Posted on 09/04/2006 5:48:05 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Edited on 09/05/2006 1:53:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
Works for me :)
Don't get me wrong: illegals is a HUGE issue---but I fail to see how people will blame the ONLY government body, the House, which had the right plan, for doing the right thing.
It is so simple - build a border long fence and criminally prosecute employers of illegals. That would at least stop the influx of new illegals and give us a chance to figure out what to do with the ones already here - many would self-deport since job opportunities would dry up.
The "RINOs" aren't the problem unless you consider Bush as one as well. Bush and the gop senate needlessly and purposely complicate the issue so that nothing can be done.
Also, harmony with the president and the GOP senate is not important to house candidates - in fact, disharmony with them would probably help their chances of getting elected as they are very out of touch with the will of the voters.
That was one year and 43 years after 9/11. This is 5 years and like it or not, terrorism isn't a big concern right now among the voters, especially not Iraq.
It plays really well here on FR among those that would always vote GOP no matter what but the support for those issues has been played out. You can't keep going to the same well over and over.
That won't be the intent but that will be the result. The president's and national GOP's views on illegal illegal is very repugnant to all but the party cheerleaders who would crawl over glass if the GOP newsletter told them to.
This has the effect of demoralizing the traditional GOP voters and a significant number will stay at home. What's the phrase, All ships fall in a low tide?
The president and the GOP leadership is causing a low tide in GOP turnout. Don't blame those that stay home, blame those that caused the low tide.
Oops, should have read 3 years after 9/11 not 43 years! lol
It is not simple to get what you and I both want passed before the Midterms, without allowing an amnesty of some sort to be included.
And I do consider the President to be on the wrong side of conservatism on this issue (and a few others), but he has not deceived anyone with his position and has been consistent all along.
Due to electoral politics, if Bush had the position which I favor (which sounds the same as yours) President Gore would probably have shepherded his amnesty bill through Congress during his first term.
We conservatives in AZ are trying to elect a Repub Governor this year and get rid of our Lib Dim, who vetoed many laws the Legislature sent up to her that would do away with sanctuary status and "force" the local law enforcement types to pick up and detain the ILLEGAL INVADERS. We have hoards of them down here and the majority of the population are against the invasion but have given up on GWB even enforcing anything on the border. The National Guard is a joke - changing oil in vehicles, sitting at desks typing. We need to have them locked and loaded and standing on the border!!! Arizona Governor Issues Record 115th Veto
And that's exactly what you should be doing. Excellent to hear.
Force changes in your states, block amnesty in D.C., and find a candidate for '08 that will enforce the laws we already have. We don't need new legislation, we need enforcement of existing legislation. That's the 1, 2, 3 punch to border enforcement we have to follow.
It's the way we bypass the administration, McCain and kennedy. We're at a disadvanatge when it comes to new legislation. We are not at a disadvantage in local pressure. Keep the House, find a strong border president, and the advantage will be to our side.
The Sensenbrenner bill is the only one which should be pushed and if the GOP loses in Nov., the Prez , McCain et al will have a lot to explain. Building the wall, border security could be a great GOP ad ala Santorum, Kyl and Allen in their Senate races. Those ads seem to work.
Respectfully, why would amnesty have to be included or addressed at all? There are already some fences here and there on the border, we would just allocate the funds and set a definite construction schedule for making it the length of the border.
Making the employing of illegals a crime is hardly controversial either - in fact it may already be the law and just not enforced.
Bush and the GOP senate is purposely muddying the waters on this so that it seems all complex and nothing gets done. Unfortunately the House will pay the price for this.
The only way the House can save itself is to create a bill with only those two items and make a big deal of it. If the senate won't pass it then at least the House can say they tried and it might be enough to save them.
Oh, and since 2000, I have hit the senate and house races about 98%. I've missed my calls on only TWO senate seats in two cycles. And I'm telling you the WoT is still THE issue, and illegals aren't because the Dems are horrible on illegals.
No offense, but that isn't very hard. There are very few truly competitive races in either the House or the Senate.
If the GOP is relying on the war on terror and especially Iraq to carry the day then they will be destroyed in November unless the Dems do something really stupid like have Howard Dean campaign for them.
Look back to 1992 - GHWB was defeated because he agreed to raise taxes and a slight recession. Who did the voters replace him with? A democrat that raised taxes even more.
The fact that the dems may be worse on the issue of illegals is irrelevant. It's not like dissatisfied GOP voters are going to vote for the Dems - they're just going to stay home.
The reason that Bush was defeated in 92 was a wide-eared populist that siphoned off the reformist minded, libertarian leaning conservative vote, and allowed a liberal to sneak in with 43% of the vote.
ROTFL!!!
The second you re-elect them they'll sell us out. Mark my words.
Which never would have happened if Bush hadn't agreed to raise taxes. Those that didn't vote for Bush knew that it would put Clinton in the Whitehouse but they didn't care because they were fed up with Bush.
That is what we are facing this cycle. You guys that are hardcore party loyalists really do need to get in touch with the party and let them know that they are about to be destroyed unless they do something in the next 9 weeks.
As soon as the Dems take the House, Bush will be under constant investigation and they will eventually find something even if they have to fabricate it and they will bring him down. If not Bush himself then a significant number of his staff.
And, for what it's worth, there were HEAP BIG competitive races, including Allard, in 2002, whom EVERYONE had losing . . . except moi.
It's the war on terror.
I don't treat politics like a sports team that I cheer for. I want what is best for the country. This isn't some "i told you so" type thing like picking Texas over USC.
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.