Next time, do a little research.
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)
Reagan on Immigration
May 16, 2006; Page A14
One myth currently popular on the political right is that the immigration debate pits populist conservatives in the Ronald Reagan mold against Big Business "elites" who've hijacked the Republican Party. It's closer to the truth to say that what's really being hijacked here is the Gipper's reputation.
One of the Reagan Presidency's symbolic highlights was the July 3, 1986, celebration of a refurbished Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for immigrants a century ago. (Readers can find Reagan's entire speech that evening at www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches1.) To Reagan, the conservative optimist, immigration was a vital part of his vision of this country as "a shining city upon a Hill," in the John Winthrop phrase he quoted so often. It was proof that America remained a land of opportunity, a nation built on the idea of liberty rather than on the "blood and soil" conservatism of Old Europe.
This view was apparent in Reagan's public statements well before he became President. In one of his radio addresses, in November 1977, he wondered about what he called "the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters." As a Californian, Reagan understood the role of immigrant labor in agriculture.
In 1980, according to the book "Reagan: His Life in Letters" (page 511), the then-Presidential candidate wrote to one supporter that "I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program." The bracero program was a guest-worker program similar to the one now being proposed by President Bush. It was killed in the mid-1960s, largely due to opposition from unions.
During the same campaign, circa December 1979, the Gipper responded to criticism from conservative columnist Holmes Alexander with the following: "Please believe me when I tell you the idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years. I have seen presidents, both Democrat and Republican, approach our neighbors with pre-concocted plans in which their only input is to vote 'yes.'
"Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas -- how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence." So much for those conservatives who think the Gipper would have endorsed a 2,000-mile Tom Tancredo-Pat Buchanan wall.
It's true that in November 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included more money for border police and employer sanctions. The Gipper was a practical politician who bowed that year to one of the periodic anti-immigration uprisings from the GOP's nativist wing. But even as he signed that bill, he also insisted on a provision for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S. -- that is, he supported "amnesty."
In his signing statement, Reagan declared that "We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."
Yes, times change, and it's impossible to know what precisely the Gipper would do at the current moment. But judging from these quotes and so many others across his long career, we feel confident in asserting that Mr. Bush and those who support more open immigration are far closer to Reagan's views than today's restrictionists are.
The current immigration political panic is not unlike many in America's past, including a couple while Reagan was in public life. He always avoided the temptation to join them, no doubt realizing that they were short-sighted politically, and, more important, inconsistent with his vision of America as the last best hope of mankind.
If you support illegal aliens or an open border you're not conservative, you're either a republican or a democrat but you are not conservative.
So you've got that going for you.
Its courageous to try to find a comprehensive plan that works and gives us security. Its not either or as many wish it to be, Also many of these security proposals don not seem that important if that means there is a guest worker program of that some might become citizens in 15 or so years. Any talk of that and compromise and people don't want Security provisions. it seems just kill the whole thing seems to be the view I am seeing from these groups. I am not sure how much of this is about "security" among many of these groups.
If you are so brilliant maybe you can put that elitist brain to work in PA.
We need all the red states we can get.
By the way, speaking of democracy, freedom and openness, I haven't seen a response from you as to whether you are a recipient of Patsy money. Another poster was making something of that but you steadfastly refused to respond. Whatever came of that?
In the 1980s despite that amnesty talk to anyone who lived in Southern California and they'll tell you there was immigration enforcement, far more than you see today. The border patrol routinely did interior sweeps and the police helped out. It was nothing like now where enforcement is practically nonexistent. Reagan was pro-legal immigration, I think you'll find most Americans probably are and it's a big difference.
It's courageous to do what's right despite the overwhelming urge to pander to illegals and their handlers.
It is not courageous to advocate selling citizenship to illegal scum who do not belong here.
Okay, so long as you're the Grand Pubah of Political Science definitions there's clearly no arguing with you.
Could it POSSIBLY be that you are for a controlled guest worker plan with tighter border enforcement, LIKE W. BUSH IS (noting your Freeper name) and STILL be a conservative?? Or was Reagan not a conservative either?? I'm REALLY tired of you absolutists defining me and others who recognize the economic reality that the economy will not run on purely domestic labor pools. The fact is the GOP was pro-immigration LONG before the extremes within the conservative movement started hijacking this debate as proof of one's ideological purity.
I didn't say they didnt have a right to do what they are doing. I would die for that right. I just pointing out that its more going on than the sum you talked about coming from Team American PAC thats all
If they want to do it go for it. But I am just again pointing out that we are not really talking about poor ole underfundered Jacob here. Also it needs to get out in the open that these groups are backing Jacob. Thats free speech too.
I responded to the idiotic notion that I was receiving money from anyone and said, emphatically, "No. Nothing." Maybe you need to pay more attention.
Bttt!
Nice spin. I lived in Southern California then, and still do, and the state was flooded with illegals after the 1986 and there was little more enforcement than now. That's simply fictional to claim somehow in the 80s the federal govt. was active in border enforcement. It wasn't.
Next time, do a little research.
Reagan wasn't a conservative either I guess...let me call political scientists and political science book publishers across the nation and tell them to change their definitions and depictions of history.
Reagan on Immigration
May 16, 2006; Page A14
One myth currently popular on the political right is that the immigration debate pits populist conservatives in the Ronald Reagan mold against Big Business "elites" who've hijacked the Republican Party. It's closer to the truth to say that what's really being hijacked here is the Gipper's reputation.
One of the Reagan Presidency's symbolic highlights was the July 3, 1986, celebration of a refurbished Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for immigrants a century ago. (Readers can find Reagan's entire speech that evening at www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches1.) To Reagan, the conservative optimist, immigration was a vital part of his vision of this country as "a shining city upon a Hill," in the John Winthrop phrase he quoted so often. It was proof that America remained a land of opportunity, a nation built on the idea of liberty rather than on the "blood and soil" conservatism of Old Europe.
This view was apparent in Reagan's public statements well before he became President. In one of his radio addresses, in November 1977, he wondered about what he called "the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters." As a Californian, Reagan understood the role of immigrant labor in agriculture.
In 1980, according to the book "Reagan: His Life in Letters" (page 511), the then-Presidential candidate wrote to one supporter that "I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program." The bracero program was a guest-worker program similar to the one now being proposed by President Bush. It was killed in the mid-1960s, largely due to opposition from unions.
During the same campaign, circa December 1979, the Gipper responded to criticism from conservative columnist Holmes Alexander with the following: "Please believe me when I tell you the idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years. I have seen presidents, both Democrat and Republican, approach our neighbors with pre-concocted plans in which their only input is to vote 'yes.'
"Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas -- how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence." So much for those conservatives who think the Gipper would have endorsed a 2,000-mile Tom Tancredo-Pat Buchanan wall.
It's true that in November 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included more money for border police and employer sanctions. The Gipper was a practical politician who bowed that year to one of the periodic anti-immigration uprisings from the GOP's nativist wing. But even as he signed that bill, he also insisted on a provision for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S. -- that is, he supported "amnesty."
In his signing statement, Reagan declared that "We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."
Yes, times change, and it's impossible to know what precisely the Gipper would do at the current moment. But judging from these quotes and so many others across his long career, we feel confident in asserting that Mr. Bush and those who support more open immigration are far closer to Reagan's views than today's restrictionists are.
The current immigration political panic is not unlike many in America's past, including a couple while Reagan was in public life. He always avoided the temptation to join them, no doubt realizing that they were short-sighted politically, and, more important, inconsistent with his vision of America as the last best hope of mankind.
We are not selling citizenship. Also despite all the breathless headlines that are posted and on the web. LIke ILLegal Alien Rapes Puppy, Illegal ALien runs stop light and kills principal. They are not all "scum" As much as these groups very see through tactics have tried to make every single illegal here viewed as.
Then how do you eat?
Yes, there's a lot more going on. It is called grassroots politics and it is working in this case.
If they want to do it go for it. But I am just again pointing out that we are not really talking about poor ole underfundered Jacob here. Also it needs to get out in the open that these groups are backing Jacob. Thats free speech too.
Again, you're trying to portray poor incumbent Chris Cannon, supported by the NRCC and the President of the United States, as the victim. But you can get "out in the open" the groups backing both sides. It is all out in the open if you can figure out how to move your mouse pointer and click the the little button things on various websites which contain the campaign finance databases. How do you think that it was known what Team America PAC has put into this race? There is no conspiracy here, just delusion on your part.
Oh you don't ok.
Sure.
I don't. There's an easy way to tell, you know.
Why don't you educate me since you so brilliant.
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.