Posted on 05/22/2006 6:49:24 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"If Congress passes an immigration bill that includes a temporary-worker program,"
We should remind congress that they are also part of a temporary worker program and their re-election can be rejected by the voters.
They have to set up someone to take the fall when their program don't work as promised.
This guy knows he won't get the support he needs to do the job he will be charged with doing.
They can[t deport them at any pace because they are legion, But they can register 12 mill in 90 days. This is a scam.
Just take their word.
Column by Ron Elving
Watching Washington
By Ron Elving
Conservatives Hold Key to House's Future
“For conservatives who care about the long haul, maybe it's better to have Democrats control the House for the next two years with the White House and Senate still in Republican hands, rather than to risk having all three go Democratic in 2008.”
NPR.org, May 22, 2006 · Official Washington usually takes its temperature by looking at one political thermometer: the president's approval rating. But lately, with President Bush mired in the 30 percent range, that metric has gotten to be old news.
The new measurement of choice is the number of Republican House seats considered competitive in November's congressional elections. If you want to know how the climate's changing, week by week and even day by day, watch how these estimates go up and down.
This month, the number of competitive House seats has risen dramatically on the GOP side, from the mid-20s to the mid-30s on some handicappers' scorecards. It may not seem that big a shift within 435 seats, but it could be enough to change party control of the House next year. And that would change official Washington, and the direction of federal policy, a great deal.
Let's look at the math. If fewer than two dozen Republican seats are vulnerable, the Democrats need to sweep two-thirds of them (while protecting every one of their own vulnerable seats) to take over. That is highly improbable. But adding 10 or 12 more Republican seats at the margin brings the tipping point within reach.
Put another way, the Republicans' majority status looked safe so long as only 20 to 25 of their seats were competitive. But stretch the Republican target list by half again (without a corresponding change for Democrats) and the probabilities change dramatically.
But why are certain Republican incumbents who began the year as safe bets suddenly looking shaky?
To answer that question, you have to go back to the reason House incumbents are almost always re-elected: Their districts are drawn to be safe (or nearly safe) for their party. Most incumbents in either party can count on a base of friendly voters turning out for them every two years. All their other incumbent advantages -- name recognition, fat campaign coffers, and gratitude for service -- are built on top of this.
This dynamic usually works with brutal efficiency, but it has an Achilles heel. It relies on those friendly voters to turn out and to vote the party line. Every now and then, they may not.
In 1994, Democrats in the South and elsewhere bailed out on their party incumbents in stunning numbers, ending 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House. They were unhappy about the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency, and they were disgusted with the performance of the House itself. Some stayed home, others turned out and voted Republican.
This year, the pinch is on the right. Polls show conservatives disillusioned with George W. Bush's presidency, and many are disgusted with the performance of the House. Few of these conservatives will be willing to hold their noses and vote Democratic, but in some districts they could ruin a Republican incumbent simply by staying home on Election Day.
Some may do this simply as an expression of personal protest. Others may do it deliberately, intending to end the current Republican majority in the House and force out the Republican leadership.
They would do so with a strategic purpose: to assert the primacy of conservative principle over business-as-usual in Congress. And they would do it with an eye on the longer struggle, reasoning that it's better to break the current cycle of failure within the all-Republican power structure.
If you care about the long haul, maybe it's better to have Democrats control the House for the next two years with the White House and Senate still in Republican hands, rather than to risk having all three go Democratic in 2008.
To be sure, no Republican Party loyalist will ever counsel such a strategy. But not all the votes Republicans count on are cast by loyal party people. Many are cast by conservative independents who may feel less connection to the GOP today than they have in many years. It starts with disagreements about spending levels and goes on through a litany of grievances: the war in Iraq, the party split over immigration, the division between economic and social conservatives.
Recent polls show just this kind of disaffection emerging among conservatives, and that's why some of the Republican incumbents in slightly-less-safe districts are suddenly feeling the pressure.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424332
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.