Posted on 11/10/2006 4:23:47 PM PST by jamesrichards
you need 41. I don't know if we can hold on this in the senate.
the best bet - is a coalition in the house between the Rs and enough of the blue dogs, to stop it.
otherwise, it passes. Bush could care less about the base now.
so you are actually telling us that if amnesty had passed - the Rs would have WON the past election?
no way.
Bush should have never brought this issue up, he drove a wedge through his own party by advocating it - forcing his own party to scramble to try and find a way to stop it.
unfortunately, the part of the conservative base that stayed home - did understand that the republican House was the only thing stopping this.
so now, they will get it.
did understand = didn't understand.
Always remember that when you see the word "comprehensive", it means the bill is loaded with all kinds of unpalatable provisions that would never pass individually on their own.
This crap needs to be killed dead.
No, what I am saying is that I think this was not the most important issue on people's minds, and that an obsessive few in the GOP made it look like it was the overriding issue and distracted the voters. I think many were turned off by the shrill "build a giant wall and turn hoses on the Mexicans" screaming that was coming from some quarters. I know I certainly was.
Last-minute bill changes funding for border fence
But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Homeland Security Department's preferred option of a "virtual fence."
The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said. This case reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government - oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.
fair enough.
but what could we do, the issue was forced on us by Bush. the honest approach to this, would have been for Bush to simply say "the issue of amnesty was not part of the 2004 election, let the political system work, let it be debated and let people elect those they want who support their position". But instead, he forced it on us - we had two choices, stop it or allow it to become law.
UpChuck Hagel supports amnesty, i.e. SB2611, sent to the House at the beginning of the past Summer.
The House passed HR4437, what we really need, but that died when they received S2611 and were faced with a compromise between the two.
The House, instead of getting down to business and insisting on the most stringent provisions, equivocated and set about holding "hearings" around the country.
This weakness didn't exactly inspire GOP voters.
Thank you, Denny Hastert.
And as a long-time Nebraskan I would like to also apologize for all of the republicans who voted for Ben Nelson.
Yes, you got your numbers right.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640454/posts
Yet, we just lost 3 Republican Senators who voted NO on S2611: Allen, Burns and Talent.
Did the voters who care about immigration enforcement and border security make a point of campaigning and voting for these Senators? What happened?
Did the national GOP deliberately withhold support from these candidates because of their immigration stance? What happened?
Did the candidates themselves play it down in the campaign?
It has nothing to do with the Senate now; it's in the House.
Voting against apparently didn't help Allen, Burns and Talent either.
I know people that don't listen to Savage, and probably aren't aware that Pat Buchanan is still alive and they were furuious with the Republicans thumbing their collective noses at the base on immigration. Blame Savage if it makes you feel better, but we know where the real blame for this debacle lies.
We have this thing called federal immigration law and it's not being enforced.
Therein DOES lie the problem.
No RINO my Pelosi. The Dems don't go three days in a row without praising: 1. McCain, Lugar and Hagel. There's a reason for that.
The DEMOCRATS added the provision last minute to make being here illegally a felony. That's the only way it could get out of committee. Then they sat back and watched Republicans ... Sensenbrenner, et al ... take the blame.
Is Hagel's seat the one Tom Osburne ran for and lost?
I was almost as shocked by Osburne's loss as I was for Bud Wilkinson's loss around 1956 in a Senate bid
I think Republican corruption was the biggest factor. Even so, W was pushing amnesty right up to election day. Maybe that was a big factor too.
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.