Posted on 05/17/2006 7:47:58 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 05/17/2006 8:30:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
The Republican Party is a coalition of voters with different interests.
You've got Republicans who are BusinessBots, TaxBots, AbortionBots, GunBots, BorderBots and WarBots.
Clearly YOUR view of the "Number One Issue" is the War On Terror. I doubt there are many who are far away from viewing the WOT as a top issue. But you said that the Border is somewhere around number 5 in issue importance. That reflects your view of the issue.
They don't agree, and we probably can't win the election without them.
What's going on is that the BusinessBots are getting their way on cheap labor, and the BorderBots are getting the back of the hand. That works for keeping the business contributions to Republican coffers at a maximum, but it might also work to keep BorderBot voters at a minimum...which will mean the loss of power, which will make the WOT more difficult to fight.
So, you need to re-evaluate your view of the importance of the immigration issue. It's not an issue that interests you on the MERITS, perhaps, but politically speaking it is the most important issue as concerns the War On Terror. Why? Because the immigration issue is the one that looks to carve a fatal wound in the GOP vote, as BorderBots defect. That hands Congress to the Democrats and loses the WOT.
So, to win the WOT, you've got to get the BorderBots back on board, even if you're not interested in their issue, and are angry with them for jeopardizing YOUR "Alpha issue", the WOT by their threatened defection.
I take their threat seriously. Immigration is the issue that is shaking the Republican Party to people. Sooner or later, the party is going to have to do things that hurt the BusinessBots a bit, not too much, in order to placate the BorderBots. Pretending that the border's a non-issue isn't going to do that: it's going to lose the election and thereby, the War. Giving the BorderBots the back of the hand isn't going to do it either.
They have to be taken seriously, on their own terms, and given something, or the well of political support runs dry, Congress changes hands, and the funds for Iraq are cut very quickly.
The War On Terror probably depends on appeasing the BorderBots. If the WOT really is the Number One Priority, then giving the BorderBots what they want in order to keep Congress and the WOT on track really shouldn't be so hard.
What is the CONSEQUENCE of giving the BorderBots their agenda? Do other Republicans stop voting for the GOP because the Border is closed? Democrats aren't going to vote GOP anyway.
If the WOT is that important, then you must understand the need to get the BorderBots back on board. Otherwise we're sunk.
Just when I think your posts won't get dumber they do.
And another fine, fact-filled exchange from you as well.
Once again, how many people have been murdered by illegals? Killed by illegals driving under the influence (they do have a higher propensity for that than the general population, you know).
There is little to be done with the Cut Off Their Noses to Spite Their Facers. It is one threat after the other from them and as a consequence they cannot be TRUSTED or relied upon. And they are NOT the base. The Base sticks with the President through thick and thin and defends him against the enemies of us all. The Base does not cut and run away whining about the issue de jour.
And if you believe building a fence will do it I can only say you must not have been paying attention since 2000.
Too bad the Bush Admin and the likes of justshutupandtakeit are too arrogant to listen. They have created a complete rationalization of this process and now live in a political gated community where inconvenient facts are turned away.
"There is little to be done with the Cut Off Their Noses to Spite Their Facers. It is one threat after the other from them and as a consequence they cannot be TRUSTED or relied upon. And they are NOT the base. The Base sticks with the President through thick and thin and defends him against the enemies of us all. The Base does not cut and run away whining about the issue de jour."
I disagree profoundly.
The TaxBots walked right out of the party and voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because Bush 41 broke his "No new taxes" pledge.
The AbortionBots were ready to abandon the GOP over Miers. They had spend too many years in the trenches building slow momentum, with the Supreme Court as the target, to allow the President to gamble everything on somebody they did not trust. They abandoned the President, and got in his face. At that point, the President flinched and gave them what they wanted, because there was no strong OPPOSING constituency within the GOP fighting for Miers other than Bush himself (note, however, that BusinessBots do tend to be socially liberal and pro-choice; however, abortion is not a direct dollars and cents issue, and if the choice is a pro-life judge or higher Democrat taxes, BusinessBots will stick with a pro-life GOP). Once again, a key, core constituency was at the threshold and walking out the door, and had to be brought back with a concession.
Now, perhaps there was some overlap between the 1992 TaxBots and the 2005 AbortionBots, but probably less than you'd think. Most pro-lifers are religious Christians, and not very well off. Tax cuts barely benefit most of them anyway, because many are so poor they don't pay federal income taxes. So, you have two separate constituencies that have both threatened to abandon a President Bush if he did not accede to their wishes. Bush 43 did, so the AbortionBots didn't defect, but Bush 41 didn't, and the TaxBots marched out and either stayed home or voted for Perot in protest.
Did the TaxBots cut off their nose to spite their face? Not in the long run, no. They got Congress back in 1994, and no national Republican has supported a tax hike since. The party understands that taxes are one of the "third rails" of Republican politics.
Did the AbortionBots cut off their nose to spite their face last year? No. They got judge Alito instead of Miers, because the President looked into their eyes and saw that they were not bluffing.
You imply that there is a cadre of screamers in the GOP. Maybe. But I think that TaxBots, AbortionBots and BorderBots are different groups of people. Of course there is some overlap, but there are millions of single-issue voters. Other than taxes, pro-life issues, and the border now, I can't think of any other issue all the way back to Reagan's taking power in 1980 that had Republicans screaming so loudly that the base was imperilled. In short: I don't see the professional screamers you see. I see committed blocs of single issue voters.
Now, as to "the base sticking with the President through thick and thin", I would say that is true of the BushBot loyalist base. To you folks (I am assuming you are one of them), the party is ABOUT following the leadership of the President. That's what party MEANS. So single-issue folks who will abandon the President vocally and catastrophically anger you, because you think that's betrayal.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that Bush loyalists are THE base of the Republican Party, as you do. I think that if Bush were proposing anti-gun legislation as McCain has, that GunBot conservatives would come out of the hills and make it clear that they were going to tube the GOP if it didn't back off. When you hold power through a coalition of single-issue factions, you've got to keep each of those factions.
There are not an unlimited number of factions: Tax Hawks, Pro-Lifers, Gun Rights advocates, Business and Party loyalists. That the Border was SUCH a contentious issue as to have its own militant faction within the Party was not fully visible until this year. But it is now, and we cannot win without them, so just like all of the other core constituencies, we have to give them something that they want. Unfortunately, unlike the other core constituencies, whose interests do not conflict one with the other, the BorderBots key issue directly harms the finances of BusinessBots. An enforced border means heavy additional costs to employers. So, somebody is going to be made unhappy by the decision, whichever way it goes. Thus far, the Party has gone 100% with the BusinessBots, to the point of improving the situation for businesses by proposing a massive guest labor program. That is going to drive a million BorderBots right out of the Party if it is sustained. Business gives a lot of money, but it can't vote. That's the problem.
Anyway, I don't think your "Screw 'em, they're not reliable anyway" view is going to work - unless we want to lose - and I don't think it's true anyway. I think BorderBots are reliable conservatives who are ate up about the Border.
And I don't think that refusing to give them what they want, when what they want is enforcement of existing laws and the reasonable closing of the Border, is absurd or excessive. I think that failing to give them anything is going to cost us Congress, and that means we lose the war and the President is impeached. We can't afford that. So we have to appease these people. We can always reverse ourselves later if they don't come back.
I consider this issue to be the height of stupidity when it becomes Rule or Ruin and can never support giving in to stupidity. Your analysis is glib but greatly overrates the separation between the Single Issuers. If such was the case I would not be seeing the same names threatening yet again to doom the party by staying home. Nor do I share your optimism that they can be appeased short of Nuking Mexico City.
And the costs of allowing Clinton to achieve office greatly exceeded any benefit the Gullible achieved by voting for a Crackpot. It endangered our National Security to such an extent we are now threatened far more than we were. It allowed al Queda and Iraq to become a far greater problem than it should. And it disgraced the Presidency and showed just how deluded the American People can be at times.
Nor was Miers opposed to anything the Pro-life wing wanted no matter what they thought. Miers would have been confirmed had she not withdrawn after the Lynch Mob formed and went howling through the streets.
A political leader of merit cannot hop from one group of outraged to the other without becoming a democrat. That is one of the things I admire in the President, his refusal to vacilate with the wind direction.
To me the party is NOT about the President per se. It is about defending and standing up with the President when under outrageous attacks by corps of Liars because he is doing the RIGHT thing. We see NOTHING positive coming out of a reduction in GOP power and IMMENSE harm to the Nation.
"I consider this issue to be the height of stupidity when it becomes Rule or Ruin and can never support giving in to stupidity."
If you really believe that, then your FIRST principle is not to win the War On Terror, but to stand for the principle of never giving in to stupidity.
In politics, to achieve the greater goal, you often have to give in to a lot of what you think is stupidity on a lot of other fronts, because those other fronts are all somebody else's greater goal.
In this case, if the Democrats get Congress, funds are cut for operations in Iraq and the War On Terror is lost. Democrats will get Congress if the BorderBots leave. The BorderBots look like they have left, and won't come back unless they get what they want. You won't give them what they want, because you think it is stupid, and you think that giving into stupidity is the worst sin of all.
Which means that you're willing to lose the war in order to teach a lesson to the stupid.
I wouldn't stand on the "teaching a lesson" principle if I were you. Nobody ever learns that sort of lesson.
The better thing to do is focus on what you think is most important. Winning the War On Terror is a noble goal. To win it, you need to keep Congress. To do that, you have to give some people you think are stupid, demanding and petulant what they want. It's your only shot, and it doesn't cost you anything other than the irritation of agreeing to stupid things to appease stupid people.
But that's the price.
If, instead, you eschew winning the War On Terror in pursuit of the "higher" goal of teaching "stupid" people a lesson by not giving into them on principle, they won't get what they want, and the War On Terror will be lost. The plane crashes, and they will blame you and not learn a damned thing anyway.
With men, it's best to stick with the possible. Making stupid people smart is not possible, either way. I'm confident there are plenty of them who think YOU'RE stupid.
But you can work with stupid people to get the biggest part of your agenda. You originally stated that was the War On Terror. You originally stated that the War On Terror is an absolute, which we MUST win.
Here, you've said that you can NEVER support giving in to stupidity?
Well, you HAVE TO, if you want to win the War On Terror.
So, which is it going to be?
I think you were right all along: the War On Terror is too important to lose. And that means that you actually HAVE to "give into stupidity" on the Border and give the BorderBots substantially what they want. Otherwise the war is lost with Congress. And that's just not worth it in the service of stubbornness.
Knuckle under, or take the blame...nope, sorry, not buying it.
All they have to do to get the base on board is stick with the bird in the hand. You want to make it the bird's fault if the republicans lose it all going for "the one in the bush."
Not even ten years later, and they forget the lessons of 2000...
Sorry, wrong guy...
And she would have "grown" once she took her seat, too.
Then lose, just like in 1992.
And then next year the new Contract With America II will contain a border fence and no amnesty talk until it's in place.
The GOP will eventually get there. The only question, really, is whether they do it in control of Congress, or lose Congress and then do it. Or perhaps lose Congress and then STILL not do it, because the Business wing of the party is too strong.
I guess we'll see.
I'd prefer to make the correction now rather than losing and having to make it then. But I think where you stand is where the party leadership stands. Which is why I believe the Democrats will take Congress in the Fall, because you're not going to yield, and neither are the BorderBots. Mutually assured destruction within the party, therefore.
It's too bad, but what can you do?
I agree with you, and I do remember 92 lead to 94.
You're also correct about me not changing my position. I have never voted for anything but republicans since my first vote for Ronald Reagan, and I'm not about to vote for a democrat just because he belongs to the republican party.
"Where I get lost is the fact that Dubya has to 'comply' with the cheap labor crowd ...OK, I can sort of buy that (choke) but why the 'path to citizenship'. Is he not aware of what happened to California?"
He doesn't HAVE to. He chooses to. Remember, W was a CEO. He's a businessman, and is very business oriented. He understands the Business Roundtable's arguments as to why they need cheap labor. That is the reason for the guest worker program: it allows as much cheap labor as American industry needs, but at lower wages and without regular US protections. It protects BUSINESS, primarily, because business no longer faces prosecution for hiring cheap foreign labor. Right now, business is engaged in illegal activity, but is not prosecuted for it. Guest worker allows business to get the same cheap labor, but with the threat of prosecution removed.
Why the "path to citizenship"? Because the President is a humanitarian Christian. Millions of people have settled in the US. They don't want to leave. They've bought houses and made their lives here. There's no will to expend the energy needed to uproot and expel all 20 million of them, and so they continue to live in the shadows, exploitable and insecure. W thinks that this is inhumane, and that they need to be regularized. That's why.
Say anything you want. It won't change my stance toward putting the nation's interests ahead of the party's. It won't change the opinions of the people here that matter to me. Actually, I wouldn't mind if they lined up to wizz on my grave so long as they vote for the most conservative candidates possible while telling the pseudo-cons to take a flying stab at a rolling donut.
"Threads such as this show that they reflect what is happening at FR."
I have no doubt if the "Hate it/hate Bush" option in the poll had been seperated into two options, a majority of those who picked "Too little-too late" and "take out the guest worker part" would've chosen "Hate it".
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.