Posted on 01/19/2007 11:17:55 AM PST by PDR
With a few dissents, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) was elected general chair of the Republican Nat'l Cmte this afternoon. RNC general counsel Mike Duncan was elected chair.
But if we abandon the core principles upon which we base our party and we adopt the ideas and principles of the opposition, then what's the point?!
I said something very cruel to you a few days ago. I want to reach out to you, apologize for my cruelty, and tell you that you are a perfect expression of G-d JUST THE WAY YOU ARE!
Then the RNC should show it's conservative values and do away with the bogus position. But I bet you are wrong otherwise Mehlmann would still be in the position.
A. It's irrelevant, we shouldn't be making policy decisions based on what is best for our party.
B. It depends. When people like George W. Bush are talking, it's about 45% When people like Tom Tancredo are talking, it's more like 30%.
Actually, from my first hand observations, the more local the organization the more conservative.
County conventions write VERY conservative platforms, and mean them.
State conventions tend to water down or eliminate the "controversial" (most conservative) elements of the platform.
It's the national conventions that ignore everything submitted and write up the socialist platforms, with direct intervention from the RNC!
The RINO's rule at the upper levels, to take back the party requires more involvement at the local level and informing those on high that their meddling will no longer be tolerated, at the risk of the penalty of your withholding funding, and your volunteer labors.
So as head of the RNC, this guy is NOT insignificant, as some here want us to believe.
Well, you've obviously already made your mind up about that, so why even bother talking to you?
Anyhow, yes, it was, and no, Martinez's proposal isn't. But the Tancrediacs have cynically manipulated an unpopular word to get what they want. They even call increases in LEGAL immigration, from new people in Mexico, not from people already here being able to pay fines and learn English or whatever, but new people, totally unrelated to our current population, "Amnesty." (Before you try saying I'm wrong, go read up on the Pence plan, then read what Tancredo said about it).
I agree saying anybody would have crushed Carter is dead wrong, but your example about Fitzgerald is a really horrible example. He barely beat a well known and obvious radical liberal, who barely won the seat in 1992, a great year for D's, and who was under corruption investigation. Frankly, people were dismayed when Fitz won by as small of a margin as he did. He was suppose to win by considerably more then he did.
This discussion is stupid. You can find 1000 examples of so-called 'true Conservatives' winning in difficult races, as well as 1000 examples of them losing. Same goes for so-called 'RINOs'. Anybody who actually thinks you can boil down any major political race to something that simple is stupid.
So, we've established a baseline for calling something "amnesty." Good. Now, how is the 1986 amnesty different from the recent proposals? Let's start with what you just mentioned. You mentioned paying fines or fees as something that would not qualify as an amnesty. In fact, the 1986 amnesty required a fee to be paid. So, I guess a proposal that requires a fine or fee to be paid is still an amnesty if you go by the 1986 standard.
What other common factors of the current proposals (that you want to pretend aren't amnesty) would be different from the Amnesty of 1986?
Uhh, the fact that they have to pay back taxes, have to learn English, an then are still not granted automatic citizenship?
Anyhow, I actually take it back if they did have to pay a fine, if you are right about that, I haven't seen that. Technically, that's not an amnesty, although I could see the case being made that it's little different. In this case, you have to warp the word beyond recognition to call Martinez's proposal amnesty, but that's no challenge for Tancrediacs.
But EVEN THAT, I MIGHT be willing to go along with, for the sake of arguement. They lose me when they start calling proposals for more legal immigration Amnesty.
I'm experiencing that type on the local level right now, i.e., where the politicians have decided to circumvent the law.
Automatic path to citizenship. Is that something that makes an amnesty not a real amnesty? Well, the 1986 amnesty did not provide automatic citizenship either.
Anyhow, I actually take it back if they did have to pay a fine, if you are right about that, I haven't seen that. Technically, that's not an amnesty
Oh, so now you're saying that the 1986 amnesty wasn't an amnesty!? You're not making any sense except to yourself. You've defined amnesty so narrowly that you've strayed from reality. It is commonly accepted - by just about everyone, if you checked - that the 1986 amnesty was an amnesty. The current amnesty proposals (that you want to pretend aren't amnesty) bear resemblence to the 19896 amnesty with only cosmetic differences. The trouble is that you don't want to lose the argument (that you've been making for far too long) and instead of accepting that these proposals ARE, in fact, an amnesty - you instead want to detach from reality and make the foolish claim that the 1986 amnesty wasn't really an amnesty.
Have you ever considered for a moment that you might be wrong on the immigration issue? We just proved that you were wrong on a pretty important point concerning the 1986 amnesty. What else are you wrong about? Have you considered that the current proposals may be amnesty and you just don't know what you're talking about?
In fact, the Hagel-Martinez amnesty resembles the 1986 amnesty in many ways. From the Center for Immigration Studies (they explain so much better than I could this afternoon).
Hagel-Martinez Amnesty. The Hagel-Martinez bill, or Senate bill 2611 (also called S. 2611), has three separate amnesties or legalizations: One for illegals in the country five or more years, one for those who have been here two to five years, and one for those who work in agriculture. Like the 1986 legalizations, the current amnesties involve paying a fine and undergoing a background check. The largest of the new amnesties is for those in the country five or more years. Illegal aliens in this category are placed on what can be described as a "glide path" to Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR). Individuals in the glide path can start to apply for LPR status, also called a green card, once the immigration service has worked through all existing applications or after eight years, whichever is shorter.There is also an amnesty for illegals who have been here for between two and five years. These individuals can apply for what is called "deferred mandatory departure" (DMD), which can last up to three years. Those with DMD can, like those on the glide path, live and work in the United States. Those with DMD can also at any time apply for the new "guest worker" program referred to as the H2C visa, which Hagel-Martinez creates. To apply for the H2C program, those with DMD will have to go to a port of entry to apply. There is no requirement, however, that they go back to their home countries or stay out of the United States for any length of time. Although it is called a "guest" worker program, the H2C program allows individuals to begin applying for green cards after four years, or sooner if employers apply on their behalf. Although there is an annual limit of 200,000 on the H2C program, those with DMD (i.e., former illegal immigrants) are explicitly exempt.
The third amnesty is for illegal immigrants who have worked in agriculture for a certain number of hours in the years prior to the enactment of S. 2611. These individuals can sign up for the new "blue card" program, the fine for which is smaller than in the other amnesties. Individuals with a blue card can then apply for LPR status after working in agriculture for an additional three to five years. While there are some differences in the way each of these amnesties works, they all share in common the fact that recipients can live and work in the United States and have the opportunity to eventually receive green cards and citizenship.
I had Conservative relatives, who lived in a very red state, with pockets of EXTREME blue bits. At the end of Carter's term, I was visiting them and overheard quite a number of Liberals viciously shredding Carter, saying that they would vote for ANY GOPer who ran against him, though they had NEVER voted for a single GOPer in all of their rather ancient lives.
Yes, both examples are anecdotal; however, they are also a microcosm of what 1980 America WAS really like!
Reagan said WHATEVER it took, to each and every audience, when campaigning. He told audiences mostly filled with Dems and Indies how much he LOVED and ADMIRED FDR! He told them how VERY proud he was to have not only been a member of a union, but the president of it. GOPers and Conservatives got a different speech.
During both of Reagan's presidential terms in office, the same sort of people here, who have trashed President Bush, were trashing President Reagan......WITH ALMOST THE SAME WORDS! He was a RINO, he wasn't Conservative enough, if at all, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Reagan was a GREAT president! It pains me to have to continually point out his flaws and missteps; however, due to the mythographers, who post to FR, making a demigod of him, I and a few others have to keep correcting all of the propaganda. Reagan is too good, to have to be lied about, in order to make him appear to be great. Reagan's appeal and legacy don't need embellishments; they stand on their own.
Carter was SO hated and reviled, that just about ANYONE would have beaten him, in 1980! That is the truth.
I was in a hurry and just wanted to comment on this thread, and didn't mean it as tersely as it now sounds. But I do think our side sometimes sabotages itself for "high moral ground", when it could make things a LITTLE easier.
But I do agree with your conclusion.
"Typical response from the right wing drama queens."
So what wing are you with Dane?
Am I the only one curious about rantings against those "right wing a**h***s" as one poster put it recently on a conservative forum?
"When people like George W. Bush are talking, it's about 45% "
Well, that should be very enlightening to you. Bush agrees with the most liberal member of the senate on immigration. Ted Kennedy. And still 65% of hispanics vote democrat. Let me see, 65% of 20 million new hispanic voters is about 12 million. That looks to me like a permanent DEM majority. Why are you pushing for a dem majority?
This place is getting over run.
I wish I could disagree.
Be well, my FRiend.
Didn't Martinez use the words (metaphorically) "Go to hell Gringos!" before Chavez? Looks like Chavez is free to join the RNC... he has money to give them, I won't.
Where do we go? Bob Barr?
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.