Skip to comments.GOP Wages War Against Its Conservatives
Posted on 06/30/2004 9:38:32 PM PDT by Reagan Man
Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo is in big trouble with the GOP leadership. And just what, you may be wondering, is his great sin? "Team America," a political action committee originally founded by Tancredo, worked to unseat Representative Chris Cannon, a liberal Republican from Utah, by supporting Matthew Throckmorton, his challenger in the Republican primary.
Chief among those organizations caterwauling about the actions of Tancredo is the liberal "Tuesday Group," a coalition of approximately thirty liberal Republican House members whose goal is to steer the party to the left. Hiding under the cloak of a grossly distorted rendition of Ronald Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), the Tuesday Group is now expressing concern that party conservatives are finally making efforts to strike back.
Apparently, undermining the conservative agenda by abandoning the party at key junctures during the legislative process is perfectly fine with these Republican "centrists." But any discussion of such matters by conservatives, who have tired of seeing their party abandoning its principles, is strictly taboo. By such hypocritical assertions, these liberal "Trojan Horses" hope to continue dominating party politics from within.
Of course Ronald Reagan never intended for his "Eleventh Commandment" to be arbitrarily invoked as a means of allowing liberalism to spread, unchecked, within the ranks of the GOP. Rather, it was supposed to prevent the sort of backbiting and mud slinging within party ranks, which can ultimately undermine the credibility of the entire party.
House Majority leader Tom Delay, a longtime champion of conservatism, has found himself in the middle of this row. Seeking to maintain a cohesive Republican majority, he is promoting themes of "team spirit" and "comity" among party members. Delay even referenced Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" in a meeting with Tancredo in which the Colorado Congressman was apparently warned to change his ways and endorse a unified party, or face retribution within Republican circles.
Unfortunately, such rhetoric fails to deal with the fact that it is the Republican liberals who regularly undermine party unity by voting with Democrats at critical junctures. With such people constantly placing the philosophies of liberalism ahead of traditional Republican principle, the only manner in which even a facade of "unity" can be maintained is for the entire party to shift to the left. This, of course, is precisely the strategy of the liberal Republicans.
Tancredo's major issue of concern is unchecked illegal immigration and the resulting compromise of America's borders. Hardly a miniscule "pet issue" of a fringe constituency, the immigration problem goes to the very core of maintaining America's national integrity and heritage. Little else of GOP principles or goals can be regarded as significant in any way, as long the party remains indifferent to the invasion of the nation's borders by a flood of illegal immigrants who, as soon as they are able to do so, will vote against such things. Yet, major forces within the GOP are once again actively working to insure that at best, the Republican counterpart to Democrat plans of opening the borders will only amount to a watered-down version of the very same thing.
By supporting truly conservative Republican challengers, Tancredo's PAC hopes to specifically target key players of the open borders advocacy for defeat during their respective state primaries. While it is not entirely clear whether or not Tancredo is still officially participating with the work of the PAC, his political ideology remains consistent with that of its members. Tancredo realizes that threats to the future of the nation are no less virulent when advanced by so-called "Republicans," than when spawned by their traditional advocates, the Democrats.
Tom Delay has, in the past, shown himself to be extremely principled, with the one notable exception being his support, under severe White House pressure, for an education bill that was essentially crafted by Ted Kennedy. He knows that if his party persists in its claims to uphold both high and low standards, only the low standards will prevail. Though presently striving to remain within the boundaries of party loyalty, he is surely aware that, as a principled conservative, his own future is no less threatened by the underhanded actions of the "moderates" than is Tancredo.
For Delay and Tancredo, whose differences are far outweighed by their political common ground, the most pressing matter is to maintain the party according to conservative principle rather than allowing the "centrists" to reinvent it in the image of the Democrats.
No, you're showing everyone your true colors with your childish attacks of another FReeper behind their back.
If you have something duragatory to say about another FReeper, you ping them to the post.
Sneaking around behind someone's back is a childish, Liberal tactic.
"I have nothing more to say to you...:
It looks like you have plenty more to say about me, just be man enough to say it to my face or send Saber a private Freepmail.
You call names and insult but when the barbs are returned you go and cry to the Admin."
Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't me that had your posts pulled. I didn't even see them.
Someone else must have believed you went over the line and the Admin Mod agreed, but it wasn't me.
No, all I did was respond to your first personal attack of me. Nothing more.
"I'm not gonna to play with you anymore."
I'll just let everyone else draw their own conclusions about you from that one.
Have a Happy 4th of July, everyone!
Exactly. Tell us why you're not going to vote for him and we'll tell you what you're blaming him for. If he loses, you lose. A vote for anyone but him or no vote at all helps Kerry.
The Republicans will fight Kerry or any other Liberal non-Republican tooth and nail on everything else.
Remember how the Republicans fought Bill and Hillary on socialized medicine and the Conservative Republican revolution that followed?
That's better than 4 more years of surrender to the Liberals, IMO.
Clinton, Gore and other serious Democrat Presidential hopefuls never had the stones to propose stabbing Ronald Reagan and the U.S. Taxpayers in the back with another amnesty for illegal aliens until Bush upped the ante in the bidding war for the Liberal Hispanic vote.
The Republicans can't out-Hispander the Democrats.
Any Republican that tries doesn't deserve the Conservative vote.
I never said that. Go back and read post #274
(My statement about GWB)
I voted for him then and I don't plan on voting against him in 2004.
Did you mis-read that statement. No way am I voting for Kerry.
Amen to that. They're beginning to look like opposite sides of the same coin.
Here is a Link to The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Ronald Reagan signed it into law. What Chris Cannon has supported or not supported or co-sponsored and his resulting bad effect on illegal immigration is only a subset of what Ronald Reagan signed into law and the resulting bad effects that it had on illegal immigration. The biggest difference of all is the almost-blanket citizenship amnesty that was in the 1986 Act.
Yeah, I do. Obviously, you don't.
No, you don't know what you are talking about and your criticism of Cannon as you wear the "Regan Man" screen name means that you are hypocritical.
You are right. My oops.
Contrary to your lazy and distorted response, I do what I'm talking about. If you took the time to read the facts I posted on Cannon's voting record as it relates to immigration policy voted upon by the US Congress, you would agree with me. Cannon's voting record on the immigration issue is atrocious and that's why Tom Tancredo and others opposed Cannon's candidacy.
As for the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, in all honesty, I went along with it. I was wrong. Reagan was wrong. It was the first comprehensive attempt to face the challenges of immigration reform. It didn't get the job done. It failed. It granted a blanket amnesty to illegal aliens and opened up the borders to millions of other illegals who chose to break US law and enter the US illegally.
Congress has passed 7 amnesties for illegal aliens, starting in 1986. Here's a list of the amnesties granted since the infamous 1986 amnesty legislation.
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty, 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens
8. Nine current bills are vying to be Amnesty No. 8
Instead of making comments based on ignorance, do some reading on the subject matter of immigration.
New INS Report:
1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration
WASHINGTON (Oct. 12, 2000) The report on America's illegal immigration crisis by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), released today on Capitol Hill, highlights the profound unintended consequences of illegal-alien amnesties, just as Congress is considering another such amnesty. The report also makes clear, contrary to the conventional wisdom, that legal and illegal immigration are so intimately connected as to be two sides of the same coin.
The report represents a genuine effort by the INS to examine this complex problem. The new estimates are the best to date and provide valuable new information for policymakers and the public. Among the findings, and their implications:
Amnesties clearly do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. About 2.7 million people received lawful permanent residence ("green cards") in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the amnesties contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. But these new INS figures show that by the beginning of 1997 those former illegal aliens had been entirely replaced by new illegal aliens, and that the unauthorized population again stood at more than 5 million, just as before the amnesty.
In fact, the new INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their family members. The flow of illegals grew dramatically during the years of the amnesty to more than 800,000 a year, before dropping back down to around 500,000 a year.
While it might be supposed that the increase in illegal immigration was caused only by the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions of the 1986 amnesty, the INS report indicates that this was not the case. Figures in the report itself show that illegal immigration surged more dramatically from countries other than Mexico. Since the vast majority of those amnestied under SAW were from Mexico, the increase should have been mostly Mexican if the SAW provision had been responsible for the surge.
Overall, the estimates show that nearly 500,000 illegal aliens settled here each year in the mid-1990s. This total number of new illegal settlers is offset by about 145,000 illegals who returned home on their own each year, 40,000 deportations, 20,000 deaths, and around 150,000 illegals receiving green cards as part of the normal "legal" immigration process.
The report clearly demonstrates that legal and illegal immigration are intimately linked, and not separate phenomena, as is commonly supposed. Between 1987 and 1996, the report states that 1.3 million green cards were given out to illegal aliens as part of the normal "legal" immigration process (189,000 in 1996 alone) separate from the 2.7 million illegals who received legal status under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
The 1.3 million green cards given out to illegals between 1987 and 1996 dwarf immigration enforcement efforts. According to the new estimates, only 335,000 illegals were deported or required to leave the country by the INS during the same period.
"The fact that these new INS figures show that the last amnesty actually attracted more illegal immigration should give serious pause to those now advocating another amnesty," said Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies. "With the government estimating that nearly half a million illegal aliens settle permanently in the United States each year, the new estimates indicate that we have not yet regained control over our nation's borders."
These numbers suggest that Congress's focus on border enforcement as almost the sole means of controlling illegal immigration is inadequate. Illegal immigration can be controlled only with a strategy that combines border enforcement with efforts to turn off the magnets that attract illegal aliens in the first place jobs and green cards. Thus, the missing elements of our illegal immigration policy are muscular enforcement of the prohibition on hiring illegal workers and deep, permanent cuts in legal immigration.
The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States.
I never said that Cannon's voting record on immigration wasn't atrocious. What I did say was that Cannon's voting record on immigration is worse than Reagan's. Why do YOU distort my comments. Are you being lazy or are you being disingenuous?
As for the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, in all honesty, I went along with it. I was wrong. Reagan was wrong.
So Cannon's record on immigration is "atrocious" and Reagan's record on the same is "wrong". LOL! Reagan's record on immigration is worse because it included citizenship amnesty for a large number of illegals.
It was the first comprehensive attempt to face the challenges of immigration reform.
Again, you soft-pedal the Act of '86.
Nine current bills are vying to be Amnesty No. 8
You keep cutting and pasting examples of Cannon and "Amnesty" and you continue to ignore my one-and-only more important point of "Citizenship Amnesty". The forgiveness and the awarding of legal temporary status, with little or no additional adjustment of annual green card quotas is so very different than Reagan's blanket citizenship amnesty, where annual green card quotas were ignored.
All of the bad immigration things that Cannon has advocated doesn't add up to the massive "Citizenship Amnesty" that Reagan signed in 1986.
That's been my only point. Don't cloud the issue, don't misrepresent what I said, don't cut and paste things that are beside the point that I make and do, please do, use your own words instead of massive cut and pastes.
Have a safe and happy 4th of July.
Your comments stand on their own. No need for you to backtrack and obfuscate the issue and there's no need to cover most of the same ground again.
>>>You keep cutting and pasting examples of Cannon and "Amnesty" and you continue to ignore my one-and-only more important point of "Citizenship Amnesty".
I've ignored nothing. However, when you say to someone, "The writer of this article doesn't know his "arse from a whole in the ground", do you?", you open up a can of worms. That's what you did. Next time I suggest, you keep your big mouth shut.
Cutting and pasting is normal behavior for FreeRepublic, especially when you're trying to educate the ignorant. Not only was I the one who posted the article thread, if you look back at the post where I laid out Cannon's voting record, you will see it was not made just to you.
If you find objection to my use of the words "wrong" and "atrocious" in relation to Reagan and the IRCA of 1986, and Chris Cannon's current voting record on amnesty for illegals, respectively, too bad. That was then and this is now. We don't need to repeat the same mistakes the feds made back in 1986. Bush`s recent proposals for immigration reform are based on granting another round of amnesty to illegals. That is bad policy and is heading the nation down the wrong road again. Chris Cannon supports Bush`s proposals. I do not.
In addition. PresReagan went along with granting legal status to illegal aliens, only after demanding that any employer incentives to hire illegal aliens be abolished. This meant that if caught, employers who hired illegals would pay stiff fines. Some considered this overly harsh sanctions, but they were placed into the final version of the legislation. Without them, Reagan would have veto`d it.
The sad part is, eventually people like Ted Kennedy gutted the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions and campigned against giving the Border Patrol those resources required stop the massive border crossings of the late 1980`s and throughout the 1990`s. And it would appear Chris Cannon went along with FatTeddyK.
Guess you overlooked my remarks about the major push being made by AGJOBS coalition, a coalition of organizations and associations promoting cheap labor, to pressure Congress to pass H.R. 3142. HR 3142 is co-sponsored by Reps. Chris Cannon, Howard Berman (D-CA) and the Senate version S.1645, sponsored by Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Its an illegal alien amnesty that will doom agricultural workers to poverty and could add up to 3 million to U.S. population
>>> ... please do, use your own words instead of massive cut and pastes.
Is that all you have to say? LOL Why should I rewrite some very fine analysis accomplished by experts on the amnesty and immigration issues. Get a grip bucko.
It was you "Reagan Man" back in post #31 who opened up the can of worms on this thread by accusing another poster -- who had a different point of view -- of not knowing his arse from a hole in the ground. Do you actually forget that or are you a hypocrite?
The choice is simple. If you want to be treated with respect, I would suggest that you treat others who have a different point-of-view on this subject with respect. And if you don't, then I'll send right back at you.
As for me, I will remain here as long as I have the privilege and I will point out hypocrisy and rudeness every chance. If you don't like it then you can keep your rude mouth shut. I'll be seeing you...
Grow up. Nobody's waging war on conservatives. This is little more than an election year tempest in a teapot.
LOL This is hilarious. Whatever happened way back at post #31, had nothing to do with you and certainly has nothing to do with the immigration and amnesty debate. Going back to post #31 at this stage means only one thing. You know you lost the argument and now your trying to cover your butt. Now that you've come out on the short end of the stick, you're grasping for any excuse you can find.
>>>If you want to be treated with respect...
I don't ever expect respect from the likes of you, but I hope you stick around. I always enjoy a good laugh. As for being rude. Not me. I debated the facts and you ran for cover. Look. If you can't stand the heat of honest debate, stay off the forum. Next time I suggest you don't get involved in something that is obviously over your head and out of your league. You've been thoroughly whipped. Now go lick your wounds bucko.
["Reagan Man", Post #31]:I concluded some time back CJ, that you don't know you're arse from a hole in the ground. Take that as my final word to you. Dingbat.
Post #30 has nothing to do with immigration? You are wrong....again.
What happened in post #31 had nothing to do with me? Well then by that logic, my comments about the author has nothing to do with you. Yet you complained about my comments about the author several posts ago and you even went to say it opened a can of worms.
Logically, if your comment about CJ has nothing to do with me, then my comment about the author has nothing to do with you.
Your illogic shows again, and again....and again...
No amount of hyperbole can hide the long record of your posts on this thread. They are hypocritical, delusional and with your faithfulness of "expert analysis" without question, they show you to be a dupe. I stand by everything I've said....and as I said before, I will respond again on similar judgments.
LOL, if that -- a typo -- is what you base your backtracking comment on then you are desperate.
Reagan had a worse record on immigration -- he gave citizenship amnesty to almost every illegal. Cannon has not done that.
"The writer of this article doesn't know his "arse from a whole in the ground", do you?"
By tagging on "do you", you opened yourself up a can of worms and I returned the favor by opening up a can of factual whoopass on you. You didn't like that and I don't blame you. You're response was to start whining.
>>>I stand by everything I've said....and as I said before, I will respond again on similar judgments.
Riiiight. And Michael Moore stands by everything he says too. LOL Sorry bucko. You and Michael Moore both live on the outer limits of the twilight zone. Typical loser mentality.
By tagging on "do you", you opened yourself up...
By posting an article and then initiating personal attack against CJ who disagreed with you, you got what you deserved.
The poster simply disagreed and you ran like the loser that you are, and you hid behind a personal attack.
BTW, I agreed with CJ's response. Your remark was a personal attack against all who disagreed with it. So, as I said be fore, you got what you deserved.
You give respect, you get it. You act like an arse, you get kicked in it.
disagreed (should be) ---> agree
Perfect summation of the article.
Does anyone have the names of these liberal RepublicRATS?
More silly talk. The fact is, you got more upset than CJ did and in the process of allowing your emotions to rule, you lost the debate. Face it. You got your head handed to you. LOL All you've succeeded in doing on this thread, is to make yourself look very foolish. I suggest you learn to control your emotions. But something tells me you have another juvenile outburst on the way. Right, "Michael".
I've had no luck locating any info on the internet concerning the "Tuesday Group". If I do come across anything, I'll pass it along.
Swing by the American Conservative Union (ACU). They rank members of Congress on their voting records. It's the best system I've found for a general summation of where our elected CongressCritters stand on the issues. There's also a website called "On the Issues". It gives some additional data and information on politicians. From Congressmen, to Presidents to Governors.
...you lost the debate.
You sound insecure about that. You can't let the record stand by itself can you?
Let the record stand for itself.
I concluded some time back FreeReign, that you don't know you're arse from a hole in the ground. Take that as my final word to you. Dingbat.
Chris Cannon. ACU lifetime rating in 7 YOS is 96 out of 100.
Up yours idiot.