Barry Weinstein, a conservative NY activist, is pushing for a boycott of MA and AZ in response to the amnesty bill that senators from each state co-authored. The bipartisan Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill has some pretty weird inclusions (like provisions for prostitutes and new priority given unskilled and marginally skilled workers), inclusions that make you wonder what exactly their vision for the country is. Anyway, in response to some of these idiocies in the bill, Weinstein has decided to call for a national tourism boycott on Massachusetts and Arizona.
Much as I dislike the amnesty idea, much as I am against all its hidden little clauses–those above, and of course, making college tuition available to (formerly) illegal aliens and still more spending on legalizing still more illegals, formally teaching them English, and spending still more money on hospital care and treatment of illegals–Weinstein does not make a good case for the boycott he’s urging.
A good case can be made, but apparently, Weinstein can’t make it. When our not so cutting edge brunette anchorwoman (known for a deep tan and an infectious giggle, not hard hitting news) asked Weinstein why, as he lives in NY, he’s proposing the boycott in MA, he blinked (okay, it was a pretty stupid way to frame the question). He visibly began sweating. And he babbled around the point for a full minute and a half (that’s a painfully long time to watch someone struggle) before finally hitting a point. That point was that a MA senator had co-authored the bill. Okay! There you go. That can be made into a point.
But poor Weinstein, who in all fairness looked like he’d not slept in a week (or bathed or changed clothes, but hygiene isn’t important here), dropped the ball. Instead of explaining that a tourism boycott will hurt both MA and AZ financially–both states have a booming and burgeoning tourism industry–and that the trickle down effect might actually make some commonwealth and state citizens mad enough to object, even pressure their senators to change or retract the bill, Weinstein says that he wants the boycott to continue (and I’m not making this up, I just saw it on the news) until the senators in question die, retract the bill, or get voted out of office. Well, okay, but that’s hardly explaining WHY the boycott, just giving details for how long it should continue. (He’s marginally more articulate in the above linked article.)
Massachusetts has been getting a LOT of rain lately, so much so that our intrepid reporters are splashing around the streets of the Cape and Islands interviewing restaurant and shop owners and managers to get a feel for how badly the weather is affecting tourism. It’s a problem. Lots of people just don’t want to go to the beach in a monsoon. Go figure. But the story here is that the weather has hurt instate tourism; imagine if an actual boycott could be put in place articulately and followed through. It might do some economic damage to a state (MA) that is already suffering economically, and it’s not outside the realm of reason to imagine that our bizarre governor (Mitt Romney, R) would look bad. Maybe bad enough not to appeal to the Republican party for the big ticket in 2008. Okay, so I reveal my hand; I’m for the boycott because I’m opposed both to the amnesty bill AND to Romney for President. How’s that for conflicted politics?
For articles on the boycott: http://news.bostonherald.com/immigration/view.bg?articleid=145382 and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654019/posts and
For articles on the amnesty bill: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8051 and http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/richlowry/2005/05/27/15562.html and http://www.democrats.com/node/8516 and http://www.immigrationequality.org/template2.php?pageid=1079