RNC Memo Warns GOPers Not To Distance Themselves From Bush

The Hotline (National Journal) ^ | March 28, 2006

[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.

[Badray]

You would have us believe that every American is busy right now fighting the WoT. If only that were the case.

This administration treats grandmothers, babies, and MoH winners as potential terrorist yet leaves the border wide open. I'd say that they have it exactly backwards.

I don't anyone here is selling out Jorge on the WoT. But he has definitely abandoned the American people in favor of illegal aliens. Since you favor Jorge's approach, yes, since you brought it up, your patriotism is suspect -- as is his.

[jmc813]

GOpers are "W Brand Republicans" whether they like it or not.

Uhhhh, f$%& you, Ken.

[Willie Green]

"W Brand Republicans" = Rockefeller Republicans

"W Brand Republicans" = Johnson Democrats

IOW, just another term for Great Society poverty pimps.

[Badray]

Your statement assumes that sending the Dems packing would improve the GOP. It won't. It will have less effect than sending some Republicans packing. Maybe then the GOP will understand that we don't vote PARTY, we vote PRINCIPLE.

We've already given the GOP control and they have squandered it and behave as badly as the Dems. It's time for a change of politicians.

[Badray]

I know that you meant to write 1992 (not 1982).

Your post is excellent and sums up the situation precisely.

[NJ_gent]

Except that it only mentions followers of other religions; not converts. As such, legally he was not considered a follower of another religion, but a Muslim blaspheming Allah. Hence, why he was on trial. If your interpretation were the one the Afghan government were using, he wouldn't have been on trial in the first place. That he was going on trial for his life at all, and that he was released only on a technicality, goes to show that the Afghani legal system isn't what you were hoping it would be (what we all were hoping it would be) after all.

[Final Authority]

I agree with you mostly, but why isn't GWB's fault? If he corrected the problems he would get the credit, wouldn't he?

The fact is, GWB is a politician first and a man without principle second. His first and only loyalty must be to the Constitution and the defense of our nation. CFR and other missteps showed us he is not sincere about protecting the Constitution and his outright refusal to close down the borders to the hoards of invaders from Mexico proves his is not sincere about homeland security and the rule of law.

That is exactly what his legacy will be remembered for. A failure as a President. Yea, he was a comforting father figure in the days right after 9-11 but he is a disaster, not a conservative at all, in all of the days before and since. We bought a bill of goods, probably better that Gore or Kerry, but the question remains, is the reason why we have such poor choices coincidental with the reason why McCain and Feingold and then the President wishes to restrict speech when it comes to electing the President and congress?

[Badray]

Yeah, I have a question.

Was it only Republicans who voted for Bush or were there hundreds of thousands or even millions of independents and some Democrats who also voted for him whose opinions aren't reflected in that poll?

Of course, 'Republicans' like you will support him no matter what. A lot of his voters no longer do.

[NJ_gent]

"Delaying that action would have only emboldened Saddam and allowed his nefarious programs to progress."

My point was that North Korea was easily ten years ahead of Iraq or Iran. Aside from that, North Korea has a history of exporting their weapons and weapons technologies to our enemies. I believe there's a quote from SecDef Rumsfeld floating around somewhere in which he called North Korea the world's biggest illegal weapons and weapons technologies proliferator. Saddam wanted the weapons North Korea is making, and North Korea is looking to sell them to the highest bidder(s). To my way of thinking, you go after the most immediate and dire threats first and take out the little guys second.

We all know and knew that Saddam did not have nuclear warheads, nor was he even close to a successful long-range missile program. North Korea has been successful on both counts.

[Howlin]

'Republicans' like you

You mean the ones who actually ELECT people to office?

A lot of his voters no longer do.

A lot of "his voters" didn't in 2000 and 2004 and he still won without you all.

[Killborn]

There are two lessons that can be learned in the event of a GOP defeat:

1) We weren't conservative enough.

2) We weren't liberal enough.

Depending on which one is learned, the GOP may improve itself or further degenerate.

But there is one sure outcome if the DEMs win.

America gets screwed.

THe GOP at least have Tancredo, Paul, Sensenbreener, Coburn, and others. The Dems have who, Zell? Lieberman?

Regardless of which policy is chosen, it would be the equivalent of paying Russian Roulette, with three chambers loaded and severe injuries resulting from just pulling the trigger.

Let's not find out. Until the liberals have been dethroned completely, it ain't safe.

You want conservatives? Here's your chance: primaries. Use it well. Even if the candidate is only more conservative by one issue, vote for him. Always vote for Most Conservative Person Possible regardless of party.

GOP Candidate A is more conservative than GOP Incumbent B. Vote A.

If A looses and B is running agianst Liberal DEM C, vote B.

If C is MCPP instead of B, vote C.

Watch out for Salazars and toons conservative impersonators.

[Rockitz]

Brings to memory the expression, "He's a $OB, but he's our $OB."

[Badray]

zook is a globalist who hates America.

Worse yet, I'll bet he voted for Arlen Specter too.

[Mini-14]

I wasn't being satirical -- I meant it. Frankly, I think we were better off when we had divided government.

Let me rephrase my original statement to "Screw the RINOs. Vote against all RINOs in Congress and give the Republicans some time on the back bench to think about what they have done. Let the Democrats get rid of Bush on whatever trumped up charge they can manufacture. With Cheney in the Whitehouse and Republicans in Congress having given a good spanking, we'll all be a lot better off."

[pissant]

No it is not what we were hoping...yet. I have confidence for their future, as do the Afghanis, since so many have returned from exile.

The judicial system will take a while yet to get its bearings. Considering that the "protest" after releasing him was feeble at best, it is a good sign.

[tennmountainman]

Janice Rogers Brown would have been a great choice as well.

[tennmountainman]

The GOP is en-riching their check pants fat cats. If the democrats win,
they will en-rich their fat cats. So what if the democrats don't do anything about border control, federal spending or family values...
The GOP has not done squat either.

[jmc813]

My realistic preferences, just to be clear. 1) an impenetrable wall or other border system to prevent 99.9% of illegal crossings. 2) Deportation for ALL those who do not sign onto the guest worker program, with the added requirement they are NEVER able to return. 3) Limited time for guest workers (2-3 years) with mandatory return to home country before re-applying. 4) No accelerated path to citizenship. 5) Crack down on ALL companies who employ non-registered illegals. 6) Absolutely NO benefits to illegals from the feds or states.

This is not far from Bush's plan.

This is quite different from what Bush wants. He has no desire for a physical boundary, he won't crack down on his business cronies, and he sure as hell won't end welfare.

[pissant]

The feds have very little illegal alien welfare. It is mostly the states. From his speech on illegal immigration:

We have a comprehensive strategy to reform our immigration system. We're going to secure the border by catching those who enter illegally, and hardening the border to prevent illegal crossings. We're going to strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws within our country. And together with Congress, we're going to create a temporary worker program that will take pressure off the border, bring workers from out of the shadows, and reject amnesty.

This practice of catch and release has been the government's policy for decades. It is an unwise policy and we're going to end it. (Applause.)

And to help the agents, we're deploying technologies. Listen, technology can help an individual agent have broader reach and more effectiveness. When agents can take advantage of cutting-edge equipment like overhead surveillance drones and infrared cameras, they can do a better job for all of us.

In Tucson, agents on the ground are directing unmanned aerial technology in the sky, and they're acting rapidly on illegal immigration or illegal activities they may see from the drones. In the months since these unmanned flights began, agents have intercepted a lot of drugs on the border that otherwise -- and people -- that otherwise might have made it through.

The legislation I signed last month provides $139 million to further upgrade the technology and bring a more unified, systematic approach to border enforcement. Again, I want to thank the members of the Congress. (Applause.)

In some places, the most effective way to secure the border is to construct physical barriers to entry. The legislation I signed last month includes $70 million to install and improve protective infrastructure across this border. In rural areas, we're funding the construction of new patrol roads to give our agents better access to the border, and new vehicle barriers to keep illegal immigrants from driving across the border.

In urban areas, we're expanding fencing to shut down access to human smuggling corridors. Secretary Chertoff recently used authority granted by the Congress to order the completion of a 14-mile barrier near San Diego that had been held up because of lawsuits. By overcoming endless litigation to finish this vital project we're helping our border agents do their job, and making people who live close to the border more secure.

Our actions to integrate manpower, technology and infrastructure are getting results. And one of the best examples of success is the Arizona Border Control Initiative, which the government launched in 2004. In the first year of this initiative -- now, listen to this, listen how hard these people are working here -- agents in Arizona apprehended nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, a 42-percent increase over the previous year. We've captured a half-million pounds of marijuana, prosecuted more than 400 people suspected of human smuggling, and seized more than $7 million in cash. You've got some good folks here working hard to do their job, and I appreciate it very much. (Applause.)

[pollyannaish]

Ok. Well, then my first theory was correct and we will have to agree to disagree.

But one thing...if you think that divided government is good, how would a Dem congress impeaching the President make it happen?

I mean, do you think we would get a MORE conservative President under those conditions? Cheney would not be the next President. And, he would not behave any differently on the border issue. And the same policies would apply. And, and, and...

Or would it maybe end up that we had a less conservative President for a couple of years because it was completely hobbled, we'd get a complete wishy washy Stephen Breyer type judge...and then a completely DEM government.

In my opinion, your comments don't reflect your stated position on divided government.