What we have NOW:
"La Raza" - Democrats
"La Raza lite" - Republicans (of the country club/establishment genre)
"Conservative" - perhaps a new, as yet unformed, party
Some random thoughts, probably don't mean anything:
Remember NAFTA? The Democrats opposed it, and if G. Bush (the father) had been re-elected, it probably would not have passed due to solid Democratic opposition. But Clinton won, and, lo and behold, he _supported_ NAFTA and got it passed.
Remember "welfare reform"? The Democrats opposed it, and if G. Bush (the father) had been re-elected, it probably would not have passed due to solid Democratic opposition. But Clinton won, and, lo and behold, he actually supported the notion of "ending welfare as we know it", and eventually signed legislation that did just that (not without considerable pressure from the newly-Republican-controlled Congress).
Now the hot-button issue is "border control". Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Pubbies in Congress currently DON'T want any controls, out of respect for the president's position. Nor do the 'rats. But what would happen if Hillary got in, running on the platform of a secure Southern border, and Republicans retained some leverage in Congress?
We were only able to get true "free trade" with the Democrats in control (I was opposed to that, still am).
We were only able to get meaningful "welfare reform" with the Dems in control (I supported that).
Could it be remotely possible that we will only get effective border controls with a future Democratic president?
Again, just some thoughts...
- John
You forgot CAFTA. I don't think CAFTA is official yet. This little jewel is really going to open the borders as soon as all the central American nations sign on to it.
What do you want? Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?
Why repeat bad history?