Posted on 11/19/2006 3:36:23 PM PST by Gritty
Republicans thought a revetment against a Democratic barrage could be made of anti-immigration hysteria. Demonizing immigrants, they thought, was good politics. And it was -- for the Democrats.
Across the land, from border towns that face a large in-migration of illegal border crossers to ones that just indulged in nativism for the sport of it, Republicans who chose this issue as their campaign centerpiece went down to stunning defeat.
Running against President Bush was a successful strategy -- if you were a Democrat and the issue was the Iraq war. Running against President Bush was a decidedly ruinous one if you were a Republican and the issue was Bush's imminently reasonable position on immigration.
Nowhere was the consequence of this misdirected firepower more sharply focused than in the 11th District, where Charles Taylor tried to save his job by boasting about the famous 700-mile fence. If that pathetically transparent piece of legislation was not enough to convince voters, Taylor brought Rep. Tom Tancredo for a Saturday night session of fear-mongering on stage of the Thomas auditorium at Blue Ridge Community College.
Well, no one said higher education always occupies a high plain of intellectual honesty.
"Elections seldom if ever turn on immigration, and the GOP restrictionist message so adored by talk radio, cable news and the nativist blogosphere once again failed to deliver the goods," The Wall Street Journal's editors wrote three days after the election in a devastating rebuke to the party it staunchly supports.
The Journal inventoried the rotten harvest from the anti-immigration strategy: two Republicans who ran on opposition to immigration lost safe seats in Arizona, ground zero of the illegal "invasion;" Indiana Rep. John Hostettler, a full-throated restrictionist, managed just 39 percent of the vote in a district that gave President Bush 60 percent in 2004; Senate candidates Tom Kean in New Jersey and Mike McGavick in Washington blew credible shots at vulnerable Democrats by courageously running against America's voiceless -- and voteless -- population of janitors, roofers and drywall hangers.
"In addition to losing seats, however, the GOP's restrictionist strategy has reversed significant gains among Latino voters," the Journal laments.
Karl Rove's grand plan for a permanent Republican majority crashed not just on the banks of the Tigris River but also on the manicured lawns of the Phoenix suburbs.
"The GOP has a long history of fumbling the immigration issue," the Journal said. "And Mr. Bush, a former border state governor who knows the issue well, has wisely been trying to steer his party away from repeating those mistakes."
All this is not to acquit District 11 congressman-elect Heath Shuler, the moderate Democrat who fought hard throughout the campaign to stay to Rep. Taylor's right as an anti-amnesty border hawk.
Now that the election is over, Shuler ought to grow into the kind of pragmatic leader he inherently promised to be. That would mean that he becomes a part of an earnest, non-partisan process toward a solution, which is what voters strongly signaled they want.
Time for a change? You bet. When it comes to immigration, it's time for a real solution. After the Nov. 7 election, that ought to be one thing both parties can agree on.
Garbage.
I will never believe this. I have decided most all who believe this belief in amnesty. There was a very smart lady named Heather on a FNC show when i woke up this morning, and she nailed it..... she got it the guy from WSJ didn't get it, and he favors amnesty. I think that is how the lines are drawn on this.
How did Tancredo and the other against amnesty candidates get elected? hmmmmm? I agree, it is garbage.
I only had to read those two sentences to know that this was propaganda, since they are clearly trying to muddle illegal immigration and immigration together. This clearly works with some people (if they are not really paying attention) but it's the hallmark of someone with an agenda.
susie
We traded our pro amnesty RINO congressman for an anti amnesty conservative.
There is another way to look at this:
When Republican incumbents mentioned illegal immigration, it reminded the voters that the Republican controlled Congress hadn't done anything about it, except talk about it, and that wasn't a good idea just before an election.
Isn't sending them back home, and closing the border a real solution? This is a particularly noxious article.
I agree with the editorial, essentially. The hardnoses on immigration have failed to show that their particular stiff-necked position is a political winner.
Glad to hear it.
I'm all in support of sending them all home and closing the border, if you'll show up and pick tomatoes in the fields the ring our farm town.
The "moderates" lost in larger numbers.
This election was a Rorschach test: everyone is seeing what he wants to see in it. The reality is that the Republicans pissed off the base by their utter fecklessness on immigration (among other things). That 11th-hour, grudging nod toward building the fence was too little, too late, and didn't fool anybody.
If you think making them legal is going to get you farm workers, think again. As soon as they can stay in the country without being hassled, they'll say "screw this" to busting their butts in the middle of nowhere and head for cities to work construction, landscaping, etc. How many of the 1986 amnesty folks hung around to pick crops? Answer: none. That's why we now have twelve million MORE illegals. Legalize this batch and it'll be fifty million 20 years from now.
Bush's lack of a winning plan on illegal immigration led to defeat.
Two years ago even Senator Frist was saying secure the borders first. If, at that time Bush had worked with fellow Republicans and truly secured the border, he could have come back to a Republican congress a year or two later and asked for a guest worker plan, they would have gladly passed that.
Then Bush could have sailed into the past elections with his fellow Republicans happy with a secure border and Hispanics happy with a guest worker plan, a win-win deal.
But no, Bush went with the lose-lose plan, where he alienated and split his base voters and angered the Hispanics and fellow Republicans paid the price for his short sightedness.
Now Bush is anxious to work with the Democrats that despise him and want nothing more than to impeach him.
It's pathetic. Sadly, the pro-illegal FReepers do it, too.
In a sufficient number of elections, the voters showed their favor
for illegal immigration and open borders.
And against border control and enforcement of laws on the book.
Thus open-ended Amnesty and open borders will be law next year.
It's just a fact. The demographics shifted, enouggh Republicans flaked
and now the USA ceases to be a real country.
AND STILL... most of them could care less
There are at least 12 million illegals here already, how big is your crop of tomatoes?
Agriculture's problem is that the illegals have now moved on to construction and every other trade.
This is a "local" newspaper, owned by the New York Times. It is in a strong GOP county which went heavily for Taylor. It reflects the "establishment" NYT view as well as the prevailing Beltway view.
"Garbage" is an excellent description of this article, IMHO as well.
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.