The GOP Is More Serious Than Sarah Palin (Uses Lincoln & Reagan to bash Palin on Amnesty!)

Commentary Magazine ^ | July 8, 2013 | Peter Wehner

[EQAndyBuzz]

I remember with Fox, the networks said a 4th network wouldn’t survive.

Perrault got 19% of the vote in 92. I believe a Freedom Party ticket would get more votes.

However in saying that, the new moderate party (Republicrat) would get more than the Communist Party vote.

Only question becomes, would the moderates vote republican or democrat now that those evil neocons left the party?

[onyx]

Sarah Palin's Awesome Ping List

KILL THE BILL
Hammer the phones!
Don't let Up!!!
Never Mind this Stupid Article!

[onyx]

B T T T ! ! ! ©

[Lakeshark]

Article by Peter Whiner........

[GraceG]

They make talk trash about her, but the GOP elites are scared to
death of Palin. They know Palin has the pulse of the grassroots.

Palin was a darling of the progressives and Republicans and some Democrats when she was confined to cleaning up the mess the good ‘ol boys club made up in alaska.

Then she came within a ballot box and a heart beat away from cleaning up all the corruption in Washington DC and the Establishment crapped a collective brick on her.

This is why after she was nominated many articles that were glowing before changed tone severly overnight, even the ones written by the same people who praised her less than a month ago...

[SMARTY]

AND she can successfully siphon away enough votes from them to make them null and void... anytime she wants to!

[The Cajun]

Never Mind this Stupid Article!

Ya made my day, LOLOL!

[GraceG]

Only question becomes, would the moderates vote republican or democrat now that those evil neocons left the party?

I think we should go to town halls and convice the rinos to actually switch parties, barring thast, time to start a new party.

[TADSLOS]

Heavy flak means her targeting is accurate. Bombs away.

[onyx]

LOLOLOL. GOOD!
Well, I sure didn’t read the idiot’s article, didn’t you?

[bimboeruption]

>She sure does know how to manipulate the right wing into giving her money.<

Don’t they all?

[onyx]

WOO-HOO!
You betcha!

[GraceG]

We could have open borders, if we didn’t have a welfare state.

We could have a welfare state, if we didn’t have open borders.

Idealy we would have neither.

We can have one or the other, or none, BUT NEVER BOTH!!!!

[ProudFossil]

Rich Lowry points out that “Lincoln was broadly pro-immigration… ...because he needed more recruits and conscripts for the Union Army.

Wrong, the Civil War had not started when Lincoln promoted immigration. Rather there was tons of land available and Lincoln saw the need to put people there to "civilize" the wilderness. He did not want to remove the Native Americans, he just wanted people filling the land.

And the big difference between then and now (which Gov. Palin recognizes) is Lincoln's immigrants were European, mostly English and German. Today's immigrants are Mexican and South American. They are not looking for land, they are looking for jobs and free benefits. That removes those from the US citizens.

[onyx]

LOL. Perfect name for the little dolt.

[GraceG]

AND she can successfully siphon away enough votes from them to make them null and void... anytime she wants to!

So Sayeth the Whigs circa 1850’s......

[Lakeshark]

I before E.......

:-)

[babble-on]

I’d say you put her in the appropriate set of minds.

[BerryDingle]

Lincoln was also Pro-EMMIGRATION, he wanted to send the freed Blacks back to Africa and I believe the Country of Liberia was to be the destination for them.

Possibly. James Monroe started that program in 1820, Liberia's capitol (Monrovia) was named after him in 1847.

[Ohioan]

Being "pro-imigration," when the population was only a very small fraction of the present; when we still had an open fronteir, and the bulk of the immigrants were coming from countries far more similar to the original origins of the Americans, is no argument for the present bill--none whatsoever. Lowry is engaged in a dishonest rationalization that discredits him. It is sad how far National Review has fallen. But his comment cannot stand the light of analysis.

For its part, Reagan's amnesty was intended to be a one shot resolution of a far less extreme problem.

That these people are so dishonest is a sobering reality. The field of those worthy of the public trust keeps imploding. We have to answer these people in ways that expose their ethical malfunctioning. If their behavior be not treasonous, it is at least the "kissing cousin."

If they want to debate this, fine! Let them address the real issues, not offer absurd rationalization.

See Immigration & The American Future.

William Flax