"Expecting perfection from any person, group or team is a recipe for disaster."
Perfection?
No.
But suppose, for a minute, that September 11th had happened, but President Bush had responded the way Clinton did to the first World Trade Center attack. Suppose he had refused to declare war and sought a "law enforcement option".
Could you continue to support the Republican Party even then?
Suppose he appointed open pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Could you continue to support the Republican Party even then?
What he just did on the Border was give a speech that says that we will have no effective fence, and have a de-facto amnesty...and that if we can't get that, we will be left with the status quo of an open border. Which means that we are going to lose our country itself.
To people who see this clearly, what the President AND MOST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (the House Republicans excepted) have done is to hand over America to a steady foreign invasion. It is the equivalent of the President and the Party having done either of the two aforementioned things.
It is not a matter, for the Border Conservatives, of demanding perfection. It is, rather, a matter of maintaining certain MINIMUM STANDARDS that cannot be gone below. And on the fundamental matter of the survival of the nation itself, long term, in the face of a Latino invasion, the President and the Republican leadership have chosen to go with allowing the progressive invasion of the US, without any effective resistance.
It was not hysteria of perfectionists when the low-tax portion of the Republican base walked out on Bush's father in 1992 after he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. It was the enforcement of discipline and minimum standards. It was normally Republican men and women all across America saying that there is a level below which they will not stoop, and there is behavior that they will not accept, and that if the Republican Party insists on selling out a core constituency, they will withhold their votes from the Republican Party until it meets those minimum standards.
Yes, the principled anti-tax Republicans, by walking away, DID result in Clinton's election in 1992. But they ALSO were the catalyst that provoked the Contract With America and the sweeping Republican victory in 1994. And ever since then, the Republican Party has never once even suggested raising taxes. Republicans get it: taxes are a MINIMUM. Raising taxes will result in Republican voters abandoning them. Republican voters don't demand PERFECTION, but they DO demand that Republicans not violate basic minima. Raise taxes, and low-tax Republicans would rather see the Republican Party lose ONE election, to get the message that they can never win ANY elections, ever again, if they don't STOP the unacceptable behavior.
The Republicans GOT IT on taxes.
No pro-abortion candidate has any real hope of ever being the Republican nominee. It is not because pro-life voters demand PERFECTION. No. PERFECTION would have been no Arlen Specter at judiciary. It would be a constitutional amendment against abortion. It would be investigation of abortion mills, and prosecution for poor health practices. Pro-life Republican voters are willing to accept a good deal less than perfection. But they, too, have minima. To a pro-life voter, if the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice candidate for President, or raises a pro-choice justice to the Supreme Court, it is PREFERRABLE to stay home and let the Republicans be horribly defeated in ONE election cycle, to teach the lesson that such behavior is unacceptable. The Party has a lot of latitude, but if it falls below the MINIMA of a core constituency, then it is imperative that such constituency intentionally PUNISH the Party, by a defeat in a national election, to teach the election that the discretion of power and leadership DOES NOT PERMIT Republican leaders to go below the minimum.
Raise taxes, and Republican tax hawks WILL cause the party to lose the next election. Everyone knows that. Which is why Republicans haven't suggested it since 1992.
Elevate a pro-choice Presidential candidate or Supreme Court nominee, and the pro lifers WILL hand victory to the Democrats in the next election, to teach the lesson to the Republican Party that they cannot win if they betray this core constituency on its fundamental concern.
I am not a Border Conservative, but I think that what President Bush and the Republican establishment, the House Republicans excepted, have done is clearly go far below the basic minima that Border Conservatives would tolerate.
What were they saying all along: THE WALL is THE KEY.
They have said, above all, "Build a Fence; seal the border". And they said no amnesty. Bitter-enders said many other things, but most thinking "BorderBots" said that the WALL was the key. Stop the flow, and the problem of illegals already here can be dealt with in time. Over and over, relentlessly, the Border Conservatives said this.
What have the Republicans offered them?
No wall, no internal enforcement against business, and a backdoor amnesty by another name.
The BorderBots were not just not given EVERYTHING.
They weren't given ANYTHING.
The Republican leadership (House excepted) gave them the back of the hand, the equivalent of a tax hike for border hawks and a pro-abortion presidential candidacy and Supreme Court nominee for the pro-lifers.
Of course the BorderBots have to walk.
Their core issue has been ignored, not just on some points, but on EVERY point. They have been completely disregarded, and their concerns overridden.
Simple self-respect and the honor of which you spoke requires them to sit out an election, knowing that this will indeed hand power to the Democrats, just like in 1992. It is the only way to focus the mind of the Republican leadership to understand that a closed border is the MINIMUM that Border Conservatives will accept. Go below that, and they can't be Republicans anymore, because an open border means the slow motion destruction and dissolution of the American culture, and eventually the unity of the nation itself.
That's what they were saying BEFORE Bush's speech.
Now they're angry.
But it's what they will continue to say now.
Hopefully, after two years of misery under a Republican Congress, there will be another "Contract With America" moment, and the Republican Party will understand that NO NEW TAXES, NO PRO-ABORT SUPREMES OR PRESIDENTS, and a SEALED MEXICAN BORDER are minima below which the Republican Party cannot let itself go, because the result if they do is Democratic rule.
Were the tax hawks wrong in 1992?
Are the pro-lifers wrong on their minimum?
No, and no.
Are the BorderBots wrong on theirs?
It's tough for me to see how they are.
And it's tough for me to see how their own self-respect will allow them to vote Republican this year, except for firm seal-the-border candidates of WHATEVER political party.
Your appeal was sincere, Pukin Dog, but it won't work.
It won't work because it CAN'T.
Appeals to party unity were made after George Bush 41 raised taxes, but they were in vain. And in the end, it is better that they failed. The Republican Party learned, through electoral disaster, that they do not have the power to raise taxes if they want to hold onto power. Their own base will execute them.
In 2006, the Republican Party is going to be executed by its Border Conservative base. At this point, it is unrecoverable. The President made a fatal error, and the Senate yesterday made it unrecoverable by refusing to agree to enforcement first. The pieces are now in motion, and they can't be stopped. BorderBots cannot swallow their pride and maintain their dignity if they vote GOP this year, and the GOP cannot win without them.
The Democrats will win in November because of what George Bush said Monday night, and what the Republican Senate did on Tuesday.
But this is not the end of the world.
It is a teachable moment, or November will be at any rate.
The recovery that will follow thereafter will be to add a Sealed Mexican Border to the list of UNTOUCHABLE Republican policies. The Republican nominee in 2008 will support not a virtual fence and backdoor amnesty, but an Israeli-style wall. And with that, the BorderBots will come back in force, just like the tax hawks did with the Contract with America.
It's too bad we have to be defeated in November, but we do. BorderBot self-respect, and yes, honor, demands it.
I hope so.
PD's rant was good but you have made some valid points here too.
Vicomte,
Excellent post. Most of the Bushbots here fail to realize the importance of immigration. It truly is unlike any other issue of the day. If Bush's plan goes through, we can say goodbye to the Republican Party (not just in '06 due to voter apathy, but forever due to millions of new former-illegals Democrat votes).
You have to have lived in Arizona in the past few years to understand the problem with legalizing any of these illegal immigrants. I am now free of that state, but I will not go back until the problem is solved, which will, thanks to our President and "Republican" Congress, never happen.
This isn't about racism. It's about nationalism and the future of conservatism.
Shortly after, it is discovered that a brand new *anti-everything not perfect* website has been launched.
Are you going to jump, or are you going to just hang around threatening to jump?
Quote: "In 2006, the Republican Party is going to be executed by its Border Conservative base. At this point, it is unrecoverable. The President made a fatal error, and the Senate yesterday made it unrecoverable by refusing to agree to enforcement first. The pieces are now in motion, and they can't be stopped. BorderBots cannot swallow their pride and maintain their dignity if they vote GOP this year, and the GOP cannot win without them.
The Democrats will win in November because of what George Bush said Monday night, and what the Republican Senate did on Tuesday."
First off, this is exactly what I was talking about above. This is just the attitude the MSM and dems want us to have, namely, the "its too late, why even bother attitude." I don't except that for one second.
Secondly, its just what Pukin said, namely, that you throw out the steak just because there is a sprig of parsely on it. What about the House? They have a bill that is exactly what the "BorderBots" want. They are holding their ground. In the end, they will have to accept some of what the Senate Bill has, but the opposite will be true as well or there will be no bill. Will that bill be perfect, no. But it will be a better bill than that piece of crap coming from the Senate.
I suspect that you do expect perfection. Despite the protestations of your post, your problem is that a mega wall will not be built on the border starting today. I just don't think that was ever going to be the case. But, perhaps we can get it started.
You are giving it up to the Dems? Surprise surprise. Should I say Bye Bye now or later?
I am simply in awe Vicomte13. I bow down to your superior eloquence. This is exactly how us "BorderBots" feel. I personally cannot just simply go with the flow when I believe that my country is on the road to an unmitigated disaster. You nailed every point succinctly. My hat is off to you.
If the GOP has to learn through losing elections - then we have no party to begin with.
Because, losing is furthering the other side and is not acceptable. Unless you are working for the other side which apparently is true of many here now.
It's too bad we have to be defeated in November, but we do. BorderBot self-respect, and yes, honor, demands it.
- - -
Our Republic and our world canNOT well or easily afford such an event--and survive in anything like a Constitutional form. Shrillery would declare Martial Law in a flash at the least hope of getting away with it. There's a serious probability that future elections would be moot even if they were held. Consider this paranoid fantasy if you wish. But if you think so, then you evidently have not been reading the handwriting on the wall. And, you evidently are seriously underestimating her evil and her supporters in high places.
Allowing the DIMRATS to grease the slide to the global government even for ONE MONTH would be horribly destructive . . . for 4 years or 8 years would be unimaginably horrible.
A complete lack of perspective. Al Qaeda is licking it chops at the prospects of a Democrat controlled government, with it's reliance on platitudes and UN police actions. They will wait patiently until a Democrat is at the helm, and they will launch the most devestating series of strikes the world has ever seen. They can do this largely because their state sponsors will know that they will not be retailiated against with a Democrat in office.
The War on Terror should be the overriding issue for patriots.
It's a long way 'til November, and by August we may see riots in LA along the lines of Watts or torched cars a la France. One hopes not, but it could be a long, hot summer, and people are frustrated and angry. I'm speaking of illegals, who've bought their leaders' arguments that they're entitled to instant citizenship as a human right. If the worst happens, a wall would go up rather quickly. This would reverse Bush's low poll numbers overnight.
Bottom line? It's not the border situation alone, but any number of missteps by "our" guys. Stopping the illegal invasion is just the final straw for most conservatives. It just coincidentally happens to be a minimum.
Thanks for putting into words what I suspect so many others believe.
FGS
I'm late to this thread, Vicomte13, but thank you for that. I suspect you've already been ripped a new one, further down, and I haven't seen it yet. But what you've said, and said well, genuinely needed saying. It's not irretrievable yet, close to being so, but not quite. That's the tattered optimism to which I was referring, yesterday. This still has to get past the House.
Well said
Excellent post!
If I ever get in serious trouble, I going to look you up!
Minimum standards bump.
It looks like an initial 870 miles of fence to me, at a cost of around nine hundred million, that's 900 million dollars. Also $900,000,000. That's dollars not nickles.
Nope, hang the man for managing to get ANY further on a fence HE'S BEEN TRYING TO BUILD SINCE 2001, WITHOUT "CONSERVATIVE" SUPPORT.