Posted on 03/25/2006 11:03:30 PM PST by Icelander
In elections one earns political capital. Once spent, c’est tout. Consumed capital cannot be replenished by a cauterized constituency, and today the Republican base boils.
I recently spoke to someone who volunteered for Bush’s 2004 campaign. I asked whether he would work for the GOP in 2008, and he bemoaned “no.” I asked why, and he replied, “It’s a sad day when Democrats like Dianne Feinstein are tougher on immigration than Republicans like Sam Brownback.”
The avalanche of support that has followed Republicans since 1994 we now see slowly evaporating over the issue of a guest-worker program. Impassioned Republicans four years ago now stand out of steam, feeling betrayed by a party leadership that would support a bill so at odds with conservative principles.
This guest-worker proposal, after all, rewards illegal behavior. Instead of requiring illegal immigrants to return to Mexico (or wherever) to apply for a permit, it grants legal status on the spot, thus acting as a “magnet for continued illegal immigration.” And, as Rep. John Hostettler (R.-Ind.) recently said, any guest-worker plan “puts the interest of foreign, illegal workers above those of our own American citizens.”
Newt Gingrich summed up the matter most succinctly on the O’Reilly Factor (March 15, 2006). He has observed a growing divide between Washington GOP elites and the average voting Republican. Somehow, GOP elites have come to believe that a guest-worker program is necessary (although it is not). Your average GOP voter, however, while praising boosts to border security, deeply dislikes any guest-worker giveaway.
Why GOP leadership supports such a lemon remains unseen. In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It granted green cards to three million illegal immigrants, consequently attracting yet another five million to cross the border to replace their decriminalized comrades. Furthermore, a recent poll taken in Mexico found that at least 46 percent of the population (50 million Mexicans) would cross the border if given the chance. Any guest-worker initiative advertises this avenue.
It is in future forecasts, however, that Republicans really blunder. Illegal immigrants, voting for socialist candidates in Mexico or South America, will become Democrats once gaining full citizenship. Superficial surveys taken in a couple cities show that 9 out of 10 illegal immigrants support Democrats over Republicans. This guest-worker program, on a silver platter, will hand over California, Florida, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to Democrats.
Is the GOP abating its base and fallowing its future in one fell swoop?
You're answering your own question: he's just another grasping, power-crazed professional politician.
Because he is Rhino piece of crap politician just like all of the crap in Washington...
Bush is worthless and is going to cave on this and whore himself like every politician before him.
GW Bush is not a man of principal...and he is certainly not a man who can be trusted with the security of our borders and the constitution...
Bend over...your about to get 'porked'...
Bingo! I'm fed up with our spineless party. The GOP logo should be that of a jellyfish.
Frist / Rice in 2008.
Actualy if Kerry had been elected he would be doing the same thing Bush is doing. Implementing the NEW WORLD ORDER GAME PLAN!!!
HERE IS THE REAL SCOOP!!!!
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
by Phyllis Schlafly July 13, 2005
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."
"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."
This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.
A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.
Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."
The document's frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document's "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
To no one's surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.
The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.
The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.
The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.
Here's another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.
To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.
The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.
Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR's integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.
Because Bush is a compasionate conservative. Not a true conserv. To H with CC. This is whats wrong with CC. CC is to liberal! Just like Arnold S, too much CC.
I think the lack of support has more to do with total invasion of our country. The guest-worker thing is down the list.
THIS IS WHAT BEGAN THE SELL OUT!!! Don't leave anyone out!
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501440
I did that once, and voted for Perot. Wound up with Slick Willie.
I get tired of all the emphasis on Iraq and the mideast and in exporting democracy and all the rhetoric about "protecting the American way of life".
All the while we are standing here watching while it is being diluted, diminished and outright destroyed here at home.
The "base" isn't *only* the most hard-core rock-ribbed people lusting for a '64 Goldwater platform. The '64 Goldwater platform wasn't all that popular in '64. The base isn't monolithic and bunched up way to the right. If it was, 2000 wouldn't have been a one state victory, and 2004 wouldn't have been a one-state victory. It's thought to be necessary to get a bunch of votes from the squishter middle of the voters. If the farthest-to-the right voting bloc could guarantee a victory, they'd be very powerful. Unfortunately for them, one of their votes isn't worth any more when it's counted than the vote of a guy who *almost* voted for he Dem. Rove knows this.
Me: "No, but after the Bush Administration decides to control the border, feel free to call me back."
RNC guy: "I guess that means you're not contributing now?"
Me: "That's exactly what it means."
This issue won't hurt the GOP in the least as long as there is a bill that comes out of committee onto the floor. It may include some form of guest worker program joined with tough enforcement but no matter what, not everyone will be happy with it. The Democrats will end up being the big losers on this because no matter what bill does come out of committee it will be blocked by a Majority Democrat Filibuster which will hurt them more than the GOP. I'm not buying this "Bush sold us out" crap because everyone knew before the '04 elections that he wanted a immigration bill with a limited guest worker program in it and he still got elected by a majority. When Bush got the nomination in '04 I don't recall seeing the "Conservative" candidate running neck and neck with him and when he got elected it was understood that we weren't going to see the Conservative President till '08.
It is VERY much like that.
No they're not Conservatives. All the controversies in the end (election time) will be long forgotten because the Republicans need the Conservative Base and the Conservative Base needs the Republicans. The Democrats can't win because their base, the Liberals and Socialist, are so far out of the mainstream of America whereas even if the Conservative base and Republicans can't see eye to eye, both views are within the threshold of American Mainstream as long as some compromise gets done. Most Americans can live with a guest worker program (may not like it though) as long as they see the border being shut down, a tracking system for guest workers and employers being held accountable for hiring undocumented illegals. We are in the minority of the Republican Party and that means, like any minority group, must be willing to give more than 50% of a compromise. The Democrats are in such a disarray because none of their minority groups are willing to accept anything less than 100% and they keep losing.
"The avalanche of support that has followed Republicans since 1994 we now see slowly evaporating over the issue of a guest-worker program."
If only that were only true...
How about spend, spend spend... McCain-Feingold... Disapointment after disapointment... I can't count all the things...
No money from me.
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.