Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Hit me baby one more time...

Ouch! The Examiner hit Ulman so hard on the illegal housekeeper matter that his grandkids must have felt it. I have already expressed my views on this matter here, so I won’t do it again. However, here are some specific problems I have with the Examiner's editorial:

1. It does not appear to take a position on illegal immigration, except that reform is needed. Does the writer want more immigration laws or fewer immigration laws? I can’t tell.

2. It says that Ulman paid his housekeeper $18 and hour and points out that he makes $71 an hour. What relevance is this? Must Bill Gates pay his housekeeper $500 an hour?

3. It points out that Ulman’s spokesperson is paid by the taxpayers. No kidding. If this is a “private matter” that should not be addressed by Ulman’s staff, why the heck is the Examiner writing about it under the framework of Ken Ulman, the County Executive?

That said, Ken Ulman asked for this type of attack. He made it much to easy on his rivals with this issue.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Needless to say and probably not a surprise to anyone. I liked the editorial - despite the valid faults you outline.

Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily think the first point is valid - why do we care the author's opinion on immigration reform? In mt mind it's as useless as the salary differential comment. So basically you think if people were pro-illegal immigration that they don't care if an elected official obeys the law? If you support illegals then you also support all other illegal activity? I know that's going overboard - but I take issue with the first "point" you raise.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:22- have you read the editorial? Obviously not, otherwise you would understand that the author's opinion on immigration is material, as the author states "Ulman and his maid could be the poster children for all that is wrong with our current immigration policies and proposed efforts to fix them."
The author never states what is wrong with our policies, as one would expect when such a statement is made.

Anonymous said...

Well Played...:-P

No, You're right, I actually haven't read the piece. I'll reserve comment.