?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Delia Lopez calls Obama a Liar


She's running for congress. I met her today. I was downtown with a friend to go shoe shopping, and stopped by the festival in Heritage Square. It a marijuana legalization event and it was was fairly dead.

I stopped in to see who was at the Ron Paul desk and she was there. She was warm at first but quickly became aggressive and argumentative. She kept telling me things that sounded sketchy then saying "Did you know that?" I asked her what she thought of the new Immigration legislation in Arizona and she said that it was basically exactly the law that is on the federal books but unenforced. Is that true? I don't know. She used that law to make a stand for states rights, and said that according to the constitution each state should govern itself as if it were a separate country. When I brought up the point that the United States is a nation with national borders, and that national borders are of national interest and hence a matter for federal government, she disagreed, saying that the feds should get out of state affairs. Her position made no sense to me. If the United States of America is UNITED in the least, then we have common borders to maintain, and all those difficult questions to share.

Then I asked her what she thinks of Obama. She said right up front that he is a liar, no better than Bush. I was shocked. The issue that she brought up several times is that Obama apparently said that new laws would be posted on the internet for all to see and read, before he would sign them into law. She was calling him a liar because he did not do that. I had not even heard about that supposed campaign promise, but I can forgive him a few promises because when you're in the presidential hot seat, you have a lot to do. When I stood up for Obama, saying that he is an excellent leader with his heart in the right place and a brain as sharp as the two of ours put together, she disparaged him. When I said that she had lost me, because I vote for people who bring civility to the public forum, she looked a little sad for a moment. It's the first time I saw her be human. I tried to explain to her that we need to contain our emotions enough to have conversations with our enemies, enough to respect their positions....but another woman joined the conversation to say that "if you're not mad you haven't been paying attention"....Well. It could have gone on forever.....that argument. I am mad, and I have been paying attention, and I know full well that we have big problems in government and it is time to make major changes. I also know that the crucifixion of Obama for the loss of our democracy to business is foolish. Why should we tear him limb from limb when the problem was well entrenched long before he arrived? He is simply the latest guy to sit in the hot seat. He would make larger changes if he could, but frankly I am impressed with what he has been able to do so far working inside the system. There is a big difference between having passionate concerns about issues and publicly despising the president because he symbolizes something to you. Of course the president symbolically represents the government in the public mind. And the government (esp congress) has sold out to multinational corporations. It's not Obama's fault. I want to elect new people to congress, but I don't want to elect spittle spewers who say Obama is a Liar.

Delia Lopez could choose to be respectful to those she disagrees with. Then maybe she will have my vote. She definitely has the sort of feisty nature that seems to be required in politics today. I just wish all that fight were tempered with a bit more compassion. Perhaps it is impossible in politics today. She says she is endorsed by Ron Paul. Now she needs to be trained in how to tell it like it is without unfair personal attacks. If she is ever elected, she'll be lucky if the biggest "lie" her opponents can pin on her is something like failing to post stuff on the internet.

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
neptunia67
May. 1st, 2010 09:56 pm (UTC)
she disagreed, saying that the feds should get out of state affairs This is an interesting position and one I'm hearing more and more about from people on the right. It is as if people are starting to discount the structure of a federal system. I wonder where the sentiment will lead? I can certainly see the argument for less government, on the state and federal level, and also see the need for having division of authority. It seems as if some folks would like to see the federal part of our government go away and, indeed, fifty nation-states take its place. I can't even begin to imagine the chaos that could result from that.
liveonearth
May. 1st, 2010 10:06 pm (UTC)
chaos
Seems like we're moving fast down the slippery slope toward total chaos already. Batten the hatches! The vicious nastiness that has replaced civilized discourse will be the end of us.
lgsunshine
May. 2nd, 2010 02:31 pm (UTC)
I don't see the AZ bill as a federal law that is not enforced. In 2005 - Representative James Sensenbrenner proposed legislation on immigration. My interpretation is it was proposed bec. there is not a federal law like the one in AZ.

I wish that I could find the info to be more precise. This article states: Contrary to some reports, the bill would not have involved massive numbers of deportations. It might have increased the ease of deporting of people caught by local law enforcement, but there are no provisions to actively search for illegal immigrants as happened during Operation Wetback. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Protection,_Anti-terrorism,_and_Illegal_Immigration_Control_Act_of_2005)

Hope that helps. :)
liveonearth
May. 2nd, 2010 08:22 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the lead. I heard the assertion of similarity to a federal bill mentioned on NPR as well, but they also didn't have a full or strong answer to the question. It seems to me that this claim may just be the latest in a long string of tenuous claims coming from the "shrink government" side, and is really quite irrelevant. What we really need to do about immigration is decide on a national level what we are going to do about it. And there are a whole lot of people with a lot at stake, so it is going to be a white hot issue. It brings up the core question of America and the shared national values: bring us your tired, your poor? Or hang onto our wealth by not letting non-citizens settle here? Or some compromise, which of course will be the continuing outcome. I just wish our national position could be a conscious compromise, instead of a combination of benign neglect and willful avoidance of the law.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

moon
liveonearth
liveonearth

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars