Issue of Illegal Immigration Is Quandary for Democrats

Washington Post ^ | November 2, 2007 | Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne E. Kornblut

[CottonBall]

Time to ask Rudy The Big Question.....he will lie, of course : )

But of course. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Rudy, I really won't care which ones wins. Hillary might be a tad more to the left than Rudy, but the RINOs in Congress will follow Rudy over the cliff. They just might have the guts to oppose Hillary now and again.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“but the RINOs in Congress will follow Rudy over the cliff. “

They sure would!!!!

[Miss Didi]

Rush said today that the bloom is off the rose.

[arthurus]

If Guliani were to call a special press conference to say that "This has gone too far and our country is now endangered," then lay out ambitious and believable and doable plans to reverse the tide of illegal immigration- complete the wall now! fine and jail employers of illegals now! etc., if he then insisted on this new revelation every time he speaks along with his other issues, he would have clear sailing through the election. I would not vote for him, even then, but I think he would win. It is THE issue in the country that has had no effective voice because the MSM opposis and gives it no air and the leaders, almost all of them in both parties, have been pro-illegal.

I say Giuliani because he is the one already in the MSM eye and is still the leading candidate. He would get the air time, the serious commentary, even if it is all rabidly negative.

If he were to do these things, the problem would begin to fix itself as the election gets closer and the issue gets loud and likely to be addressed, whoever is elected.

[arthurus]

If LOST gets ratified now all of the rest of this falls to the level of knock-knock jokes.

[kabar]

How come the Dream Act went down to defeat?

[arthurus]

I doubt that such a concept has ever been considered by Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Such a concept would not even be understood by the Clintons. It is if the maker o the proposal had begun with "I think that..." and the rest of the sentence might as well be in Urdu. The words would not be understood, much less the concept.

[arthurus]

How many votes might Spitzer get outside of New York and New Jersey?

[kabar]

It is THE issue in the country that has had no effective voice because the MSM opposis and gives it no air and the leaders, almost all of them in both parties, have been pro-illegal.

Fred Thompson has the best and most comprehensive plan on immigration of any candidate of either party

[arthurus]

I have become a Hunter fan finally but would not be unhappy if Thompson becomes the nominee. His CFR enthusiastic support is a bit troubling, however.

[kabar]

The 19 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued U.S. driver's licenses between them. What were they using that many for? They were moving around the country undetected and plotting and planning. In fact, as many as eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used those bogus licenses to board U.S. planes.

Cong. Ed Royce--Dec 7, 2004.

[Inspectorette]

How many votes might Spitzer get outside of New York and New Jersey?

Unless things change drastically, he'd get California, along with all other blue states. As you know, it's all about electoral votes, and a lot of large states are blue. As far as states that have been trending blue, it would depend upon who his Republican opponent would be. Unfortunately, many of the red states don't have a lot of electoral votes.

[KC_Conspirator]

Precisely.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Indeed!

[Miss Didi]

Rush: Now, Hillary has blown it. She has really disappointed them. First with lack of answers -- these people in the media are liberals, and they want to hear it. They don't want to hear full-fledged, but they don't like this hedging. They don't like having to cover this. You can see the impatience in a lot of print journalists' work on Mrs. Clinton. They also don't like the fact that now she's playing the girl, now she's playing the victim. That is genuine; they are disappointed; she has let them down. They want to be able to hear a lie delivered flawlessly. That's where she doesn't have the substance and talent of her husband. Bill used to be able to give them every lie they wanted to hear as smooth as if it was the truth from God. And they sat there knowing full well it was a lie, or lies, but they marveled. Mrs. Clinton can't do it. Mrs. Clinton does not have one-tenth the substance, nor the skill, nor the talent of her husband in that regard. This campaign of hers, I'll guarantee you something, the Democrats want to shield from the country what they really think about illegal immigration, Mrs. Clinton is going to have to shield the country from what she thinks about everything if she has any hope of getting elected. And she'd have to do that for 13 months, folks.

Will people let her get away with that for 13 months? She's not the first lady now. She is on stage as the preemptive favorite to win the Democrat nomination. She has this aura of inevitability around her. She's not going to get away hedging, taking both sides or no side of an issue for 13 months. The press is not going to be satisfied. Now, it may well be in this instance, I mean don't misunderstand, they're not going to defect from Mrs. Clinton in terms of support, they may get over this, and we may have Hillary, in her next debate, whether it is or not, may be labeled as a stunning grand-slam home run, wow, what a comeback. Probably will be something along those lines. I think that something's happened here. I think the bloom is off the rose, there's not so much awe; there's a little disappointment that the press has in her because she just doesn't have it. And to go through 13 months without telling us one thing what she wants to do isn't gonna fly.



Mrs. Clinton Lacks Bill's Talent



Mrs. Clinton: Victim-in-Chief

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thanks, that was fun!

B T T T

[Miss Didi]

More from today's show...

Debate Rehearsal: Bill Coaches Hil



Driver's Licenses for Illegals Issue Started Here and Will Haunt Hillary

[Plutarch]

Democratic strategists remain hopeful that the GOP's anti-illegal immigration rhetoric will hurt them among Latinos...

Keep hoping, Dems. If it hurts Republicans, it is to a small degree with a small percentage of the electorate. Taking a robust stand against illegal immigration will help to a large degree with a majority of the electorate, including many Dems.

Poll from South Carolina. See that the majority of Democrats favor immediate deportation:

[Liz]

How many votes might Spitzer get outside of New York and New Jersey?................ Unless things change drastically, he'd get California, along with all other blue states.

Amazingly----in Democratic strongholds such as New York and California------one pollster said voters oppose such plans by 75%.

After Clinton's debate fumble, one Republican strategist was jumping up and down with joy: "Licensing is an 80-20 issue for us and they're walking right into it." That would be "80-20," as in 80% of Americans oppose it.

Anti-illegal licensing is a rare consensus issue in politics.

As the strategist said: “You probably couldn't get 80% of Americans to go to a baseball game. Or eat apple pie. Or talk to their mother. But giving illegal aliens driver's licenses? "The vast majority of Americans are against this - especially among likely voters.“

[ModelBreaker]

it was all them not me... that’s what people keep saying

Nope. I fought hard. It takes two to have a fight. To be sure, the national party did start the fight. Had they left amnesty alone and moved to border security only, there would never have been a fight. But no doubt, conservatives continued the fight. And, the party leadership started the name calling too (remember "vigilantes" escalating to "rascists?").

But there's nothing wrong with a fight, as long as it's about something important. The "circular firing squad" language is always used by people who are about to get their way and want the folks who oppose them to shut up. The implication of the language is that we are killing each other over nothing.

But this was much more than a circular firing squad. The base saved the party leadership from itself, which was about to commit suicide on behalf of the entire party. And some important markers were laid down in that fight about what the Republican party stands for. And the presidential candidates noticed. You don't find them running around arguing that amnesty is a good idea this year (even if they secretly think it is). Eight years ago, our leading candidate was doing just that.

I have no doubt that amnesty is coming. There is too much money and power behind it for it not to happen (D underclass exploiters combined with R businesses is a POWERFUL coalition). But when it happens, and eventually it will, it will be a dem initiative almost entirely--the R leadership is stupid, but no so stupid that it will sponsor amnesty, which has only minority support in their party and unanimous support in the crazy branch of the D's. So we will be able to pin amnesty on the dems when it happens. That will go far toward recreating the Reagan coalition because it will peel off the Reagan democrats.