comment by kageman — October 4, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
That’s great news, Kageman. We didn’t go to the dinner tonight but I admire the stamina and focus of Sheriff Joe and the other law enforcement officers in Arizona who are trying to juggle Federal inaction and the need to protect the people of Arizona. If he endorses Raul Labrador, that’s a plus.
Comment by mary — October 4, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
I think that we all agree that the Minnick ads are offensive. But why hasn’t Labrador answered? If he has decided that it doesn’t warrant an answer, he is politically mistaken. Just ask John Kerry who disdained answering the swift boat ads. (Fortunately) his elitist arrogance made a huge mistake there. And considering that Kerry has always been supported by rich women, where does the arrogance come from…but that is another subject altogether. Too much of the voting public goes with information gained from TV ads. Minnick has enlarged on his immigration attack in his new ad. Time for a reply.
Comment by rochereau — October 5, 2010 @ 8:26 am