Posted on 5/17/2006, 11:16:59 PM by Revel
When Will Republicans Wake Up? May 17, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I want to start by going back to yesterday's program, about 24 hours ago, and I want to review what I said leading into a discussion of President Bush's speech
RUSH ARCHIVE: Let's get to the president's speech on immigration last night. What you saw, what you heard, I think, is a sincere leader trying to lead the nation. Then we got the third rail of third rails here, illegal immigration, and the horses are out of the barn on this. You can lock the door to the barn all you want, and you can say (muttering), but when the horses are gone, the horses are gone, and this is one of these issues. You heard the president. You saw him trying to solve a problem that previous leaders and politicians created, ignored, and encouraged. It's a tough thing.
RUSH: All right, now, just a question. Does that sound...? I was giving the president the benefit of the doubt. I was understanding this is a big problem. Yeah, he's had a role in it but it's a problem created long before he got there, and of course I know it's got a lot of people roiled. But you didn't hear anything in that that would constitute bigotry or harsh criticism of the president, did you? In fact, you go through the whole program yesterday and you won't really hear that. I was respectful of Vice President Cheney, as I always am on this program and I, you know, asked him some pretty tough questions. I didn't lob a bunch of softballs at him. So imagine my shock and stunned amazement when I'm watching the roundtable, one of my favorite television shows, Special Report with Brit Hume, and they're discussing the reaction to the president's speech, and Fred Barnes turned to speak, and he said this.
BARNES: The president did not do very well among the hard-core anti-immigrant [sic] people. The hard-core people, the blogs, the conservative blogs, the conservative talk radio people, Rush Limbaugh and so on. The difference is they don't have a vote, and once you get an issue that has tremendous momentum behind it, it's really the chemistry in the Senate and the House that matter.
RUSH: Whoa! Now, what is this, "anti-immigrant"? When in the world, especially yesterday or any day, have I expressed "anti-immigrant" sentiments? I have expressed alarm and concern over the original Hagel-Martinez Bill that would have allowed as many as between a hundred and 200 million new legal immigrants into the country in 20 years. I think that's a bit overdone. I've never suggested we ban immigrants, ban immigration. I've only spoken about illegal immigration. What is all this, "these anti-immigration people, the hard-core people, the blogs"? You know, this is disappointing. There's no "anti-immigration" sentiment, among any of the people I know about this. It's all anti-illegal, and I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. The word illegal, if it doesn't mean anything anymore, take it out. But if illegal still has meaning, if you go to the dictionary you can find that it has a meaning and it continues to be used, then why ignore it, and why try to cast people who are not anti-immigrant as anti-immigrant? You know, I'll tell you what, this issue is causing more divisions in the Republican Party than any issue that I can recall in a long time, including the Dubai Ports deal. I can't recall an issue. I've been doing this for 18 years. It will be 18 years in August, a big anniversary coming up. I can't remember. I'm trying to think. There have been some, but I can't think of any single issue which has Republicans, slash, conservatives more up in arms than this one -- and particularly with the apparent lack of response at the highest levels of government, House, Senate, White House.
The House Bank was a big deal, and the House Post Office, and some of those corruption scandals that existed back in the late eighties and early nineties, but this is incredible. You've got even among the conservative, quote, unquote, intelligentsia -- and, yes, we have pointy-headed elites in the conservative movement just like they exist on the left, and they're mostly inside the Beltway, and even those people are divided on this. Some of them are calling each other anti-immigrant. The others are saying, "Yeah, you don't understand the problem in America. You need to get outside the Beltway and go see it." This is a classic illustration here of how at least Fred Barnes... I don't know if he's speaking just for himself or representing the Weekly Standard where he works as well, in an editorial sense. But this idea that there's an anti-immigrant mood out there is misstated, and, frankly, it's absurd.
Now, there's action in the Senate, as you know, Jeff Sessions succeeded in reducing these numbers from 100 to 200 million to somewhere between -- I think the top will be 60 million. It's strange when you can have new immigration of 60 million over 20 years be considered a victory. These guys start with this massive high starting point, 100 to 200 million new legal immigrants, and Sessions said, "Whoa, that's too many," and starts alerting people in the Senate, and they voted to amend it and they get it down to the top now would be, yeah, 60 million is what it would be if the full caps are reached.
But that's not really the big story. The real big story is that, "The Senate yesterday voted against securing the border before implementing provisions that would grant the right of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and that would double the flow of legal immigration. The amendment would have delayed the 'amnesty' and guest-worker provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration-reform bill until the border had been sewn up successfully. The majority of Democrats, 36 of 44, were joined by 18 Republicans and the chamber's lone independent to kill the amendment on an 55-40 vote." Well, that sort of sums up where we are here, 55-40, and, "The amendment would have delayed the 'amnesty' and guest-worker provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration-reform bill until the border had been sewn up successfully." Meaning, if you look at it the other way, 55 Senators said, "Screw security! We're going to join the Democrats and the open-borders crowd here." Would you like to hear the names of the 18 Republican senators who voted with the Democrats on this? Here we go, in alphabetical order: Robert Bennett of Utah; Sam Brownback of Kansas; Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island; Norm Coleman, Minnesota; Susan Collins, Maine; Larry Craig, Idaho; Mike DeWine, Ohio; Lindsey Graham, South Carolina; Chuck Hagel, Nebraska; Dick Lugar, Indiana; Mel Martinez, Florida; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Senator Shelby, Alabama; Olympia Snowe, Maine; Senator Specter, Pennsylvania; Ted Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; and John Warner from Virginia. There were four Republicans that didn't vote: Thad Cochran, Mississippi; Judd Gregg, New Hampshire; Trent Lott; and Senator McCain.
More...: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051706/content/truth_detector.guest.html
18 RINOs to target for defeat in the future. Particularly in conservative states such as SC, UT, and KS. No excuses for electing a pro-amnesty RINO from states like that.
Mark May 16, 2006 on your calendars as the day the Republicans lost the country. I'm afraid they lost too many supporters that it'll be a long time before they can regain any power in Washington.
|
I found this comparative point from the full article to be brilliant:
"At any rate, the amendment to delay the amnesty and guest worker provisions until the border had been sewn up successfully was offered by a senator from Georgia, by the name of Isakson. He said, "We didn't enforce the border. We granted amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later there are 11 to 12 million or 13 million who have come because of the promise and opportunity of this country, but also because we've given a wink and a nod to the security of our border." (story) Mr. Isakson's fellow Georgian, Republican Saxby Chambliss, said, "I don't see how any senator who is serious about border security and enforcing our immigration laws can disagree with this amendment. To disagree with this amendment sends the message to the American people that we're more eager to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than we are to secure our borders from further illegal immigration and the smuggling of illegal drugs and weapons."
Speaking of that, illegal drugs, Jonah Goldberg had a piece today in the National Review Online. He's one of their editors at large or executive editors, and he said it's interesting if you compare the way we're fighting the war on drugs to the way we are fighting the war on illegal immigration. He said pretend for a moment that illegal immigrants are illegal drugs, and is the war on illegal drugs working? And, in fact, some people are saying it isn't going to work because the supply and demand laws are going to take over. As long as there's a demand for drugs, they're going to find a way in the country no matter what you do at the border.
He said if you look at illegal immigration that way, some people might have the same take. But his interesting analysis is that while all kinds of people are just dead set serious on the war on drugs. "We're not going to cut anybody any slack. We're not going to back off one second!" The same problem: you still got an insecure, unprotected border that leads to the existence of both problems. You got the illegal immigrant crowd, the open borders crowd, "Ah, borders? We need to deal with this on the interior basis. We need these borders," whatever cockamamie thinking they've come up with, and when it comes to the war on drugs, it's an entirely different mentality and attitude by the same people."
Here is a question for Freepers. What was used to or who put the screws to Sam Brownback? Overnight he flipped and did a 180 on immigration and border security. So is he just being yanked into line by large contributors such as agribusiness or meat packing or who? And if so was there something hidden there they could use on him that was more potent than just threats to cut off campaign donations or patronage from the White House? I''m serious. Brownback is the most glaring volte face on immigration yet.
Because he was born to host, and we were born to listen!
Republicans will wake up only after Speaker Pelosi and President (Hitlery) Clinton are running the country.
When Will Republicans Wake Up?
Because the callers serve as openings for topics Rush wants to discuss. They also break up the monologues. Dialogue is often easier to follow.
Senator Sessions is shaping up as hero in this story/tragedy.
BOHICA
Bob Jubelirer of PA woke up this morning.
They are here today illegally, if the day after tomorrow they are here legally then they received 'amnesty'. Citizenship is NOT the issue them being here illegally is the issue.
I don't know what happened to Brownback. I liked him up until the immigration thing.
Now he's out the door.
Thank God for Rush Limbaugh. He is truly leading the charge on this issue. Thank God his voice stretches wide and far.
He does it with a lot more tact than you or I can really muster too. I readily admit that for myself anyway. It takes a lot to TRY and not be on constant attack.
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.