Republican members of House of Representatives continue to send their collective message to President George W. Bush and Senate liberals such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):
Finally! He gets labeled for what he is.
The heated rhetoric emanating from the GOP members of the House significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he is seeking, according to the GOP establishment within the Beltway.
You mean the feeble threats from the betlway aren't working? Gee, they must be as disappointed as the (minority of) GOP syncophants on this board that have tried the same tactics to no avail.
The Republican opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans, according to interviews with about half of the roughly 40 members whom political handicappers consider most vulnerable to defeat this November. Republicans -- from moderates such as Chris Shays in suburban Connecticut and Steve Chabot in Cincinnati to conservative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona -- continue to say they are adamant that Congress not take any action that might be perceived as rewarding illegal behavior.
Kind of sad Shays is, so far as it seems right now, more of an ally to conservatives (Americans) then the administration or Senators Frist and McConnell.
Surprisingly, Shays' constituents are Northeast liberals who have voiced their concerns over uncontrolled illegal immigration and the reality of porous, unprotected borders.
Yeah, sure, surprising. As if Liberals aren't fighting for those "jobs Americans won't do", and paying the hefty taxes to support those feeding like parasites off our welfare systems resulting in closing hospitals, poorer education, decreased property values... Between the poor LEGAL American and the middle class no one should be surprised we've united against the rich few that will not, at first, have their livelihoods directly threatened. Now, granted, there are other reasons to be in opposition. But these are the reasons uniting Liberals and "moderates" with conservatives. Issues of sovereignty...etc...probably reflect the concerns of the GOP base a little more then the Dems. I could be wrong about that, but doubt it based on their reaction to the WOT.
According to the Republican National Committee staff and political strategists, over 75 percent of the 231 Republican members are steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill or even a watered-down version of it. Add the Democrat congressmen who are also vulnerable this fall should they vote in favor of "amnesty," and it appears there is a good chance the Senate bill -- chock full of goodies for illegal aliens, as well as the Mexican government -- will die a death of a thousand cuts.
Or they could just gut it fast and furious. Actually I'm in favor of a thousand cuts so long as it doesn't lead to them caving for amnesty. I'd like this to be an election issue for 2006 and I've been working to make it so. The GOP establishment, of course, wanted it out of the way before the fall. We all know why.
While a few polls, which some believe are skewed, show bipartisan support for Bush's immigration giveaway, most GOP lawmakers said the House plan to secure the borders and enforce existing immigration laws is unquestionably the safer political stand in his or her district. House staffers have intimated that enforcement of existing laws coupled with tough, no-nonsense border security is the winning hand in the political game.
Shock! They admit they can be skewed! Guess Dowd isn't doing too good of a job at distorting reality in the beltway huh?
This is what I know. Shays has taken back his support for amnesty. The President got on TV and begged us to believe it isn't amnesty, and that he gave a damn about the borders. A rare speech by the President, on immigration, on a subject Rove conspiculously denied was a problem attributing the problem all being result of Iraq.
Letters/Calls/faxes/bricks/town meetings are being acknowledged by the politicians as overwhelmingly against amnesty. Vulnerable Senate Dems voted against amnesty. Folks like Santorum in tight races voted against amnesty in a majority. Only the truly out of touch running this year support it, such as DeWine who went against judges too and Chafee.
People were thrown out over this issue in a local race. A House congressman is being forced into a runoff over this issue, and that challenger just barely missed replacing him outright on the ticket. Osbourne lost his bid for Govenor on this issue in his Republican primary. Here in WA we actually, shockingly, got in the state platform to state they were against anchor babies.
Most people I talk to, here in WA btw, are furious and against this for a multitude of reasons. Drain on welfare services, soveriegnty issues, national security, humanitarian, depressed wages, refusal to assimiliate (those flags really ticked people of), you name it. I see the same on talk radio no matter the dial, all across the blogosphere even the squishes that advocate "Vote GOP no matter what" are either on defensive of acknowledging their views are not representative of the backlash against amnesty.
The forces on Capitol Hill and their mouthpeices like Barnes and Kristol run scared at the notion it's amnesty, and have fallen back on the threat "the President will be a lame duck and you'll lose your job", signaling they realize they have the losing argument and want to jam it through quickly to prevent further attention on them.
Every outside factors indicates Americans ARE NOT in favor of the admin/Senate amnesty approach..except a couple of dirtorted news polls. Gee, what do I believe hmm? The evidence or cherry picked statements given to soemone over a phone?
Most of these lawmakers reject the argument made by the White House and Senate Republicans such as John McCain that the best long-term political strategy is to craft a compromise that is appealing to many Latinos, the fastest-growing minority group in America. House Republicans view that argument as pandering to a potential voting-block which ultimately leads to big-spending programs and redistribution of wealth -- a hallmark of liberal-think.
Which is why the Liberal RINO's led by McCain want it so badly. To destroy the conservative movement, though they'll destroy themselves in process because this group will not lovingly embrace them.
House Republicans appear ready to forcefully debate the issue with their Senate counterparts. The shaky Senate coalition, led by McCain and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), that passed the so-called comprehensive legislation is held together by a common belief that it would be unwise and unworkable to deal with the borders only and not solve the problem of what to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants living here. The coalition will crumble if the House Republicans prevail, according to senators and aides.
Exactly how will it crumble? The only way it can crumble is if the amnesty boosters get frightened and join those interested in enforcing the border. In that event, I welcome the crumbling of these RINO's!
But House members fire back that if current enforcement of laws aimed at cracking down on employers of illegal aliens are strategically implemented, the jobs would disappear and so would many illegals.
In part. I mean, some will simply set up their own business stands and employ other illegals off the books (they do now) but they can be cracked down on as well.
Last week, the White House dispatched their wonderboy, Karl Rove, who is lobbying -- some say strong-arming -- House members to reconsider their positions and the hope is that more moderate Republicans will cave-in to Bush's wishes. At the same time, there are letters, e-mails and telephone calls flooding Washington, DC from Americans who wish to see the Senate's immigration bill blasted to smithereens, with pieces of the tattered bill littering the floor of the House of Representatives.
Okay folks. Start targeting Rove's staff with bricks, letters, faxes and calls. Why? To flood his office hindering their attempts to strongarm House members a bit. Make it difficult for them to perform their duties or venture other to the House's territory by forcing them to issue responses to us instead.
Great Post.