Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Is the Obama Presidency stuck in campaign mode? ...

This article at the Feathered Bastard (White House Staffer Disappoints Phoenix Latino Leaders in Meeting at El Portal) shows an administration that is either not quite aware of the environment Latinos are stuck in here in Arizona or one that is remarkably insensitive to their plight as it appears they sent a representative to meet with "about 70 to 80 activists, politicians, and business people" but who was completely unprepared to answer questions about the out-of-control 'law enforcement' as well as immigration issues in general. A philosophy of

just does not work with such issues as people's rights no matter how much the 'pragmatic' Obama would like it to.

The article also leaves the impression that the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano may not be doing anything about the discriminatory practices because they are afraid. [Afraid of Sheriff Joe but nevertheless they propose to keep us safe by refusing to let us see pictures of past crimes.]

An update to the article follows:

UPDATE: A White House aide called me this morning, asking that I point out that the White House has a meeting scheduled on June 17 with congressional leaders of both parties to discuss immigration. Originally, the meeting was scheduled for June 8. The aide, who did not wish to be identified, could not explain the discrepancy between what Odio told Latino leaders last week, or with Abrams' statement to me quoted above. Nor could the aide tell me if the meeting will be held in public or private. The following is what the aide would say on the record:

"The president is inviting a small group of bipartisan Senate and House leaders on the immigration issue to the White House for a meeting to have an honest discussion of the issues, identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do." [emphasis added]

Get that, a 'White House aide' who one would assume is following someone's instructions in making this call does not want to be identified? And why not? And WHY did Stephen Lemons accept this type of information under those conditions? There is no reason whatsoever for the bearer of this information to be incognito.

No comments: