If true then why did voters vote in nancy pelosi and the democrats and that 1/3 of the GOP of Tancredos's immigration caucus, lost.
I will tell you why. The liberal party pretended to be ALLLL about border security, remember when the House first passed that Border bill and the "I AM" Senator Clinton said about it, that IF the Republicans in the House could they would make Jesus illegal.
Well the night before these liberals 'Foleyized' the morals voters, the great and vaulted Clinton voted for that very 'anti-Jesus' House Border Security bill. That House Border Security bill got 80 YES votes 19 NAY and the big daddy of immigration Ted Kennedy did not vote.
I said a "large number" not a majority. Enough to cause a loss for the GOP.
"If true then why did voters vote in nancy pelosi and the democrats and that 1/3 of the GOP of Tancredos's immigration caucus, lost."
Here you go Dane.
"More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost."
Mark Krikorian, National Review, 11/9/2006
Stop the Tancredo canard and LIES bonehead. FYI I've been saving this just for yooooooou.
The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06So 'stick it' about Tancredo's 'loss' and go beat the slaves you have out in your field picking berries.
HUMAN EVENTS, Dec 27, 2006~~ snip ~~~ In other words, about 9.6% of the tough guys on illegal immigration lost, while 25% of the amnesty crowd went down to defeat. Along those same lines, these numbers from the same article seem to be rather compelling:
If being tough on illegal immigration is such a killer, then how can it be that the members of Tom Tancredo's Reform Caucus outperformed the rest of the House? The question answers itself.
- 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress
- But only 6.7% of the members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
Two posters have shown this claim is a bald-faced lie. You need to stop making such.
Link please!
If true then why did voters vote in nancy pelosi and the democrats and that 1/3 of the GOP of Tancredos's immigration caucus, lost.
And then you said this:
Well it pretty easy, the democrats gained 30 seats and 10 of those pickups came from Tancredo's caucus
Not that 1/3 of Tancredo's caucus lost, but that 1/3 of the losses came from his caucus.
I know you don't care much about credibility, but this is just another shot in what little is left in yours.
Securing the borders and enforcing current immigration laws is a huge political winner. Somethng like 80 percent of the public is behind it. Amnesty is a sure loser. No matter how many bogus polls the Wall Street Journal or the corporate welfare pimps run. Last November one Democrat after another ran to the right of the GOP on the issue.
DANE SAYS:"why did voters vote in nancy pelosi and the democrats and that 1/3 of the GOP of Tancredos's immigration caucus, lost."
How do you get away with these constant LIES. You know you are lying, and we all know it as well! Fewer of "Tancredo's" 100 immigration caucus lost than the open border advocates of the GOP.
Every time you lie about this, one of us is going to call you on it.
Since 80% plus of the American public want illegal immigration stopped, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they didn't vote people out because the candidate wanted the same thing.
Good Grief!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759649/posts
The Great Illegal Immigration Myth of '06
Human Events ^ | 12/27/06 | John Hawkins
Posted on 12/28/2006 5:14:01 PM PST by WatchingInAmazement
Since the election, you may have heard pro-amnesty Republicans or liberals saying something like this, "The 2006 election proves that being tough on illegal immigration doesn't work as a political issue. Look at J.D. Hayworth, John Hostettler, Randy Graf and Henry Bonilla. After that debacle, the GOP is surely going to cave on illegal immigration now."
Well, as someone who followed the election very closely and did a better job of calling winners and losers than almost all of the political pundits out there (My final predictions: five Senate seats lost and 22-29 seats in the House lost. Final numbers: six Senate seats lost and 30 House seats), I can tell you that being tough on illegal immigration didn't hurt the GOP in 2006. Now you may be skeptical of that because it doesn't square up with the conventional wisdom that you've been hearing, but let me make a case to you.
First off, let's hit the candidates that get mentioned over and over.
John Hostettler was an incumbent congressman who supported the House illegal immigration bill, but he was also an odd bird when it came to fund raising. Essentially, he didn't do it. In the end, despite the fact that everyone knew he was in trouble for months, Hostettler only raised $586,314 compared to the $1,728,054 that his opponent raked in. That's the biggest reason why Hostettler lost. His position on illegal immigration had nothing to do with it.
Randy Graf, a tough on illegal immigration conservative, who was attempting to retain a seat held by Rep. Jim Kolbe, was torpedoed by the Republican Party. The Republican National Committee spent more than $200,000 supporting his opponent, Steve Huffman, in the primary. Then, after Graf soundly defeated Huffman, the RNC threw a tantrum and refused to support him against his extremely well funded challenger, Gabrielle Giffords. Additionally, Jim Kolbe also refused to endorse Graf. This allowed Giffords, who had a massive fund raising advantage, to successfully portray Graf as a candidate who was too extreme for his own party and that, not his position on illegal immigration, led to his defeat.
J.D. Hayworth's loss was particularly noteworthy because unlike the other candidates being mentioned, he could fairly be called one of the leaders of the "tough on illegal immigration" crowd. However, what you will never hear amnesty fans mention about Hayworth's loss is that his opponent, Harry Mitchell, actually tried to run to his right on the illegal immigration issue. For example, on October 24, 2006, here's a message that was posted prominently on the front of Mitchell's web page:
I’m proud to show you the second television spot of our campaign which highlights an important issue to all Arizonan(s): securing our border and ending illegal immigration.
My opponent likes to talk tough about immigration, but the truth is he and those in Washington have failed in their responsibility to secure our border.
The number of illegal immigrants in our state has increased 400% during his tenure in Congress.
My opponent has rewarded illegal immigration by voting for amnesty four times. Just last month, he voted against 12,000 additional Border Patrol agents and against implementing the border security recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. In his 12 years in Congress, J.D. has given us a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of results.
Now, after reading that, does it sound like J.D. Hayworth had problems because he was "too tough" on illegal immigration? No, it doesn't.
Last but not least, we have Henry Bonilla, who may be the only candidate in the entire nation who was actually hurt by his tough stand on illegal immigration. Of course, he also ran a terrible campaign and came within 1% of winning the election without a runoff. Had Bonilla spent more of his huge war chest (He had $1 million in the bank when the first election occurred), there never would have been a runoff and he would have been re-elected. And that's even though after the Texas redistricting, Bonilla ended up in a district that was 65% Hispanic.
So, now we've discussed four Republicans who lost in 2006 and were opponents of amnesty. But, what about all the Republicans who were soft on illegal immigration in 2006 and lost as well? Percentage wise, being soft on illegal immigration was much more dangerous to the political health of Republicans than being tough on illegal immigration. These statistics from Roy Beck at NumbersUSA certainly seem to support that conclusion:
* 9.6% with an A grade lost * 25% with an F grade lost * 9.2% with a B grade lost * 6.4% with a C grade lost * 9.5% with a D grade lost
In other words, about 9.6% of the tough guys on illegal immigration lost, while 25% of the amnesty crowd went down to defeat. Along those same lines, these numbers from the same article seem to be rather compelling:
* 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress * But only 6.7% of the members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
If being tough on illegal immigration is supposed to be such a killer, then how can it be that the members of Tom Tancredo's Reform Caucus outperformed the rest of the House? The question answers itself.
But, what about the Hispanic vote? Didn't the GOP lose some Hispanic voters because of their illegal immigration stance? Yes, but the numbers related to illegal immigration were undoubtedly fairly small. Now, that's not what you'll hear from amnesty proponents. They'll point out that the percentage of Hispanics voting for the GOP dropped from 44% in 2004 to 30% in 2006. However, what they don't mention is that 44% was an all-time high for the Hispanic vote and that the support for the GOP dropped in almost every demographic group in 2006.
For example, GOP support from Jewish voters dropped from 22% in 2004 to 12% in 2006. Support from Independent men dropped from 51% in 2004 to 41% in 2006. Support from women without a high school diploma dropped from 48% in 2004 to 30% in 2006. In comparison, is the drop in Hispanic support really all that large? No, not really. Moreover, if you compare the numbers from the last off year election in 2002 to the numbers in 2006, the drop in Hispanic support for the GOP is even smaller. It goes from 38% in 2002 to 30% in 2006. That's actually a percentage drop of 1% less than that of white males over the same period (63% in 2002 to 54% in 2006). So, did the illegal immigration issue hurt the GOP with Hispanics? Maybe a little, but even if illegal immigration hadn't been an issue, it seems likely that the GOP would have probably still dropped 8 to 10 points with Hispanics in 2006.
Furthermore, if you look at how the 2006 elections played out, it'll become obvious that the amnesty plan being pushed by the Senate was not a popular policy. All during 2006, across the country, local governments passed laws designed to make life tough on illegal immigrants. Moreover, in competitive races in the country, the voters were almost always given a choice between a candidate that was genuinely serious about securing our border and a candidate that just pretended to be serious about securing the border for political purposes.
So while candidates on both sides of the race aired commercials talking about how they were the real choice for people who were serious about stopping illegal immigration, almost nobody ran any advertisements promising to allow illegals to become citizens or promoting amnesty. That tells you a lot about how popular comprehensive illegal immigration reform is when you get right down to it. Additionally, percentage wise, tough on illegal immigration Republican candidates won more races than candidates who had a poor voting record on the issue.
What it all adds up to is that the GOP had a lousy year across the board for a lot of reasons, but being "too tough" on illegal immigration wasn't one of the problems that they had.
If anything, the miserable performance of George Bush and the Senate GOP on the issue made it impossible for Republicans in the House to be credible when they told their constituents that they could trust them to stop illegal immigration. In other words, the GOP suffered more from being "too soft" on illegal immigration than from being "too tough."
9.8% of candidates with an "A" ranking on immigration lost.
25% of those with an "F" ranking lost.
Do the math.
I have yet to meet ONE just ONE person who thinks amnesty is a good thing and who thinks that "illegal immigrants" are here helping, just doing the work that nobody else wants to do. Where I am the illegals are just starting to move in, and the original citizens are moving out. I have NEVER seen more houses for sale in my area before. I have lived here many years and we are a very small community, people are not shy about why they are leaving.
Dane you liar. Only 6.7% of republican members of Tancredo's caucus lost, which is below the percentage of republicans not in Tancredo's caucus who lost. Do you just make crap up?
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/06dec06.brownback.liberal.globalist/
You may need to seek help for all the lying you do, Dane.