G.O.P. Sets Aside Work on Immigration

New York Times via Drudge Report ^ | Sept 4, 2006 | CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS

[RobFromGa]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 — As they prepare for a critical pre-election legislative stretch, Congressional Republican leaders have all but abandoned a broad overhaul of immigration laws and instead will concentrate on national security issues they believe play to their political strength.

With Congress reconvening Tuesday after an August break, Republicans in the House and Senate say they will focus on Pentagon and domestic security spending bills, port security legislation and measures that would authorize the administration’s terror surveillance program and create military tribunals to try terror suspects.

“We Republicans believe that we have no choice in the war against terror and the only way to do it is to continue to take them head-on whether it is in Iraq or elsewhere,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

Excerpted

[WhiteGuy]

I WILL STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY!

That's no way to be fish,

Not me!

I'm going to spend the day at the bar!

[Rapscallion]

If we do not secure the border before the election (while we have a majority) I will not even vote. If elected Republicans will not do what they were elected to do, and what more than 80% of the people want, they should not be in office. If they should not be in office, how can they expect me to vote for them?

If that means the democrats win, so be it.

[Vision]

So send up a great bill, let the senate shoot it down, and watch those obstructionists get thinned out from that point forward. I'm tired of all the rationalizing on this issue.

I was in LA last week and the day after I left some "protesters" at the local post office where I stayed took down the American flag and few the Mexican. The employees tried to take it down but were intimidated, so the police in riot gear where called in. As they took down the flag, the "protesters" threw rocks and bottles at them.

The politicians have failed us, and aren't too motivated to solve the problem they have created. This is like living a nightmare in slow motion every day, with no end in sight.

[umgud]

I really, really hate to agree with you on this......

Here's what I see and what I hope will happen;

There isn't time to pass meaningful immigration reform before this term is up. Of course, if we lose seats in the house or the senate, we may not next year either.

Next year, if we keep or gain seats, I still believe it will be hard to pass a "comprehensive immigration bill". I feel a bad bill is worse than no bill. What I'd like to see is several smaller bills, say a national version of AZ's prop 200, then go on from there.

[jlasoon]

I have had it with so called mainstream "conservatism",


My friend that is why the rupubs are probably going to get destroyed in Nov, your not alone and I have a bad feeling allot of the base isn't even going to show up to the polls.

[inneroutlaw]

So, they're going to further concentrate on enslaving the citizens.

Only the legal ones.

[JerseyDvl]

It is hypocritical and careless not to exercise our right to vote.
People who don't vote don't have a right to political free speech. They are reduced to mere observants of our society and not participants.
Worse than a Dim as they throw a very harmful hissy fit.

[raybbr]

There is time after the election to deal with immigration.

What's to deal with? Enforce the damn laws.

[MikefromOhio]

It's a logical step, ASSUMING they don't stick us with the Senate Crap bill that was working it's way through the bowels of DC.

Nothing spectacular was going to come out of the immigration debate before the midterm elections anyway.

Now, if the GOP gets it's ducks in order for the WOT, they have a hammer to hit the Dems over the head with for the elections.

[jlasoon]

Well you keep voting for those true conservatives like Arlen Specter.

[JerseyDvl]

A RINO is better than a big Lib anyday.
When John Conyers is heading up the Judiciary Committee and beginning impeachment investigations, you will understand.

[elkfersupper]

Only the legal ones.

SMOOCH!

"Republicans need to be punished. They've destroyed conservatism" - Andrew Sullivan

[goldfinch]

I'm sorry but is this what true conservatism teaches or is this the Hush/Vanity school for conservatism?

The problem is that 'true conservatism' isn't on the ballot. It almost never is. Generally, elections are about choosing between the lesser of two evils. I think it is cowardly refuse to choose.

[jlasoon]

So I'm an uneducated political dunce. You my friend are the type of person who would sell his soul to make a buck.

The difference between you and me is I don't differentiate between the R and the D. Pelosi, Arnold, Specter, Kennedy there all the same to me.

[JerseyDvl]

Those in the middle of the road, get hit by traffic from both directions.

[goldfinch]

Who would you vote for in a local Mayoral election: The candidate who wants to build a homeless shelter next door to your home or the candidate who wants to build the same shelter but increase the police force. It would be neither cowardly nor childish to say you would not vote for either candidate.

It would indeed be cowardly for me to sit it out. If these are the choices, you can bet I already lost the battle of public opinion on building the homeless shelter in a residential district. However, there are very few one issue elections. I would vote for the candidate who was closer to my views on the issues most important to me. Staying home would not benefit me or my neighbors in anyway. Nor would not benefit me in any way to have the candidate farthest from my political views in office...so I would hold my nose and vote for the better option.

[JerseyDvl]

Well said goldfinch. You can't be any more useless than not wanting to play a part in choosing the decision makers that affect our life.

[goldfinch]

If that means the democrats win, so be it.

That will fix them. Who cares if the House actually passed a decent immigration bill. Throw them out anyway. Get those Democrats in there. That will serve those Republicans right. The Democrats will undoubtedly pass legislation more in line with your viewpoints. At least you are both in favor of 'cut and run'.

[no dems]

I disagree that this is a smart move; cowardly yes, smart no.

The American people oppose Amnesty 3 to 1 and the Pubbies missed an opportunity to rally support for the midterm elections.

Well, some people never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[goldfinch]

Next year, if we keep or gain seats, I still believe it will be hard to pass a "comprehensive immigration bill". I feel a bad bill is worse than no bill. What I'd like to see is several smaller bills, say a national version of AZ's prop 200, then go on from there.

Now that I can agree on. I would gladly settle for a border enforcement bill first. At least 80% of voters can agree on that. Once the border is secure, we can decide what the legal immigration policy should be...and then, we can tackle the issue of what to do with the illegals who are already in this country.

The only purpose I can see in tackling the three in one bill is that it allows the unpopular parts to be hidden.