Posted on 01/04/2007 4:36:23 PM PST by lowbridge
Posted by Tim Graham on January 3, 2007 - 14:59.
Just to prove that Fox News Channel doesn't live up to the liberal stereotype of Music to Conservative Ears, angry E-mailers are demanding someone denounce Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke for slamming conservatives who staunchly oppose illegal immigration. In their year-end Beltway Boys "awards show" this weekend, there was this clip of agreement:
Kondracke: "Our 'Dumbest Move' award of the year is Republicans trashing immigrants. And this - this has disastrous consequences for the, in the election. The Hispanic vote, which is the fastest-growing element of the population, went 55 to 42 percent Democratic in 2004. This time, it went 76 to 26. And it's all because of this stupid wall that the House Republicans wanted to build, and rejected their own president's plan for a comprehensive immigrant reform in preference to cozying up to radio talk show hosts."
Barnes: "I don't think it's the wall, per se. I think it's their whole attitude toward immigrants in general, but particularly Hispanic immigrants. It seemed mean-spirited, and, you know, American voters are generally not mean-spirited. You, you're going to have some kind of a wall at some point, but you have to a lot of other things, too."
Kondracke: "Yes. The wall only is the problem."
Later, the Beltway Boys also slammed CNN's Lou Dobbs:
Kondracke: "‘Blowhard of the Year’ award goes to CNN's Lou Dobbs. Now this is a guy who also could qualify for Turncoat of the Year."
Barnes: "Yes."
Kondracke: "When he used to be a cheerleader for capitalism and for corporate America. Now he is a demagogue, it amounts for populists and potectionists and xenophobes. And he doesn't have any answers."
Barnes: "And he's wrong. You know, the fact is, the rolling up our borders and pulling out of the globalized economy is a way to achieve one thing: a lower standard of living."
Kondracke: "Yes. Poverty. Yes, exactly. Absolutely."
"If true then why did pelosi & co. take over the House."
Because of Iraq. Not because Americans want amnesty and Social Security benefits for illegals.
Irrespective of the illegals problem, this last election proved that the crowd who want to see genocide in Iraq can flip elections.
Because the Republicans DIDN'T act against the illegal invasion.
And that's why the electorate voted in such uber border enforcers such as nancy & company.
Truly, and I am being serious, what do yunz smoke?
Soooooooo......you don't like The Weekly Standard?
Dane, if you know me from other threads and my long history here on FR, you may have picked up that I live in the Los Angeles area. Also, I work for a company that is very strict as regards Internet usage on their time. So I get home from work around 7:00pm Pacific time and can only post after that. I can, however, browse FR on breaks using my unlimited Internet service on my cell phone.
I want to say that I've been following your many posts on these types of threads for some time. You are to be applauded for your perseverance, clarity of thought, and courage in often taking on the hysterics and haters by yourself. I only wish my time were more flexible so I could pitch right in there with you.
Not only does the crowd of which you speak hate President Bush (and Republicans) as much as or more than many Leftists, but they are the poster boys and girls for everything the general public fears about conservatives.
It isn't necessarily that the policies they claim to support are off-the-wall. It's that this crowd always demands the most hard-line solutions, and will accept nothing less than that or, like five-year-olds, they throw tantrums. In fact, such people seem to be in a state of perpetual tantrum.
They have zero political savvy. They appear to have zero understanding of how legislation makes its way out of Congress. They appear to have zero understanding of how modern political parties work. Particularly as regards illegal immigration, they appear to have zero understanding of the role that the states and local municipalities play in encouraging it.
In fact, they appear to have zero ability to work within a coalition. So the combination of their rigid hard-line demands and their inability to work within a coalition dooms them to perpetual disappointment.
And when they are disappointed, as we've all seen here on FR the last two or three years, they can get very, very ugly. They can't just debate and disagree without being disagreeable. No. They have to become insulting, mean and nasty. And they try to bully into silence people who don't toe their line.
To a very considerable degree here in California, these are the people who prevent Republicans from coming back from the political wilderness. Oh, they blame everyone else. The CAGOP, the RNC and, in recent years, President Bush, Karl Rove, and a host of others. (Interestingly, their most scathing attacks always seem to be on Republicans.) But the hardliners never look in the mirror and examine their own political ignorance and rigidity.
They crow about having "principles" as though no one else does, never seeming to realize just how sickening and insulting they are in waving their "principles" around like some kind of silly merit badge. Of course, in their world, no one else has principles except for themselves.
They claim to be "real" or "true" conservatives, when they can't even offer a credible definition of conservatism when asked.
Stupidly, they always crow about "sending a message" with their votes (if they vote at all), puffing out their chests with pride in themselves, when all they really have done is retreat, thereby guaranteeing the defeat of their precious "principles." But they are too damned clueless to get it.
Anyway, Dane, I wanted to post this on an open thread, and will also send it to you via FReemail. If you take into account my time zone and posting limitations during the work week, I'll be happy to hear from you anytime. If you have a particularly strong point you want to make on a thread, or if you just want to know a friend is out there, ping or FReemail me. I'll respond when I can. In the meantime, thank you for giving voice to opinions I would post if I could. :)
The vast vast majority of our relatives who came here made a headlong plunge over a dangerous ocean. They lost communication with their former life and made a commitment to join the culture and "residents" here. Many of them recognized the failure of their countries to give them freedom. Sometimes they accepted new names (bad translations of their hard to pronounce old names). Some of them were rejected for health and disease and were forced to return.
It is new to have such large numbers illegally entering with no control and to have continuing relationship with the failing state to our south. Dual citizenship? A good thing for a country that is mainly an idea?
I have a friend I respect who was illegal and received amnesty back in the 1980s. For his dedication to his family and community, he is one of my heros. I know that on an individual basis many of these people are hardworking and have good family values. He certainly would not be marching with a Mexican flag and calling for reconquest.
I am just dismayed with history. The Simpson Mazzoli bill was supposed to fix illegal immigration in 1986. It included amnesty. It didn't work. Like so many things that our political leadership has done in the last few decades it is a FAILURE.
If someone could tell me in good faith that they could wave a magic wand and secure the borders (both Canada and Mexico) then I could believe that we could have some valid path to citizenship. Sure we need a number of people to enter for labor, but we should have a say who they are.
But the status quo is a failure. I have read nothing on this thread about the suffering of our FELLOW CITIZENS due to this. We should care about our undereducated innercity fellow citizens who are being shoved aside by this new cheap labor. We should care about our FELLOW CITIZENS who are the victims of crime by illegal entrants (my congressman told a meeting I was at that 30 percent of Los Angeles prison cells are occupied by illegal aliens-- go ahead and say he's not credible). We should care about hospitals going bankrupt forced to provide free medical care and schools falling behind educating our FELLOW CITIZENS children because of the additional burden of illegal aliens.
Our "leadership" in Washington will pass another sham, unenforced, pile of bs and a process that could be managed and enforced foru the benefit of our FELLOW CITIZENS AND the people who want to come here and be citizens will instead continue to be a failure.
J D Hayworths opponent ran to the right of him on immigration and pledged to do more to stop illegal immigration that Hayworth did.
Seth Scott, Mitchell's campaign spokesman, e-mailed us a response:
"This is classic J.D. Hayworth - manufacturing outrage in a desperate attempt to distract attention away from his 12-year record of failure on immigration, his voting record in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's received from the people who covered up for Mark Foley.
"To set the record straight, this TV spot is called 'Focus,' and the image in question is a camera lens 'focusing' on Hayworth. It's important to note that as the camera lens image is on the screen, so is the word 'focus' - as in, J.D. was identified as a 'focus' of the Justice Department's investigation into the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. If J.D. doesn't like reports that he's the 'focus' of a Justice Department investigation, perhaps he should have 'focused' his attention on something other than lining his pockets and household's income with gifts and cash from a convicted felon.
"Finally, J.D.'s manufactured outrage is conveniently timed and highly dubious as this spot has been on the air since Sept. 22 and J.D. didn't start whining about it until Oct. 4 - the same day it was reported that Harry Mitchell is ahead in the latest poll."
Scott's answer touches on a couple of the Mitchell campaign's current themes: the Abramoff lobbyist corruption scandal and trying to out-Hayworth Hayworth on immigration. In fact, Mitchell has a new negative TV spot on immigration in which a narrator accuses Hayworth of voting for "amnesty" and failing the border and says "Don't believe J.D.'s lies" about immigration. (Hayworth has written a book about border security titled Whatever It Takes and taken a tough stance against illegal immigration.)
The new ad claims Mitchell "will lead the fight against amnesty, opposes Social Security for illegals, and he supports English as our official language."
The Mitchell aimed the "amnesty" accusation against Hayworth last month.
From a Sept. 25 Mitchell campaign release:
In 1998, Hayworth voted to grant amnesty for thousands of illegal immigrants under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998.
HRIFA allowed thousands of Haitians nationals who had been illegally residing in the United States to become lawful, permanent residents of the United States. [Source: Vote no. 538, HR 4328, Oct. 20, 1998; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Immigration through the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA) of 1998”]
Dane, get your lying, disruptive ass out of here and take your OBL syncophants with you.
1. Neither Mr. Santelli or Mrs. O'Hara thought that American rightfully belonged to THEM, having been "stolen" from them by marauding Americans, as so many of the mouthier La Raza types believe.
2. Neither Santelli nor O'Hara gathered together with hundreds of thousands of their European brethren ,tied up traffic all day long in major American cities,and tried to shame and bully their new hosts into handing them what they "deserved".
3. Neither Santelli nor O'Hara sang a new, revised version
of "The Star Spangled Banner" in public.
4. Santelli did not think it was not necessary to learn English "pronto" because his host country, pusillanimous to a fault, had already put out signs everywhere in his own native language to "help him".
5. But then again, neither O'Hara or Santelli were faced with a collection of politicans as shamelessly pandering
as the ones we have today.
6. Everybody starts on the bottom when they come to America, that is their baptism.
Oh, wait, those were the old days.....nowadays, NOBODY
starts at the bottom.
"Now he is a demagogue, it amounts for populists and potectionists and xenophobes. And he doesn't have any answers."
God he is such an idiot. Like Mort and his fellow open-border cheerleaders have any answers that don't suck.
Looks like Dane is wrong again. What else is new? A broken record with stale lines mixed with hyperbole.
Tim Walberg ran a superstrong campaign in favor of border security and against illegal immigrantion against admitted-moderate Joe Schwarz. Walberg beat Schwarz in the primary 53-47 and won the general election.
"It is evident from the past election that the majority of voters want illegals here."
Is that opinion set in stone? Will you keep it no matter what I write?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the scandals, Bush's popularity and the Iraq war were the main factors for the republican's loss. The immigration issue has little to do with anything. The open borders crowd just sat around and waited for a democrat victory so they could claim this. If the republicans win in 2008, what will they say?
Also, the referendums in Arizona showed that the American people, even in a state with a large hispanic population, aren't willing to coddle illegal aliens.
bump!!!!
Guardsman over run at border
Dane has to say something to make himself feel better about his views. Deep down inside, I think he knows it was more of Bush and the republican leadership's fault than it was Tancredo's the republicnas lost.
Unless Dane can produce a poll, any scientific opinion poll, that doesn't say Bush, the Iraq war or the republican scandals and ethics were at the top of the voter's minds when they threw the republicans out, I think it will be time to all but write Dane off as a liar.
"Real reform, which is what Bush was offering, is not amnesty or surrendering to El Invasion. It is an offer of citizenship to those who want it and who are willing to earn it."
I thought Bush said he opposed a path to citizenship.
Easy Dane. From #96 on this thread:
"Actually, they lost because of Iraq, scandal, and the fact that they didn't act like conservatives for six years."
And he agrees with you, but at least he is honest enough to admit it.
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.