 |
What's our side, sucker? I don't hear Bush saying that the guys cutting lawns are an invasion. Republicans ain't Nazis. But some fringe groups are . . . |
Posted on 05/22/2006 7:06:35 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
05/21 07:44 PM According to today's Washington Post:
Hispanic voters, many of whom responded favorably to President Bush's campaign appeals emphasizing patriotism, family and religious values in Spanish-language media in 2004, are turning away from the administration on immigration and a host of other issues, according to a new survey.
At the same time, separate polls show that conservative white Republicans are the voting group most hostile to the administration's support for policies that would move toward the legalization of many undocumented immigrants.
More here .
For all the talk about Karl Rove's brilliance, it was a blunder of monumental proportions to force a confrontation on illegal immigration now—a relative few months before the midterm elections—in a way that enrages both the conservative base and a liberal constituency against Republicans. The president has endangered scores of Republicans, some of whom are excellent public servants. And depending on how this turns out legislatively, he may have done lasting damage to the Republican party.
But Rove and Bush are not alone. John McCain has spent a decade undermining the GOP and thumbing his nose at the conservative base. The McCain-Feingold bill had as one of its primary purposes the weakening of the party structure, which was never of much use to McCain especially after the party rejected his presidential run in 2000. On issue after issue, McCain has led the so-called Senate moderates to undermine and ambush the Senate's thin Republican majority and even thinner conservative plurality, positioning himself as some kind of independent and progressive. He uses the media to draw attention to himself, and the media use him to highlight his anti-conservatism. And here he is again, pushing the most radical transformation of our society in recent history.
The Senate Republicans have never figured out how to put McCain in box. And so their ranks are splintering even more. We now get lectures from the likes of Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham, who in past Senate's would have been rightly seen as light-weights. Arlen Specter humiliated himself among his conservative colleagues to persuade them to support his ascendancy to head of the Judiciary Committee. He uses that post to trash the president's commander-in-chief powers. In 2004, Lincoln Chafee announced that he wouldn't be voting for the president, and he votes repeatedly with the Democrat minority. If Rove and Bush hadn't supported Specter in the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, conservative Pat Toomey may well be filling the seat. Today, Bush's RNC is backing Chafee in the Republican primary in Rhode Island against Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, a conservative. And there are others.
So now the Republican president and the Republican Senate are cobbling together an illegal-immigration bill that will badly damage both the Republican party and the country. The bill would make permanent so-called temporary guest-workers as they wouldn't have to return home (so much for going to the back of some imagined line); it would expand greatly the number of legal aliens invited to come to our country by tens of millions (apparently there's no end to the number of jobs Americans won't do); it would legalize virtually all of the 11 million illegal aliens currently in our country (the number is probably much greater); it would apply Davis-Bacon union wage requirements on jobs performed by so-called temporary workers (so much for cheap labor and cheap lettuce); it would confer Social Security benefits on immigrants for the period of time they were working using stolen or fake Social Security numbers (but it's not amnesty, they tell us); and it wouldn't recognize English as the nation's official language (so much for promised assimilation). And, of course, the same federal politicians and bureaucracy that won't and/or can't enforce the current law assure us that they'll manage and enforce a far more complicated, multi-tier, multi-level system involving far more people.
Meanwhile, we're supposed to accept all of this and more in exchange for what is essentially a sound-bite about using a few thousand National Guardsmen on the border—who are not going to be doing border enforcement. A 370-mile fence will supposedly be built, leaving about 85% of the southern border without a physical fence. But there will be sensors and gliders that will presumably get an accurate count of the number of illegal aliens crossing our border since there won't be enough physical barriers to stop them or border agents to apprehend them.
And the primary culprit in all of this—the Mexican government—will continue to insist that America isn't doing enough and America is not a friendly neighbor. It will continue to send its lawyers into our courtrooms to challenge any effort to stem the mass exportation of Mexico's poor to our country. And why not? Let Americans pay for the public services Mexico refuses to confer on its own people. And the illegal aliens in the U.S. send billions of dollars back to Mexico, which helps prop-up its socialist economy. Besides, so much of the United States really belongs to Mexico, doesn't it? But for American imperialism under the presidency of James Polk, we'd all be speaking Spanish now. The Mexican government is playing a nasty game with its people, and our government is complicit. There’s nothing compassionate or humane about our government’s timidity in dealing with Mexico’s ruling class.
So, what motivates Rove and Bush? It can't be politics, can it? Surely they don't honestly believe that securing 40% of the votes of a growing ethnic minority is a path to continued majority status? And surely they're aware that despite Ronald Reagan granting amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens, that wasn't enough to ensure the political allegiance of a majority of Hispanic voters. In recent decades, Republicans have had a difficult time figuring out how to convince minorities to support them. Apparently Rove and Bush, not to mention McCain, et al, have decided the best approach is to parrot liberals. Therefore, they support making that which is illegal legal, pretend to care about border security, and are spreading around benefits and entitlements.
Yes, we’re a nation of immigrants, like every other nation. But our government has never acted so irresponsibly. In the past, our country decided what kind of immigrants it needed and wanted. Today, illegal immigrants and foreign nations bring pressure on our politicians because they know it will respond favorably to their demands. America’s political class has never been so frivolous about U.S. citizenship and sovereignty, and so contemptible of the will of the American people. This is why the Republican majority will likely pay a severe price in November, even though conservatives like Jeff Sessions and Jim Sensenbrenner, among many others, are fighting the good fight and trying to save the day, while liberals get a free ride.
I'm not sure, but I hear the same tired lines in virtually every post.
susie
Sure but that's spin. If you take position A and then switch to position Z, it's a flip-flop.
Apparently the line today is the same as it was 20 years ago.
|
What's our side, sucker? I don't hear Bush saying that the guys cutting lawns are an invasion. Republicans ain't Nazis. But some fringe groups are . . . |
Gee, maybe the folks running around FR who are so bereft of actual debating points that they have been reduced to name-calling and slurs?
But some fringe groups are .
Ah, so because a couple of skinheads don't like Mexicans, you can therefore associate an entire political movement with such, eh?
Kinda like Slick did, associating conservatives with McVeigh. It was despicable when he did it, and it's despicable when you do it.
I guess in your world. I would say that if you get more information, it's an epihpahy.
susie
or an epiphany. Hmm....I used to be a much better typist....
susie
It's not either/or. It would be an epiphany that resulted in a flip-flop.
Then you agree with me. The problem isn't illegal immigration -- it's the damn taxpayer-funded services.
Trying to "fix" illegal immigration without forcing Americans to undergo a major change in their attitude about "free" public services is like leaving your garbage unprotected outside in cans at night and then demanding that the local animal control officials come and deal with the raccoons that come to feed on the trash.
Flip-flop has a negative connotation. You can use it if you like. I would prefer to call it (in this case) a change in position based on new information.
susie
I sort of agree with you. I do still think illegal immigration might be a problem from the standpoint of unsecured borders. I just think far fewer people would care.
susie
bookmark for later
Former Bush backer urges Republican split
Posted at 1:55pm on 22 May 2006
In an open split with the US President George Bush, a powerful American conservative lobbyist has called for like-minded Americans to stop funding the Republican Party and start an independent movement instead.
Richard Viguerie was instrumental in cementing the winning coalitions behind Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W Bush in 2000 but he has now declared conservatives have become disillusioned with congressional Republicans.
He has called on conservatives to form a powerful movement that is independent of any party and boycott November's election.
Instead, he suggests that they lay the groundwork for an election campaign in 2008 and hope that a new generation of conservative leaders has emerged by then.
Ominous sign
Mr Viguerie's public outburst is seen as another ominous sign for the party less than six months before the November congressional vote.
A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll released last week found Republican disapproval of Mr Bush's presidency has increased from 16% to 30% in just one month.
Mr Viguerie has acknowledged that a conservative boycott in November will likely spell defeat for the Republicans but insists it would be for the long-term good of the conservative movement.
Traditional conservatives, who abhor big government and excessive spending, equate abortion with murder and emphasise individualism, have always formed the so-called "base" of the Republican Party and determined its political viability.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200605221354/9490502
Are you saying that a massive change in circumstances such as 9/11 does not merit a change in position toward a significant increase in border and immigration control? Such a change in position would be a "flip-flop"? I strongly disagree.
Well, good luck with that windmill, Senor Quixote...
;-)
No one has any intention of sealing the borders, so no, I don't think 9-11 makes a diffence. If bad guys want to get into the US, we probably can't stop them. Does anyone really expect the entire border around the whole of the US to be sealed tight and locked? Dream on.
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.