Posted on 03/28/2006 7:52:53 PM PST by Karl Rand
Republican pollster Jan van Lohuizen, in a memo written for RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, warns that if members of Congress try to drive a wedge between themselves and Pres. Bush, it'd be akin to adding weight to an anchor. GOpers are "W Brand Republicans" whether they like it or not. And van Louhizen, who has polled (often secretly) for the Bush White House under the RNC aegis for years, is worried about low turnout.
Time Magazine first reported on the memo this weekend, but the full text is below.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com ...
I covered that in an earlier post. If I list everything, it tends to bog down the post.
Really?
We voted for Bush in 2004 despite his sell-outs of key conservative positions such as education, spending and entitlements. We compromised to keep the party in power.
But We have said all along that amnesty was not acceptable. And now that Bush is trying to bring in amnesty by parsing the meaning of such, WE'RE THE BITTER AND DIVISIVE ONES because Bush is crossing the ONE LINE we said he should not cross?
Why the hell don't you ask the pro-amnesty pubbies why they are doing the one thing that they have been warned time and time again could well rift the party? We have made the compromises over the years. We have shown up to vote. And for that, we are getting a kick in the teeth over the one issue that we said was the grail all along.
Fooey to you.
Very easily. I traced this back to February 2005 when GWB , right after making his famous "political capital" speech, again brought up his scamnesty. At that point, he was a lame duck.
Trace it back. We were all pumped up after the election only to be completely let down in early 2005 with his talk of this sham.
I believe people should be allowed to migrate here legally provided they follow the rules in place.
Under the current rules, you need two financial sponsors, background checks, some English, some knowledge of American Gov't.
The rules are in place to allow people to be here that want to be Americans.
Allowing illegals to squat here is a terrible thing for this country because they don't see any difference with being from where they came from.
I also think if we passed the appropriate laws, many would self deport.
Me personally, I don't mind spending more money on things made in this country by Americans.
But what exactly is the problem? Nobody -- at least that I've read on these threads -- has defined the problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these Mexican folks aren't moving across the border for the weather. They are economic refugees. That's the problem.
WRONG!
They come here to work for cash to send home. Many will not sign up for this plan when they realize they will be getting a pay cut in the form of taxes and many employers will happy to oblige since it will mean still not paying payroll taxes, workers comp, etc etc.
They send the money home because they can live better on less down there. Many cross the border twice a year and live off what they sent home. What's the problem with this???
While they are here, they have kids with other women, need medical care, education, etc all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer who is getting conned.
Another thing that is wrong with this plan is that when these people are legalized, there will be a huge new influx of illegals looking to undercut the wages of the newly minted legals. Do you see where I am going????
Without securing the border and enforcing the laws so that illegals can't work and employers are afraid to hire them, this cycle will grow even worse in years to come.
Wrong about what?
You just defined "economic refugee."
You seem way too emotional on this issue and that undercuts credibility.
What's worng with that?????
Don't you see the problem with illegals working for cash, sending the money home, and having the U.S. taxpayer pick up the tab for all the services they receive?
Why do you think Fox is so in favor of this??????
He gets to export all these poor people, not have to have his systems strained by them, and get a ton of cash in return, all at the expense of you and I.
Why don't you try doing this in Mexico and see where it gets you.
Zook, if you are such a free market at all costs type, then why don't you abolish college tenure ? I'm certain there are lots of academics all over the world who would do your job for a fraction of your pay. A guaranteed job for life with a guaranteed income is the least capitalist thing I can imagine.
Fascinating how those who sing the praises of 'competitiveness' and 'wage restraint' the loudest don't have to deal with it.
See my earlier posts to him. The dumbest people I meet are in academia. Totally clueless to the real world.
I have no problem with abolishing tenure. I can't do it alone.
"The dumbest people I meet are in academia. Totally clueless to the real world."
Being as smart as you are, I wonder why you find yourself in the minority on this issue. I mean, if you red meat America Firsters represented more than about 20% of the voting public, how is it that you lost this issue in the Senate? How is it that people like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton even have a ghost of a chance of winning the White House?
As far as being in the "real world," I'll hold my "real world" experience up to yours anytime, pal.
Mexico's problem is that it got its butt kick by China. All those manufacturing jobs went east -- really far east.
I believe that President Bush and V. Fox are waiting for the situation to reach some kind of equilibrium, which it hasn't yet achieved. Who knows, it might never achieve it. On the other hand, if Mexico become unstable via a financial crisis, then we've got a real problem.
This is a tough problem -- and there's so much noise on each side that it's extremely difficult to get to the center of it. Too many people screamining.
Zing!
Zook, you praise the virtues of reducing America to Third World level while choosing a career path which would afford you a guaranteed job for life with a pension and generous benefits and protect you from the socioeconomic consequences of the policies you endorse. What a phony you are !
And this is a two party issue. The Party of Money with its fawning apologists and the Party of Working Taxpaying Americans. The Party of the Elite Consensus vs Everyone Else. All over the developed world immigration is a political tsunami pitting the elite against the man in the street.
"What a phony you are ! "
I'm a phony because:
1. I disagree with you about economics and protectionism and
2. Because I dared to work hard for many years to earn my doctorate and teach at a major university.
It's truly a sign of ignorance to get into name calling every time someone doesn't dance to the tune of your banjo.
Why don't you come down to the Bronx, N.Y. where I am and tell me about the real world.
I don't want to hear about sebaticals and other trips you have taken, I am talking street level stuff as to what is really going on.
Until you have been around this scam on the street level, you have no clue about what is going on.
Very easily. I traced this back to February 2005 when GWB , right after making his famous "political capital" speech, again brought up his scamnesty. At that point, he was a lame duck.
Possibly. But there seems to be more to it than that, i.e.: Iraq...Deficit...Social Security...Huge spending spree...Drugs for free...and my list goes on.
And the MSM was right in there torpedoing W...They absolutely stampeded everyone who knew next to nothing about port operations or port security. I was amazed at how quickly most on FR piled on W for this and concluded (in a vacuum) that it was a bad deal.
And now we face the beast and her entourage of the MSM pals...the liars and anti-American trash. There has to be a way out and away from the socialism that seems on the horizon.....I am afraid for my children and grandchildren.
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.