"Why lovey I believe the yahoos are at it again!"
"Heavens! Is that some sort of wild animal, Thurston?"
Posted on 04/01/2006 8:13:09 AM PST by Pokey78
THE HOUSE CAUCUS TO RETURN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO MINORITY STATUS--also known as the House Immigration Reform Caucus--held a press conference Thursday. The GOP solons were upset. The Senate Judiciary Committee had not followed the lead of the House in adopting an "enforcement only" immigration bill. The committee had reported out a sensible and comprehensive immigration bill that includes border security measures, a guest worker program, and, for illegal immigrants already here, a path towards earned legalization and citizenship.
California representative Dana Rohrabacher decried the Senate's guest worker proposal as "the foul odor that's coming out of the United States Senate." After all, he explained, if illegal aliens who do many farm jobs were deported, "the millions of young men who are prisoners around our country can pick the fruits and vegetables. I say, let the prisoners pick the fruits." (I am not making this up.) Though the House bill has no flag-related provision to my knowledge, Virginia representative Virgil Goode nonetheless weighed in, "I say if you are here illegally and want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."
But the press conference was not heavy on substantive policy argument. Much of it had to do with the political ramifications of the immigration issue. Colorado representative Tom Tancredo explained that President Bush didn't understand the electoral dynamics, and lamented, "Although he's not running for reelection, I wish he would think about his party." Rep. Rohrabacher predicted that Senator McCain and other immigration supporters will find their
Okay. Let's not talk about substance--since the pro-immigration forces have in fact been winning that debate easily. Let's talk about ballot boxes.
Dana Rohrabacher has represented a safe GOP seat in Orange County for almost two decades. He's chosen never to run statewide. In California, Republican governor Pete Wilson exploited the immigration issue to help get reelected in 1994, and the voters passed a Republican-backed anti-immigration measure, proposition 187. No Republican candidate except the idiosyncratic Arnold Schwarzenegger has won statewide since.
Virgil Goode has a safe GOP seat in Southside Virginia. He's never run statewide. Last fall, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore, tried to exploit illegal immigration by denouncing a local community that wanted to build a shelter that might accommodate some illegals. He lost, in a red state, a race he had been favored to win.
Anti-immigration yahoo Tom Tancredo carried the sixth district of Colorado comfortably in 2004 (though running slightly behind pro-immigration George W. Bush). But in Tancredo's state, the GOP did miserably in 2004, with Democrat Ken Salazar winning the Senate seat and Democrats gaining control of both houses of the legislature. Meanwhile, in the safe fifth district of Iowa, Steve King did run two points ahead of George W. Bush in 2004. King was able to outspend his challenger 10-1, while Bush faced a huge Kerry effort in that swing state.
Four GOP senators voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee for the comprehensive immigration bill these blustering House members believe is electoral suicide: Arlen Specter, elected and reelected in blue state Pennsylvania; Mike DeWine, elected and reelected in swing state Ohio; and Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, and Sam Brownback from Kansas--both very popular in their red states. John McCain, lead sponsor of a bill that resembles the Senate Judiciary Committee bill, has a pretty impressive electoral record in Arizona, a competitive state. George W. Bush, a pro-immigration Republican, has won two presidential elections--as did another pro-immigration Republican, Ronald Reagan.
The American people are worried about immigration. In a Pew Survey released last week, 52 percent of Americans saw immigration as a burden, while 41 percent said it strengthened the country; 53 percent support sending illegals home, while 40 percent endorsed a path to citizenship. Given the hoopla about illegal immigration, this division is in fact surprisingly close. In any case, it means GOP senators and congressmen--and presidents--have plenty of room to show leadership and to resist demagoguery. Most Republican officeholders know that the political--and moral--cost of turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know Nothing party would be very great. It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?
- William Kristol
Hey Kristol...one can be pro-immigration and against illegal immigration.
"Okay. Let's not talk about substance--since the pro-immigration forces have in fact been winning that debate easily."
Back here on planet earth....things appear differently.
Hey Kristol...one can be pro-immigration and against illegal immigration.
I don't support illegal immigration, but fully support LEGAL immigration. There's a huge difference.
When 2008 comes around, middle class conservatives are going to ask "What have you done for me lately?"
The GOP needs a better answer than "we gave up our borders/security for cheap labor."
If that's the best they can come up with, they don't deserve majority status.
Hey Kristol...one can be pro-immigration and against illegal immigration.
First off, there is a huge diffrence between legal and illegal immigration. Second. Kristol only wishes he could be the conservative that Tom Tancredo is, instead of a dumbass pundit. Finally. Kristol forgets what Ronald Reagan once said, "A nation without borders, is not a nation". If the employer sanctions of the IRCA of 1986 were enforced by Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, we wouldn't have 15 million illegals in the US today. Reagan gave amnesty to 2.6 million. I seriously doubt, The Gipper would make that same mistake today.
If anyones a yahoo, Kristol fits the bill.
Oh, there is no doubt that the longer we allow people to immigrate -- and remain -- in this country illegally, the more politically difficult it becomes to stop it. What Kristol is arguing is that for the sake of political expediency we should surrender to illegal immigration so that Republicans will momentarily continue to be elected. In other words, to become more like the Democrats.
And in the process sacrifice our children's future to becoming an increasingly Balkanized mozaic of ethnic pressure groups that no longer see America as a whole of which they are a part. As the numbers of unassimilated residents from places where human rights are virtually unknown continue to increase, support for the essential aspects that make America free and prosperous will decrease.
The Reconquistas seem to think that there is something magic in the soil here that makes our country the best place to live. What they don't understand is that if they continue to swamp our society in such volumes that they need not learn the language -- or how to participate in a limited representative government -- they will only succeed in making this country increasingly resemble the places they left - squalid, corrupt and overwhelmingly uneducated.
This is what Kristol -- and apparently GWBush -- advocate for America's future.
When asked "What have you done for me lately," the GOP will reply, "Roberts, Alito, Iraq." If the GOP retains its majority after the 06 elections, there may be a third name added to that list.
Right. There's all this fear about the illegals draining us but the economy is humming along. If the economy were tanking it would be a different story. I agree with W's plan to make them legal, let them do the cheap labor.
I agree with Kristol on a lot of issues,and i like most of his articles/columns.However,Kristol misses the point and quite frankly his statement sounds more like msm disinformation.The GOP is not anti-immigration,just anti-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
One doesn't need a majority to be right.
No Child Left Behind, Medicare Presciption Drug coverage....with GOP government gimmes who needs the Dems?
It's going to be interesting to see who comes out of the primaries in 2008.
The Dems would be hundreds of times worse.
Getting a conservative onto the Supreme Court is more important to me than worrying about entitlements that weren't going to disappear in the first place.
That is such a self defeating argument...
I prefer to stand on principal. Bush and the Republican led Senate are a disgrace and have not earned my vote.
It's not self-defeating at all: it's a recognition of reality. The Democrats would be worse, period. Given that the GOP is still good on important issues--WOT and court nominations in particular--I see no reason to sabotage the majority.
And by doing so, you shoot yourself in the foot.
So much for being on the cusp of finally being able to get rid of the past 45 years of court-ordered liberalism.
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.