She is against illegal immigration, but she is also against racial profiling.
But because her first premise is states’ rights, she thinks it is therefore
allowable for Arizona to create that law even though it may not be a great law.
She did not say it was a good law. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, it is not.
But compared to recent comments by Attorney General Eric HolderEric H. HolderDNC chairman: Trump’s tax cuts and budget plans are 'morally bankrupt' Holder: Trump's election fraud claims are laying foundation for voter suppression Dem rep: Jim Crow's 'nieces and nephews' are in the White House MORE and Janet
Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, Woolard’s was a pretty good answer.
Napolitano and Holder responded in interviews to the first issue: states’
rights. States should not be allowed to act on their own. But their commentary
gave more evidence to the second issue, federal incompetence.
As the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader reports, Holder has publicly worried that Arizona's new immigration law will lead to racial profiling and is unconstitutional. He even suggested that the Justice Department might sue Arizona to overturn the law. But, as the Washington Times reported, Mr. Holder acknowledged to the congressional panel he hadn't read the law he was criticizing, and he gave conflicting accounts of whether he had talked to the team that was reviewing it.
Napolitano’s prose was more elliptical than Miss Oklahoma’s. She said the Arizona law “was not a law I would have signed.” For what reason, asked Sen. John McCainJohn McCainTop commander: Don't bet on China reining in North Korea Trudeau, Trump speak for second night about US-Canada trade McCain: China has done ‘nothing’ on North Korea MORE (R-Ariz.)? Because “It’s a bad law enforcement law,” she said. (Say what?) She said she was familiar with laws “of that ilk.” But also admitted to McCain that she had not read the law.
PJ Crowley, the assistant secretary of State for public affairs, criticizing the Arizona law on national TV, also admitted that he had not read the 17-page law.
Woolard was absolutely ready for the question, she said. “I just spoke from my heart and I believe what I said was well-said and I feel strongly about that and I'm proud of my answer.” As well she should be. In a political season of intentional misspeaks, official deception and outright lies, her candid and forthright delivery was a simple, declarative delight.
Visit Mr. Quigley's website at http://quigleyblog.blogspot.com.