Posted on 11/16/2006 4:22:15 AM PST by peyton randolph
With the resignation of Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, President Bush intends to fill the post with Florida's Mel Martinez, a Hispanic who led the battle in the U.S. Senate for amnesty for illegal aliens.
"Martinez is going to lead the fight for amnesty that Bush could not win when Republicans controlled the Congress," one angry RNC member told The Washington Times' Ralph Hallow.
Unable to extract an amnesty bill from Denny Hastert and Co. in the House like the McCain-Kennedy bill he supports, Bush is looking to cut a deal with San Francisco Nancy.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Buchanan/ Pelosi Jihad Firsters Ahead?
Bush is awful on immigration though.
Pence's plan PASSED HR 4437 in its entirety. And the guest-worker provision, the Ellis Island proposal that was derided and mocked by the border purists? Tancredo also supported a guest-worker plan too. Yeah Tancredo's plan is a little better than the Pence plan but you and I both know that anything from Tancredo wouldn't have even made it out of a committee. So instead of working with Pence he basically trashes his own plan. Now he & the Republicans got nothing. But at least Tancredo has an issue he can hold onto for another 2 years.
"This will be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP"
The final nail is Trent Lotts comeback in a leadership position.
And the house's election of Boehior and Blunt tommorrow.
What sealed the deal for me was when Bush made that prime-time speech about illegals - and he had to include that stupid "doing the jobs Americans won't do..." crapola. Immigration is when Bush has jumped from the "either you are with us or against us..." Bush to the bewildered, mouth-agape-at-times Poppy Bush circa 1992.
'Again, who is calling for 'mass deportations'?"
Cut off their illegal benefits i.e welfare, free medical, food stamps and they will go home on their own.
It is quite simple. Create a Federal agency, and call it Fatherland, er, Homeland Security. Blame unemployment, disease, and all manner of societal ills upon those that speak Polish Spanish. Whip up a border incident with a neighboring country, and point out that they are an economic drain. Within four years you can expand your Einsatzgruppen Enforcement Groups into four Divisions. Viola. A Permanent Solution to illegal immigration.
PS- bonus points if the French Canadians help by constructing and operating the railways.
We are up to our eyeballs with illegals now because President Bush will not enforce the laws we have. If we are not going to deport them, what is the purpose of passing any new immigration law? The only part of a "comprehensive immigration bill" that will have any effect is to give the illegals here now citizenship. It won't stop another 10-20 million from coming here.
I voted for President G.W. Bush too. Twice. But let's face it. It was he who has to see that our immigration laws are enforced. He Didn't! As a matter of fact he let this situation get to the point where he could say "We can't round up and deport them all." He won't enforce any new immigration laws either. All he wants is amnesty for the illegals now and citizenship for them later. There isn't much of anything we can do about it at this point but let us quit beating around the bush and face the fact that Pres. Bush sold us down the river on this issue.
All I can say is YEP and add that there is a reason why Buchanan has never won anything.
Well, based on thousands of postings on various threads, and combining that with your sign up date...I'm betting the Mars suggestion is accurate. LOL. Welcome to FR.
You know what I think is funny? In previous threads, time after time, President Reagan was given a pass on immigration because he had to deal with a Democrat congress.
I wonder if President Bush will be given the same consideration since we sent him the same kind of situation.
That is about the funniest thing I have ever read on FR.
And on the education bill he let Ed Kennedy write. And on ALL the massive spending he failed to veto. And even on allowing the military to actually WIN the war in Iraq. Then there was ahis failure to even push for partial birth abortion ban. I can go on here but you get the idea.
"this will be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP"
As will as the US.
You encourage more 'illegals' to come with your plan, I prefer the illegals leave and if they want to come back the illegals go through the channels from their home country to come here legally. But that is just the way I see it..MO
Bump that.
"BTW, sybeck1 immigration demagougue J.D Hayworth is looking for new work, while someon who proposed a solution, John Kyl(whowas trashed on FR) won by a comfortable margin."
Dane, you and I know you are not this ignorant. So why do you waste this time to post this trash?
Hayworth lost because of Jack Abramoff. Everywhere the question is asked directly to the voters, like three (or four if you count the official English one) anti-illegal propositions in Arizona, the same state that put in Kyl, passing.
Tancredo won. Bilbray won against a better funded challenger. You know this.
"This was true even in areas with immediate illegal immigration problems (such as in AZ - see the defeat of J.D. Hayworth)."
Yawn. This constipated-sounding thing about "WHAT ABOUT J.D. HAYWORTH!?" is so lame. He lost because of Jack Abramoff. A few different articles from Human Events and the National Review show that this election was not as bad for the anti-illegal crowd as the people at The Peoples' News may have you believe.
It's even less impressive when you consider his defeat came in the same state that passed three (or four if you count official English) anti-illegal props. When the question is put directly to voters on ballots, instead of through baggage candidates, it works. It worked in California with prop. 187, it worked in Arizona in 2004 and 2006 and it worked in Colorado this year too.
The Hayworth thing really, really sounds just dumb as a point.
I agree. You have a made a statement that they (our representatives and senators can understand easily and with your permission, I am going to use that statement (again and again).
One anyalysis I read of the elction stated that NOT ONE Republican candidated that ran on a restrictionist (anti-amnesty) platform won.
Wrong, first, it's properly called LAW AND ORDER, NOT 'RESTRICTIONIST' ---Yet another detestable, and damnable RINO LIBERAL euphemistic sewage leaking out of the White House. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, my friend.
And you really should read Buchanan before you dish out either aspersions...or factual assertions which prove to be so noticeably unfounded...like the one I quote you on above.
You might learn something. E.g., here is Buchanan pointing to facts which completely undermine your obviously White House-spun thesis:
According to NumbersUSA, while Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House hawks, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by immigration hawks, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd.
And as to that substance, I know anecdotally there is no "there" there, albeit we did lose six really good conservative Congressmen. Many on last-minute smears by the Drive-By MSM. Note that enforcement-firsters, such as Duncan Hunter won in California. And here in Minnesota, a super-solid conservative from the Phyllis Schafly wing... Michelle Bachmann won an Open Seat race.... and my district Congressmen, equally conservative soul John Kline, is staunchly pro-fence and pro-enforcement, with no special treatment permitted, and disdainful of the President's manifest insincerity about all the issues pertaining to his out-of-the-closet Illegal Amnesty, and North American Union schemes. He won handily...and going away.
So the Bush Agenda is what is now going to be on the table. Which ...absent a deal...will be forcibly terminated when W's Fast Track Authority expires in June of 2007. Hence the White House will be in overdrive to try and cement this with Pelosi before that happens.
So this will be like "Job One" for the President, notice how quick he simply capitulated politically on his War On Terror. Syria, Iran, and North Korea have NOTHING to fear from this lame duck prevaricator. He was bluffing. And it has been called. AND HE FOLDED.
He was clearing the political decks so he can "accomplish" what is REALLY THE ONLY THING IMPORTANT TO HIM: The North American Union, and further decimation of U.S industry...just as Goldman Sachs and the WSJ approve.
He doesn't give a fig for the Party...and he has always shown he truly loathes conservatives right from the get-go, if you paid attention to the things that he squirted out when balked...although for the most part he kept it muzzled with his hyper-secrecy surrounding White House policy-making. But things leaked out anyways. Usually from his own "foreign partners" such as Vincente Fox and his administration's blabbing.
The final White House knife in the back of the GOP is coming. And what are the RINOs going to do about it? Go along, of course. Here was one good commentary on what's coming, echoing a number of my own sentiments:
Does the GOP Need Another Thumpin' in 2008 to Get the Message?
by John Hawkins, Human Events,
Posted Nov 15, 2006Last night, a prominent conservative blogger was telling me that she "hates Republicans" and that she wants to vote independent. When I asked her why, she said, "Yeah, they're totally gonna elect Boehner and Blunt. And then the Martinez thing. They're killing me."
All I can say is that yeah, they're killing me, too.
Although it's too early to tell who's going to win, the same Republican leaders in the House who failed miserably in the last election, such as Representatives John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.), seem to be on track to win re-election. Worse yet, Sen. Trent Lott (R.-Miss.) of all people is trying to make a comeback as minority whip in the Senate. Then there's the Republican National Committee, where Ken Mehlman, who was an excellent chairman, is being replaced by sitting Sen. Mel Martinez and an RNC staffer. After the drubbing the Republican Party just took, does it really make sense to replace an effective RNC chairman with a pro-amnesty, part-timer like Mel Martinez?
Then there's the albatross around the Republican Party's neck, the guy in the White House, who has rushed out to assure everyone that he intends to continue to try to push his amnesty plan that's wildly unpopular with the base. On top of that, as an extra added bonus, the top two contenders for the White House in 2008 right now are Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), a guy who made a career out of kicking the Republican base in the teeth, and Rudy Giuliani, a tougher, more charismatic version of defeated Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.-R.I.).
In other words, if you're looking for signs that the GOP is getting back to its conservative roots in Washington, there aren't many to be seen right now. That's bad news because this election wasn't about it being the "Democrats' turn" to take power or about liberals fooling people by pretending to be moderates, it was a referendum on the sort of big government Republicanism that has taken root in Washington—and the verdict on "compassionate conservatism" turned out to be a big thumbs down.
Obviously, what the American people want to see from the GOP is same principled conservatism that led to landslides for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, a landslide for George H.W. Bush in 1988 (before people realized he wasn't another Reagan), and Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution in 1994—and that's certainly not the vibe that they're getting from Republicans in Washington right now, even after a crushing loss.
Make no mistake about it, the GOP base is upset, demoralized and disappointed in the performance of the Republican Party, and if the columns, blog posts and comments I'm seeing around the net are any indication, a lot of conservatives still aren't convinced that anyone in Washington is listening to them. That's understandable because conservatives were pointing out many of the problems that cost the GOP the election in 2006 for YEARS without anyone on Capitol Hill, including the President, seeming to pick up on it or care.
Conservatives insisted that we stop wasting money and we got a Bridge to Nowhere. We insisted that we take an enforcement first position on illegal immigration and we got an amnesty plan that was worse than anyone had even imagined a year or two beforehand. We heard calls for ethics reform and we got the Republican leadership complaining because the FBI searched the office of a Democrat with bribe money in his freezer. With that kind of performance, is it any surprise that the base wasn't there for Washington Republicans when it counted, at election time? For too long, Republicans in Washington have lived by one principle, "What are they gonna do, vote for the Democrats?" and it finally caught up with them in 2006.
But, the good news is that it's not too late. Republicans in the House can still bring in leaders like Representatives Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) and John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.), who can get the party back to basics. In addition, Pence has vowed to fight the Senate's amnesty bill if he's elected minority leader and Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) is trying to organize a filibuster of the bill in the Senate. Moreover, Republicans in Congress are going to have a lot of opportunities to articulate their views and prove their mettle as they oppose the tsunami of bad legislation that will be pushed by Democrats in Congress and the son of "Read My-Lips."
If Republicans once again prove that they're the party of Ronald Reagan, not the party of "compassionate conservatism," the base and the American people will support them again. But Republicans in Washington shouldn't forget for one minute that the confidence level in them is very low, even amongst their own biggest supporters, so they're going to have to prove themselves every step of the way.
Mr. Hawkins runs Right Wing News, a conservative blog. He writes a weekly column for Human Events Online. You can also e-mail him at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com.
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.