Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 9 August 2009

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): National Security Adviser James Jones; Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican; Maj. Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland, commanding general of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the U.S. Army’s North Atlantic Regional Medical Command.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): National Security Adviser James Jones; Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York; Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): National Security Adviser James Jones; Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Former national Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean; former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Georgia Republican.

STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat; Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican; Republican pollster Bill McInturff; Democratic pollster Peter Hart; Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.

From Wikpaedia:

“Drawn butter is a preparation of melted butter, generally clarified. There does appear to be some confusion or disagreement about whether it must be clarified to be considered “drawn”, or merely melted with the surface foam skimmed away, or even simply melted. Most culinary experts seem to consider it to be clarified butter.

Drawn butter is typically served with boiled or steamed lobsters, crabs, or clams.”

Years ago my wife got me this metal frame with a metal cup that you place butter in, and then you light a tea candle under it and it melts the butter. It came with lobster shell crackers, lobster meat hooks, and a big plate with a red,yummy lobster on it.

Like this, but the cups are metal, and of course, it's missing the plate.

No I’m not being disingenuous but I’ll allow that you might see it that way. I really didn’t see your point. Now as I understand your point is that there wasn’t enough debate on the matter?

As I see it the bigger debate was on the committee thing. Do confirmations have long debates on SC nominees?

But LS, seriously, current events determine alot of this stuff. Had there been a serious hurricane or airplane crash while either the town halls or Sotomayor is going on THAT would have dominated the news.

For sure OBama’s busy trying to ram stuff through and it does overwhelm, I get this.

As for the 31 vote, I seriously thought maybe only 4 or 5 pubs would vote against Sotomayor. I kinda thought she would pass right through after the few ruffles from pubs in the committee. I know 40 is a bigger deal but as you must understand, I am surprised that 31 voted against her. I don’t think that many voted against Ginsberg.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t disagree with you as much as it might seem except I do think the town halls are making a real impact and I’m with you all the way that it’s emboldening the pubs. They don’t even get out of a tanning booth until they think it’s safe as a hospital nursery.

Very interesting stats. But do the statistics assume open borders that we have now and the same number of immigrants coming to the US?

Which stats are you referring to? The Bureau of the Census figures don't include illegal aliens. The number of LEGAL immigrants annually will continue to increase because of the lack of caps on certain categories of immigration. Here are some population projections that are a little old and probably underestimate the total numbers.

Isn't it possible we will finally see what unlimited immigration is doing to the country and take steps to stop it before it's too late?

Not when you have a powerful coalition supporting it. The Dems, union leaders, big business, La Raza, the Catholic Church, and others want to keep the numbers coming because they see it as being advantageous to their parochial interests. The 1965 Immigration Act changed the demography of this country forever. It may be beyond changing.

we seem to be seeing the light in outer areas why not immigration as well?

People are ill-informed. And the politicians won't tell the truth and prefer bromides like we are a nation of immigrants. The fact is that we no longer need 1.2 million legal immigrants a year nor do we need more unskilled labor and high school dropouts.

The reality is that the Republican Party has a golden opportunity to seize the issue of immigration and use it to further its political objectives and win elections, and more importantly, prevent the destruction of this nation. The GOP holds the winning hand. The only question is whether they have the will and courage to play it or fold.

The Republican Party has failed miserably to counter the Democrat political strategy on the issue of immigration. They have been cowed and intimidated, fearing that unless they adapt to the new demographic reality forged by mass immigration over the past 45 years, the GOP will become politically irrelevant and powerless. These fears resulted in the nomination of Presidential candidate John McCain, a self-described maverick who supported amnesty and pandered to extremist groups like La Raza. On the issue of immigration, the American people were offered an echo, not a choice in 2008 with both Obama and McCain holding the same views. The Republican Party has focused primarily on illegal immigration and border security, because they are less controversial and require little political courage to address. Legal immigration is rarely discussed because it is fraught with perceived political danger.

More importantly, the immigration issue has deeply divided the Republican Party. President Bush and Presidential nominee McCain supported amnesty bills (Hagel-Martinez in 2006 and McCain-Kennedy in 2007) against the majority of their own party. Moreover, we had the sorry spectacle of people like Karl Rove and Lindsay Graham castigating their fellow Republicans who opposed amnesty using such epithets as bigots, racists, and nativists. These criticisms just reinforce the Democrat branding of the GOP and alienate minorities who perceive that they are not welcome in the party. Moreover, being branded as a “racist” political party hurts the GOP in recruiting new members, regardless of race or ethnicity. America is not a racist country and no one wants to be associated with a racist organization.

The irony is that immigration can be a winning issue for Republicans. Our views on immigration actually coincide with those of the majority of the American people. We need not be apologetic or defensive. Republicans must be more proactive and less reactive. They must be willing to take a principled stand on the issue even if it means polarization, being the object of demagoguery, and short-term political losses. Unless Republicans redefine the battlefield and terms of engagement, they will continue to lose the war.

The Republican strategy on immigration should be based on the core principles of the party, i.e., national security, limited government, the rule of law and the Constitution, and individual responsibility. Immigration is an issue that cuts across partisan lines. There are plenty of independents and Reagan Democrats who are affected adversely by immigration and hold far different views than the Democrat political leadership, union bosses, religious leaders, etc. Republicans need to articulate their message better to tap into those constituencies. That said, pandering and outreach to minorities don’t work. Republicans lose when they try to play identity politics against the Democrats and it just reinforces their framing of the issue. Republicans must appeal to the interests of the individual voter with a universal message regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

I have developed a strategy paper on specific actions the Reps can take to make immigration a winning issue and have handed them out to some local politicians. So far, they lack the courage to address the issue the way it should be addressed. Rather, they are worried about losing the immigrant vote and have chosen to play according to the Dem rules, i.e., identity politics. And we lose that every time.

re your Post 170: Unhappily, I think you are right.

There is a strategic move taking place right now. They have waited decades for this. Now they have the raw legislative numbers, the economic and social conditions, and the political power base to do it without effective opposition. They intend to ram it through no matter what the "fallout" will be. The result is likely to be a permanent fait accompli against the American Republic and our Constitution.

The only thing standing between them and victory is the slowly awakening American People. Will that be enough? Will they mobilize and act soon enough?

We have second, more deadly, September 11th staring us in the face. This time it is driven by an even stronger enemy from within. Instead of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the Capitol in the crosshairs it is the American Constitution and Republic.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln, 1838

I am beginning to think that they should go ahead and pass this health care turkey. Let them put down what they want in an actual bill, so that they can't dodge questions by saying "we don't have a final bill yet." Then everyone could run against democrats by promising to repeal the bill.

No way! Though the point you make may have some merit a couple of things are bad. First the obvious. Assuming it passes both houses of Congress and Obama signs it, it won't be repealed unless we regain both houses and the presidency, too. Even then the Rats will do everything in their power to keep it in place.

Second, before it goes to the president it has to go to the Senate. One guest (maybe McConnell) said that whatever bill comes out of the Senate would have to go to conference. When it comes back from conference, it only has to be approved by a simple majority of both houses. Since the Rats control congress they will also control the conference committee so the outcome is preordained.

I do agree with you on this: current events can change everything. But you don't think that the possibility of a terrorist attack or the Chinese suddenly "cashing in" dollars would be more of a benefit to Obama than a disadvantage? I think he wants to use any and all crises as an excuse to centralize power.

Now, obviously he could botch anything. He's certainly made some huge mistakes so far, but they have been absorbed by his legislative majorities.

I guess I keep looking backward, always dangerous, to FDR. In his 100 days, he basically ensured his reelection forever. He had enough pork that he could get his guys elected, and even when they lost some in the off years, the Republicans couldn't come close to overturning the New Deal agenda. The times were different---in both good and bad ways. For example, the fact that FDR got that done in a time when a majority of Americans HATED welfare is astounding. How much easier for the Messiah today when a majority have their hand out?

On the judges, maybe my expectations were too high. I genuinely thought they might filibuster her, and put a couple of so-called "moderate" Dems on the spot. I guess I'm still waiting for any evidence that in crunch time, the Republicans can and will hold together on a key issue.

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.