Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MikeA
Jacobs had a lot of help from outside groups running radio ads in a high decible campaign and is facing one opponent as opposed to 2 in '04. It doesn't surprise me that his vote percentage will likely be down some over 04.

Jacob also had to finance his own campaign while Cannon was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-immigration groups.

27 posted on 06/27/2006 12:19:41 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Reaganwuzthebest
Jacob also had to finance his own campaign while Cannon was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-immigration groups

LOL! I'll give you guys some credit, you don't quit until the fat lady sings.

OH BTW, you do know that jacob did blame his campaign contribution torubles on satan.

30 posted on 06/27/2006 12:22:20 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

"Jacob also had to finance his own campaign while Cannon was given hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-immigration groups."


That wasn't really my point. My point was I won't be surprised if Cannon's vote total is down over 04 because of the national attention given this race and the in kind contributions of soft dollar money ads on Jacobs' behalf.

By the way, looking at your Freeper name, you do realize Reagan was very pro-immigration don't you?? Would you guys have been targetting Reagan for primary defeat too?? Cannon is pretty much right in step with Reagan's thinking on immigration and guest worker plans, like it or not. I have the quotes to prove it if you like.


33 posted on 06/27/2006 12:23:26 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Reagan on Immigration
May 16, 2006; Page A14

One myth currently popular on the political right is that the immigration debate pits populist conservatives in the Ronald Reagan mold against Big Business "elites" who've hijacked the Republican Party. It's closer to the truth to say that what's really being hijacked here is the Gipper's reputation.

One of the Reagan Presidency's symbolic highlights was the July 3, 1986, celebration of a refurbished Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for immigrants a century ago. (Readers can find Reagan's entire speech that evening at www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches1.) To Reagan, the conservative optimist, immigration was a vital part of his vision of this country as "a shining city upon a Hill," in the John Winthrop phrase he quoted so often. It was proof that America remained a land of opportunity, a nation built on the idea of liberty rather than on the "blood and soil" conservatism of Old Europe.

This view was apparent in Reagan's public statements well before he became President. In one of his radio addresses, in November 1977, he wondered about what he called "the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters." As a Californian, Reagan understood the role of immigrant labor in agriculture.

In 1980, according to the book "Reagan: His Life in Letters" (page 511), the then-Presidential candidate wrote to one supporter that "I believe we must resolve the problem at our southern border with full regard to the problems and needs of Mexico. I have suggested legalizing the entry of Mexican labor into this country on much the same basis you proposed, although I have not put it into the sense of restoring the bracero program." The bracero program was a guest-worker program similar to the one now being proposed by President Bush. It was killed in the mid-1960s, largely due to opposition from unions.

During the same campaign, circa December 1979, the Gipper responded to criticism from conservative columnist Holmes Alexander with the following: "Please believe me when I tell you the idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years. I have seen presidents, both Democrat and Republican, approach our neighbors with pre-concocted plans in which their only input is to vote 'yes.'

"Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas -- how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence." So much for those conservatives who think the Gipper would have endorsed a 2,000-mile Tom Tancredo-Pat Buchanan wall.

It's true that in November 1986 Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included more money for border police and employer sanctions. The Gipper was a practical politician who bowed that year to one of the periodic anti-immigration uprisings from the GOP's nativist wing. But even as he signed that bill, he also insisted on a provision for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S. -- that is, he supported "amnesty."

In his signing statement, Reagan declared that "We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."

Yes, times change, and it's impossible to know what precisely the Gipper would do at the current moment. But judging from these quotes and so many others across his long career, we feel confident in asserting that Mr. Bush and those who support more open immigration are far closer to Reagan's views than today's restrictionists are.

The current immigration political panic is not unlike many in America's past, including a couple while Reagan was in public life. He always avoided the temptation to join them, no doubt realizing that they were short-sighted politically, and, more important, inconsistent with his vision of America as the last best hope of mankind.






81 posted on 06/27/2006 12:53:27 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson