Posted on 11/09/2006 7:25:30 AM PST by Small-L
So in other words you can't point to the provisions in the bill itself?
The only positions I put forth were that most Americans favored a comprehensive package which included some version of the Senate bill. I gave you proof of that and offered more. I also stated that the fence, security, and enforcement would be a large part of the price tag. Finally, I took the position that I doubt you will be thrilled with what the Dems come up with. Which of those abandons rational thought?
Now that you've insulted me, at least enlighten me.
Then the best thing W could do is pursue the 'guest worker program' he so badly wants.
His job approval numbers afterwards will indicate how right you and your survey results were. Unfortunately, we'll all have to live with the consequences of this little experiment - forever.
My apologies for having insulted you.
My point is that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all your positions, but that I did not have the time nor the inclination to regurgitate fifty pages of documents and testimony... which is why I included a few links.
His job approval numbers afterwards will indicate how right you and your survey results were. Unfortunately, we'll all have to live with the consequences of this little experiment - forever.
As a lame duck president, He won't get credit in any case. But if the new congress does pass a comprehensive bill that includes sufficient enforcement and border controls, they will benefit from that in '08.
As for an "experiment", leaving 20 million illegals running around doesn't seem like much of a winner either, but that's what's been happening for years.
Speaking of enforcement, any ideas on what happened to the 'enforcement' provisions in the 86 bill?
While you're at it, since you apparently believe its a good idea, any encouraging words on why we should expect anything different this time?
I have seen no evidence that the polls on immigration over the past year are inaccurate. My position was that if Americans wanted comprehensive immigration reform, the Republicans' failure to meet in conference and carve out one did not help them in the election Tuesday. If in fact some of the several varied projections of cost were valid, then those items could well have been dealt with in conference. I seriously doubt there is any information out there contrary to those points.
Well, it only covered 2 years, 1987 and 1988, and authorized INS an increase of 50% over 1986. What happened after that and after four presidencies is anyone's guess. It's pretty obvious, it was insufficient, leading to the estimated 20 million here now.
While you're at it, since you apparently believe its a good idea, any encouraging words on why we should expect anything different this time?
Nope. But you don't stop trying. What I believe is a good idea is a comprehensive bill that includes much of what the House had and some of what the Senate had. If the Republicans had met in conference they could well have worked it out so that security of the border was first, then enforcement and legalization second. But now that will never happen, since the Democrats will craft the bill they want.
And the president will happily sign it.
All we can hope for now is a republican filibuster. Ironic, eh?
Savage claims he invented Compassionate Conservatism back in the early 90s. Wrap it up and deliver it back to him. Maybe he can resell it to somebody.
Ping.
Indeed. Doubt the Republicans will filibuster it, if it comes close to the last Senate version though. And the House needs only a majority. Perhaps the Republicans will reconsider a conference between now and January....
Grasping at straws, for sure, but I'm hoping enough people realize how critical this issue is for not only the long term prospects for the GOP but the nation.
The question is "What will the Repubs go for at this point"? If they are willing to compromise on the legalization issue, there may be a chance for passage of something legitimate. But if they try and hold out for only enforcement, they will come up empty. The Blue-dogs will not take on the liberal leadership in either house.
We shall see how much clout the San Francisco Democrats wield. My guess is not much. They are not the Clintons.
True, it is, but the term compassionate conservatism just became another word for Liberalism lit.
Rove and Mehlmans idea of turning out the vote was to place 10 calls a day to those they thought might vote republican and at least 5 daily emails which clogged the inbox. While I voted republican and would have had I never heard of Rove or Mehlman, I believe those phone calls actually alienated many republicans so much that they refused to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.