Posted on 07/01/2007 5:13:44 PM PDT by Signalman
So is Morris basically saying that the only way to get the Latino vote is to pander to them by granting amnesty to illegal aliens?
Dick Morris has been clueless on this issue... this issue will save the Republican bacon in 2008...the base in rising up and rejecting so strongly the most disliked (crony/country club)elements of the party leadership that had lost the middle American “Reagan” independent & Democrats... to that group... the base rebellion and purging of the party is a good thing...
Nether the Dem loopy left or the Rep crony/country club right is where the majority of American are... but the Republican bases vision is closer to that majority of American then either party”
DITTOS. THE DEFEAT OF THIS BILL IS VERY GOOD FOR THE GOP:
1) Shows the Dems as incompetent (cant get bills passed)
2) Shows that only Republicans (and a few Dems) care about American workers, our borders and the rule of law
3) Shows that Obama and Hillary are both in the tank for amnesty - a position that in reality is far less popular than Washington DC thinks it is
4) United the GOP which was divided on this... Now it is perfectly clear that the GOP base wants ‘enforcement first’.
NOPE.
You still have it wrong... What Reid was *really* trying to do was to get it passed BUT TO HAVE REPUBLICAN FINGERPRINTS ON IT so the unpopularity of the bill wouldnt fall on Democrat shoulders.
yes, BUSH fell into that trap, dutifully trying harder to get this passed than anything else he’s done lately.
BUT THE GOP BASE DID NOT. And that made the difference. Now the spin is that the public was misinformed, but I think not at all; we knew this bill would turn 12 million illegal immigrants into legal residents of this country and would do so whether or not any of the problems with out-of-control immigration were solved.
Everyone inside the beltway was presuming the base would line up behind the leaders. When they didn’t, the Senators looked to their own re-election. Curiously, the bill did very poorly among senators due for re-election in 2008.
When the Democrats saw the bill not making progress and getting unpopular, some of them bailed too.
Rats & sinking ships, so to speak.
The winners? THE CONSERVATIVE BASE. WE WON.
The inside the beltway crowd will concoct whatever excuse they want for this not to be the case, but this was a monumental and important victory for conservatives. We stopped a bill that could destroy the country as we have known it.
You are completely wrong on this.
First, if there are ‘other important issues’ then Bush was wrong to *bring the dead bill back*, rather than the ‘so-called conservatives’ who merely reacted to the worst sellout ever over the worst bill in 20 years. *We* didnt bring this bill up, the ‘grand bargainers’ did, desperate to get an amnesty in there before local and state govts actually start doing things to stop illegal immigration.
Second, enough with the ‘rabid immigrant haters’ nonsense. It didn’t sell when Linda Chavez said it and it doesn’t sell when you say it. it’s a slander. My legal immigrant wife is vehemently opposed to this bill, and this bill is an insult to legal immigrants who waited in line to get their status approved.
“I’m sorry, but I even told my own father that his anti-immigration activism is only hurting Republicans.”
Well I hope you are not a professional political advisor. Frankly, you are wrong. Americans want law and order and fair play in immigration. We dont want out-of-control immigration and we dont want amnesty for law breakers.
We want enforcement first, rational immigration laws second, and amnesty never. The political party that delivers on it will win elections and do right by America.
“Now we are divided and defeated.”
Amnesty was defeated. *We* won. we are not divided; we are united. the RINOs who support amnesty have divided themselves from the GOP base, but they can make that right by returning to conservative principles on this matter.
” The bill was a trap, but not in the fashion others have said. The Democrats were and are fully aware that if this abomination were to get signed into law, there would be an immediate and massive backlash against those seen as responsible. Because President Bush was behind this bill, the Republicans could be portrayed as responsible if a significant number of them voted for it. But had the Democrats in either house forced it through over unanimous or near-unaninous rejection by Republicans, such portrayal wouldn’t work.
If a third of the Republicans could be persuaded to vote for the bill, then it would have been incredibly in the Democrats’ best interest to pass it (they get a huge benefit in immigrant votes, while Republicans bear most of the backlash). But without significant Republican acquiescence, the Democrats couldn’t pass it without the backlash harming them far more severely than the new voters would help them.”
Well said. You have captured the political calculus of the Democrats precisely and exactly.
A further conclusion of this analysis is that the Democrats, even in 2009, will be hard pressed to push for amnesty on a grand scale, even if they have the White House. So they will do it the way Clinton did it, on the sly and in small increments.
Excellent observation. Practical upshot is that when we vote next year we'll have to track each incumbent's votes through the entire Scamnesty I and Scamnesty II proceedings, including their position in the order of the roll call, to weed out the senators who cast CYA "No" votes.
Morris is such an idiot and is wrong so often, it makes you wonder how he could possibly help get anyone elected.
As long as the bill looked like having a chance, the Dems could look forward to support from the millions of newly legal immigrant voters that it would create, who would more than offset the loss of the disgusted working-class union-member Dems whose jobs were taken away from them and given to the "newcomers." But when the senators saw that the bill was tanking and that they didn't have enough votes to rescue it, they scurried like a pack of jackals to secure their own re-election prospects, figuring that a "No" vote would restore their credibility with their traditional base.
As for Morris, no argument. His only redeeming feature is that he seems to despise Hitlery... although sometimes I wonder about that, too.
You made me go look it up (LOL!). I was going from memory, and the $35,000 number stuck in my mind because it seemed low to me. The only place I could find numbers at this late date is the 2004 election roundup on cnn.com. They say the line is somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 where people decisively turn from D to R. They don’t have it broken down by race or ethnicity, though.
I was told the same thing about the “the black vote” in school, too. Maybe it used to be true. But, anecdotally, I live in an upper middle class neighborhood with all races. The one thing we all have in common is we have worked like dogs to get here. Based on comments and bumper stickers, my black neighbors and my Hispanic neighbors were, without exception, supporting the Republicans in 2004.
I think if you’re smart enough and ambitious enough to earn a high income, you’ve learned how to think outside the box. Which is why the Dems are so desperate to import a new underclass and legalize them so they eventually gain voting rights. They need a new influx of poor, easily-manipulated voters.
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.