6th District Mail Mania

Rich has a great debate brewing over the recent mailers sent out by Roskam and Duckworth (here & here, here & here respectively). I noted these observations in a comment there, but I wanted to expand upon them a little here as well.

Duckworth’s piece is glossy, well laid out, and (unfortunately) very effective. It is also, however, total B.S.

She says that Roskam is a liar, and that she opposes amnesty. And that’s about it. No detail. No explanation. Moreover, she doesn’t actually refute the two main facts about her position that Roskam details in his mailers:

• She is against assigning National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration on our nation’s border with Mexico.
• She would allow illegal immigrants to stay and eventually get Social Security benefits, including benefits based on work done while under illegal status.

There’s a few possible explanations for why she doesn’t refute those specific statements: (1) She can’t because they are correct; (2) there wasn’t enough room for three large photos of her in uniform AND a retort on specifics; and/or (3) she doesn’t think the specifics of public policy are worth discussing in mass mailers. Perhaps a Duckworth supporter would like to venture some alternate possibilities that are more flattering to their candidate. But I really don’t see how it can’t be some combination of these.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against her citing her military service in this campaign. Her service was honorable, and deserving of our highest praise and respect. But while it is a legitimate method for illuminating her character, it should not be used as a replacement for engaging in substantive policy debates.

In this case, I find it particularly ironic that she uses her Guard uniform because – as Roskam points out – she is opposed to using the Guard to temporarily bolster border security while new Border Patrol agents are trained. In fact, one could argue that this is more than ironic. It’s almost downright misleading.

In an almost nauseating display of message discipline, Duckworth’s piece says “Duckworth Opposes Amnesty for Illegal Immigrant” no fewer than 7 times. But she never explains what she actually does support. If her plan isn’t accurately described as “amnesty,” why not shrink one of the photos, find some space, and proudly detail it on this mail piece, instead of flippantly directing people to a website to find it themselves? Allow me to answer my own question: because she can’t without getting into a Clintonesque debate over semantics. See, it all comes down to a question of what the definition of “amnesty” is. Roskam’s position is pretty clear: any policy that allows illegal immigrants to remain in this country is “amnesty,” because deportation has always been the understood punishment for crossing the border illegally. Like it or not, that’s one perfectly legitimate way to define it. So, at the very least, Roskam is 'wrong about the defination of amnesty.' But that's not the same as being a liar.

I know it seems strange, and it’s unsettling for me to believe this, too. But the people of the 6th District have witnessed something amazing: a personal injury attorney-turned career politician has given them the honest to goodness facts, and the decorated war veteran has tried to obfuscate the facts and mislead them.

We certainly live in strange times.