Posted on 06/27/2006 11:37:28 AM PDT by Spiff
House Race Hotline Extra: Utah 03 Some quotes to illustrate the importance of this race.
"There is a very good chance that he could go down," Jeff Hartley, executive director of the Utah Republican Party, tells First Read. "You wouldn't have the involvement from the White House if he weren't in jeopardy." (NBC News)
Consultant LeVarr Webb: "A low turnout is expected, so be one of the few who make a difference and have a voice." (Utah Policy Daily) )
UT GOP Chair Joe Cannon "says he's trying to stay neutral" in his brother's UT 03 primary, "but it didn't come across that way" in his online comments about challenger/alleged Satan victim John Jacob (Salt Lake Tribune).
A poll published over the weekend by the Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, found Cannon ahead — 46-33 percent among registered voters in the 3rd District. But 18 percent of voters remained undecided. "That's one of the highest 'undecideds' numbers I've seen so close to a primary election," said Jones, who has polled in Utah for more than 30 years. (Deseret News)
Jacob backtracks on his "Satan" comments: "What the [Salt Lake Tribune] reported and what I said weren't the same thing. It wasn't that [the devil] was trying to keep me out of Washington. I was just saying when you're trying to get into politics, there's a lot of adversity. … Contrary to reports of saying it was keeping me from being there, it was going to help me in training when I get there. It's not the devil; it's adversity." (Utah Policy Daily)
Failure has two syllables. Here's a three syllable one for you to define: am•nes•sty.
Their local news... on the internet...
If the incumbent with an ACU rating of 100% wins ONLY 53% to 47% in a heavily Rep district because of one issue, immigration, it will still send shock waves out to the rest of the country. The House "listening tour" will show that most Americans are against the Dem/RINO bill and for the House bill, which is supprted by the vast majority of Reps. The Senate bill is a Dem bill (39 to 4 FOR it), and not a Rep bill, 32 Reps voted AGANIST bill and 23 RINOs FOR it.
http://www.knrs.com/main.html
Nobody is avoiding the truth, we know he signed the Mazzoli/Simpson amnesty. In fact unlike those today peddling "pathway to citizenship" he called it an amnesty. Most of us agree it was a mistake not to be repeated. I'm not sure exactly what your point is other than because it happened then we should it again.
(btw, about 3 million, not the 1 million you stated).
It ended up being 3 million after the fraud that even Chuck Schumer admitted had occurred. The projection was that it would only be a million or less.
Which station are you listen too. I am trying to figure out which of these 4 or 5 stations is going to be covering it the best
thanks
Also this station is covering it. Even though these host are so pro Jacob lol but I am listening to it
http://www.k-talk.com/ns/default.asp
BTW -- you can go to Bob Lonsbury on this site and listen to the debate yesterday morning between Cannon & Jacob.
Jacob came across honest, decent, and no-nonsense.
"In the debate over immigration, "amnesty" has become something of a dirty word. Some opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate assert that it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Supporters claim it would do no such thing. Instead, they say, it lays out a road map by which illegal aliens can earn citizenship."
"Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then."
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents. Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools — like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border — that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past. resident Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.
The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border — a combination of incentives and disincentives — will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."
Edwin Meese III, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was the attorney general of the United States from 1985 to 1988.
Cannon has been humiliated, Dane. Thoroughly and justly humiliated.
LOL its driving me nuts Glad I have to go eat to take a break from it
Didn't know happy hour or in this case loser hour started so early for the Jacob suppoerters such as yourself.
That could be good point. I guess the DEm has no challenger
My point was directed at MikeA, not you. However, you came back with your "How can you compare..." post, and I responded to it in a way I deemed appropriate.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is other than because it happened then we should it again.
The problem with you zealots is that you all too frequently project your own thoughts into the words of others. Absolutely nothing I wrote in my posts here remotely says anything about repeating the mistake of the 1986 amnesty.
I think Mike's post is an important one for the reasons I stated. Period. Ronald Reagan did not play the unwitting fool to Ted Kennedy or anyone else. By glossing over his active role in passing and signing that legislation, as well as the facts contained in Mike's post, all you do is imply that RWR was a passive, doddering fool in 1986. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mike quotes the great man, himself, on the subject, and THAT is what I think is important about Mike's post. So take your hysteria and either put a lid on it or direct it elsewhere.
(1) Ed Meese doesn't even know I'm alive.
(2) I see nothing in the passages you posted that in any way conflicts with what I posted earlier.
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.