Tell that J.D Hayworth who won with 60% of the vote in his last 3 elections, but once he jumps on the harsh rhetoric immigration bandwagon, loses to a democrat.
Posted on 11/18/2006 6:07:13 AM PST by peyton randolph
-snip-
But not all conservatives agree about the House Republicans. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist thinks there has always been a functioning House majority for comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened last summer? "The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere," says Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP's loss of Congress.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
But, but, but it's the media's fault for dividing the party, not Bush's!
Even when the 'get out and voters' were trying to tap dance faster than Bush, he kept on pushing..."in order to secure the border, we MUST have CIR", and they still refuse to hold him accountable. Or just won't admit it.
Maybe one of these days Norquist will learn how to say ILLEGAL immigration. Until then, he can continue to breathe the poisoned atmosphere caused by those mean ol' radio talk-show hosts.
The one who should be tarred and feathered is Bush, for pushing the amnesty idea so relentlessly.
These morons continue to blame everyone but themselves. The Clintons really did change politics forever. The RNC has taken its lessons from the likes of Carville and Dean.
It was the radio talk show hosts who drove all those tens of thousands of hispanics out into the streets of our cities?? I don't think so. It was the sight of all those immigrants (legal & Illegal) with their Mexican flags that "happened" last summer. It was a wakeup call.
....ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. Sad but true.
OK, I'll say it Bush is a RINO..........
Tell that J.D Hayworth who won with 60% of the vote in his last 3 elections, but once he jumps on the harsh rhetoric immigration bandwagon, loses to a democrat.
Tell that J.D Hayworth who won with 60% of the vote in his last 3 elections, but once he jumps on the harsh rhetoric immigration bandwagon, loses to a democrat.
Foleized .....
damn, that's funny.
:)
Thanks for the morning laugh FRiend.
But you all can go ahead with your delusinal rationaliziations of why Hayworth lost.
"Tell that J.D Hayworth who won with 60% of the vote in his last 3 elections, but once he jumps on the harsh rhetoric immigration bandwagon, loses to a democrat."
The national republican party traded the majority for comprehensive immigration reform. The pro-enforcement candidates of AZ were abandoned.
I want to see how they fix something (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) that has never been turned on; the Comprehensive Immigration Reform of 1986...
" "The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere,""
I believe they've stumbled upon a brand new excuse for doing nothing. Wally (Dilbert strip) would be jealous.
Abandonded??? Huh take a look at the ad by the NRCC(meaning both Mehlman and Rove approved it) in link #14.
LOL! Abandonded. The NRCC tries to help Hayowrth with an ad that would the hearts like yours and Hayworth still loses. There is a message ther but your head is to dense, IMO< for the message to get through.
Abandonded??? Huh take a look at the ad by the NRCC(meaning both Mehlman and Rove approved it) in link #14. LOL! Abandonded. The NRCC tries to help Hayowrth with an ad that would the hearts like yours and Hayworth still loses. There is a message ther but your head is to dense, IMO< for the message to get through.
Explain to me exactly who is going to pay the medical bills of these so called guest workers. My hospital is already over-run with illegals. Also, unless there is a severe penalty for employers who continue to hire illegals, they will continue to stream across the border with their so called guest worker buddies. A guest worker plan without strict border enforcement = amnesty =open borders.
Norquist is also big on appeasing the Muslim interests
Uh why don't you ask the trial lawyers who are the ones sucking the life out of the American health care system.
Oh and BTW, why your hatred for business that does such evil things as create wealth and provide essential service. You almost sound like nancy/hillary with your silence on the trial lawyers and your hatred of business.
The 2004 vote gave the Republicans 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. This year we got 30 percent. That was enough to cost Republicans the house and the senate. There is no evidence that being pro Bush plan on immigration cost the Republicans anything.
There is the fact that the branch of goverment that did the will of the anti immigration voters faired the worst.
The Repubicans lost a lot more seats in the house than they did in the senate.
The real problem was we lost the moderate or swing voters. And the issue was not the border. It is hard to argue that the open border is terrible for our nations safety when we have gone 5 years with out another attack by terrorists while other nations have been attacked.
Uh that was my point.
Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP's loss of Congress.
That canard has been discredited. Where immigration, oops - ILLEGALS - was an issue Pro Enforcement candidates won 60% of the time.
The problem was that our 'republicans' in Congress were out democrating the democrats (spending, earmarks, corruption). Ergo, it was a 'throw the bums out' reaction we saw with the sheeple opting for 'conservative' Dems.
Or are you actually a big enough fool to think that a majority of them will vote Republican??
And you know this how. You do know evangelicals are getting their biggest increase from hispanics.
Oh that's right you would rather shove these socially conservative and hard working people into the bosoms of nancy/hillary, nevermind.
Below was a posting that I wrote last week when responding to another Freeper. Good analysis of the vote by you, did you see that the GOP lost 8% of the white male vote?
The Northern Pacific States have Microsoft, Boeing and tourism. The same goes for California. Texas has energy, tourism and shipping. Nevada has gambling. Florida has tourism and great weather; Chicago, the epicenter of finance and marketing. The Eastern seaboard has shipping, fishing, government, tourism … etc.
What does the Midwest have? Good weather year round, hell no! Pretty girls skating down the boardwalk on a beautiful February afternoon, Hell no! Movie industry jobs, nope! How about agriculture? That too has been erased.
The problem is that the Midwest made things, but because of globalization those skills are no longer needed. Hence the powers that be are trying to substitute with the insurance, medical and bio-tech fields. Those noble professions still are not providing the stimulus to grow the regions economy. So what does an underemployed populace do? They go to the ballot box and vote themselves a raise. I am in absolute disagreement of this, but it is in effect what is happening. Ohio, PA, IN, IL and New York will become more blue because of the afore mentioned.
Reagan figured this out and by him spending heavily on defense; a lot of those dollars were spent in the Midwest, which garnered him a win in 84. The rest as they say is history.
Remember, all politics are local and people vote their pocketbook.
The recovery that most this nation has experienced has not come to the Midwest and actually has come at the expense of this regions economy. Regretfully, the GOP has over estimated the Midwest Social Conservatives loyalty to the GOP. It may result in the Presidents impeachment, time will tell
Which has exactly nothing to do with how they'll vote. The ones here ALREADY vote by large majorities for the Democrats. The ones who come here have been raised from childhood by socialist governments--that's all they know, and that's what they will support once legalized.
The ONLY Hispanic group that is majority conservative/Repubican are ex-Cubans.
What gets me about this whole thing is that we have a "moral and principled" POUS who seems to forget that these people are here ILLEGALLY!
If you stand on your principles then how do you forget that these folks are criminals? That is square one, do you just skip over the messy parts?
Meanwhile, a national exit poll found that voters--when given two options for dealing with illegal immigrants--preferred giving them "a chance to apply for legal status" over mass deportation by a margin of 57 percent to 38 percent. All these data, say the Bush-Martinez Republicans, suggest public support for the sort of "comprehensive" reform that passed the Senate.
I am tempted to consider that it may have come from the pro-amnesty wing of the Republican Party??
Sadly, IF Bush/Rove/Martinez et al., believe these poll numbers in order to justify their rush to Amnesty, they will simply further polarize the base and alienate the Conservatives who the party sorely needs if they have any inclination of regaining control of Congress and NOT end up with DHIMI control for the next 10 - 20 years, which the way things are falling out after the election, could very well happen.
All the ranting a raving ... For me the worst part of this whole discussion over border security vs cheap labor is the lack of any common sense voices. All you hear are the cries of xenophobia from the left, and loss of American identity from the right. We need to reframe the debate in terms of the economic and legal impacts.
The borders should be secured, and not just because it's a time of war or terrorism, but simply because that's how a sovereign government exercises its authority over its territory.
When there is a shortage of labor the government can increase the amount of legal immigration to replenish the labor pool a relieve wage pressures. Conversely, during a recession or other times when there is a surplus of labor, legal immigration can be reduced to minimize its impact on the existing workforce. This is the way it should work.
Of course this also implies that legal immigrants are paid in a manner similar to native workers (ie. same wages, benefits, taxes, etc.). I get the impression that this is not what either side wants, but instead a near slave labor force. Put this way, if the goal is cheap labor (by this I mean illegally low wages), then we should be talking about reducing or eliminating the minimum wage instead of increasing it because allowing the same amount of illegal immigration has the same effect.
In my opinion, if the Republicans (the party of Lincoln) truly oppose illegal immigration this is how they should be approaching this subject. As protectors of American workers and as opponents of modern slavery!
"These morons continue to blame everyone but themselves."
Dixie Chicks logic ... it's not what we said or did, it's those stupid fans.
Bingo! We have a winner. See my post #38.
Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Stephen Moore, and now Grover Norquist are all shameful, and shameless liars about the 2006 midterms and what they said about immigration. And if I'm wrong to call them liars, then I apologize, but if they actually believe the nonsense they are spewing, then that would only mean that they are delusional pro-mass immigration ideologues. Thanks to the internet, however, their garbage has been thoroughly refuted by reasonable analysis by the National Review and Pat Buchananan.
Otherwise, however, this piece by the Weekly Standard is admirably fair by their standards. It actually includes the conservative critique of the biased poll questions that offer only a choice between earned legalization and mass deportations, and leaves out the true middle ground position of enforcement-first based attrition.
Republicans YES, Americans YES, but politicians and Republican politicans in particular, NO.
Politicians accept campaign contributions and other reenumeration from business for turning their head on this issue and/or votes from the open borders lobby.
This is all about personal enrichment for politicians and Republicen politicians have just not learned how to lie out of both sides of their face yet.
A permanent class of poverty also benefits socialist and communists.
Agreed....
More garbage from Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard....
Two questions:
1)ho reads it? I know very few conservatives who agree with their immigration position.
2) Why are they so overrepresented on Foxnews?
Because pat buchanan enjoys his sucking up to chrissy matthews on MSNBC.
On immigration, Fox News is just about as worthless as all the other networks. The 'All Stars' segment on Brit Hume's show is especially bad, as there is not one voice representing conservative views on immigration. As already stated, Barnes and Kristol are terrible, while Mort Kondracke (who at times sounds like a reasonable left-leaning moderate) won't hesitate to engage in the various name-calling of open borders opponents.
Bill O'Reilly should be credited for brining attention to the border problems, but if you actually listen to him you'll find that he favors amnesty and a deceptive guest-worker program. Sean Hannity can't seem to make up his mind; one day he'll have Pat Buchanan on and agree with almost every thing he says, then the next night he'll be saying that he supports increasing legal immigration 'if need be'. And he has an annoying habit of prefacing any tough statements with the standard and nauseating platitudes about how much he loves legal immigration. In and of itself that is not so bad, but it comes across as a pathetic and futile attempt to shield himself from charges of xenophobia and of being anti-whatever when he gets around to the tough talk on illegal immigration. Its futile because the name-calling is pretty much inevitable if one voices opposition to the 'comprehensive'/pro-mass immigration crowd. Its annoying because it just adds to all the time wasted in the public debate over immigration by spouting empty, irrelevant, feel-good slogans that do nothing to advance the debate, and instead actually hurt it by giving credence to these ridiculous, simplistic platitudes that have somehow come to be accepted as worthwhile points to make in a very complex issue.
Part of the Bush position is motivated by this. The Bush administration is convinced as well as Fed chair Bernanke the only way to save Social Security is by using foreign (Mexican) "guest workers". Just as we're having foreign investment bail us out of our deficits we're supposed to have foreign workers support our ponsey scheme known as social security. These are stop gap measures to our extravagent life style problems not solutions. Many of these jobs being taken by illegals could be done by American youth . .
We forgot what it means to be self reliant
Bush came out with a social security investment plan but abandoned it. If he really wants a legacy let him fix that, rather than destroy the Republican party as he's well on the way of doing. http://theusmat.com/
And placer of radical Islamists in the Bush Adminstration.
His rational, Jews will never vote Republican, so Republicans should embrace Islamics as a counterweight. Much, but not all, of this activity taking place *after* 9-11. Probably the source of some of the President's "Religion of Peace" comments. (I'll note that the President has slowly been transitioning away from that toward "Radical Islamic Terrorists".)
First thing that must be done is to have the liberals be willing to end voter fraud. Until they are willing to protect only Constitutionally authorized voters I am totally opposed to illegal immigration on any level or guest workers that never leave.
There already is a loss from the illegal invasion, right now the local public school district is offering 'English' classes to any adult who desires, and I know darn well they are not given at no cost. Just added to my property tax tab or some State funded program.
I read recently that the population of this state was up 34%, and people wonder why the liberals won so many races this past election.
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.