Hillary gaffe exposes three huge paths to a permanent GOP majority
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Most of the analyses of the likely fallout from Hillary Clinton’s refusal to endorse or denounce the issuance of drivers licenses to illegal aliens in last week’s Democratic Party debate have focused on her and her party’s nomination horse race.
Will Obama or Edwards be able to use her lack of (Bill) Clintonian skills at obfuscation to derail her ride to the nomination? Yes, that is a very relevant issue even if her major rivals agree with her on the substance, i.e. Hillary issued a statement later that she agrees with giving illegals licenses. I think the main point of the matter from the Democratic Party standpoint is that many grassroots Democrats fear she would be a disaster to the party down the ticket and that with her historically high negatives she can’t beat a mainstream republican.
But the most important issues and lessons for Republicans revealed by this event are:
1) The Democratic Party is and will remain 180 degrees out of phase with the vast majority of the American people and probably a majority of rank and file democrats on what is probably the one of the top two or three issues that concern the electorate and which will drive a large number of one issue voters in favor of border security;
2) When forced to answer questions directly on substance, instead of Bush bashing, their liberal views cannot stand the light of day any more than a Vampire can; and, maybe most importantly,
3) The reason the Democratic Party cannot moderate their open borders stance is that they know that they cannot win elections free of voter fraud.
Excerpts and columns by liberal E. J. Dionne and conservative John Fund are instructive (and read the whole columns too):
In the short run, Clinton's exquisite calibration of her positions was the issue. But her debate dance reflects a deeper worry among Democrats that Republicans are ready to use impatience with illegal immigration to win back voters dissatisfied with the broader status quo.
The issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration -- including a share of the African American community -- threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters. For Republicans, the issue is both a way of changing the political subject from Iraq, the economy and the failures of the Bush presidency and a means of sowing discord in the Democratic coalition.One poll finding this week that shook Democrats came in a survey conducted by Democracy Corps, a consortium organized by party consultants Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. It asked voters to pick two from a list of seven problems that explain "why the country is going in the wrong direction."
The survey found that among independent voters, 40 percent -- by far the largest group -- picked this option: "Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing."
By contrast, a lack of action on health care was named by only 24 percent of independents as a core problem, and Iraq by 23 percent.
The Democracy Corps poll, along with a Pew Research Center survey released this week, found Democrats with substantial advantages over Republicans on a variety of measures. But many Democrats fear that the more trouble Republicans are in, the more they will be willing to use immigration to attempt a comeback.This has created serious tensions among congressional Democrats. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, has risked the ire of Latino groups by warning that the party must deal with concerns about illegal immigration.
Rahm will be unsuccessful on this, unlike his October Mark Foley 2006 surprise.
Why?
Listen to John Fund. Listen to this. (Wolf Blitzer impression. Sorry)
'This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier'
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?
Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."
The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.
The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.
The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.
In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.
But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.
The GOP now has the ammo to drive a stake thru the vampire’s heart, and the vampire is not Hillary, it’s the Democratic Party. They can’t cry for po’ illegals to vote, especially when 911 hijackers were registered to vote via drivers licenses. It’s not for the children.
Republicans, all republicans, should demand a national voter ID law in federal elections.
I come away wondering if the Democratic majorities achieved in 2006 were possible only thru voter fraud. This country is simply way too conservative as compared to its elected officials.
Hillary’s gaffe has presented the GOP with an opportunity to achieve the permanent majority Reagan and Newt put us the path towards.
It’s not about Hillary. It’s about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the national Democratic Party and its proven failed liberal policies that they continually try to hide by bashing Bush or DeLays or Foleys.
They cannot advocate voter registrations without ID without exposing themselves in such a way that would fully discredit them with the public.
Our nominees in the Race42008 must drive this home.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
Ya'll will have to do the heavy lifting for me as I am now in DE and can't do too much for American politics. Except pray like crazy!
And here is hoping that my Hawgs get their heads out of their a**** and smoke some chicken tonight!
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Well, at least you now live with Biden in a former slave state....
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
blog
what do you think of Huckabee?
have you come over to Fred yet?
What is the mascot for the Delaware U?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Think DE across the Atlantic.
I like Huckabee and wish he would run for Senate in AR. Although he would be a great asset as a VP for Rudy, IMO.
Love Fred, but he just hasn't caught on for some reason.
I'm still with Crank. Unless something drastic happens between now and when I have to mail my Texas absentee ballot, I will vote for Rudy in the primary and support the nominee in the general.
I don't think I could survive a Hillary presidency.
**GC-I have a family blog now. E-mail via the contact form if you wnat the address.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
you know how the Dems are about those overseas military ballots!
with his druggie airplane buddy. Bad news Fred. Your low flying campaign just took some major flak. Bail out. You cannot credibly claim ignorance on this one.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I searched for and found a Washington Post story relating to this. So Fred has flown in a plane piloted by a guy with some drug convictions (over 20 years ago). Whoop-de-do. Is this the best the drive-by media can do?
Let's not forget, we recently had a POTUS who claimed to have smoked pot but he "never inhaled".
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
and, and , and
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Permanent or even comfortable majority. I got pretty unhappy with the last one.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in my post earlier today on first-cut-politics.
The country is right of center country. The only way for Democrats to win national elections is to flip flop... tell their "base" one thing to get money then try to change their stances before anyone else figures it out.
That will leaave them open to a flip flopping charge, pretty much during every election for national office.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
or voter fraud, or for that matter, the American people. They only care about winning elections, regaining their monopoly and controlling the purse-strings.
Flip-flops only apply to conservatives.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Have been preaching this since the 2004 Washington State Governors election (Which I have posted on many times here)
The fired US Attorney admits he never investigated voter fraud,
claiming it should be left to the state. The state claims they waited for the county. The King County Attorney Satterberg claimed he couldn't investigate because he worked for the county. Result, no one Investigated
"McKay also recently explained why he didn't launch a federal inquiry into the 2004 election:
"issues associated with it were more properly addressed by state officials"
"I had met Satterberg several times before then and our conversations have always been congenial. This was the first time I'd seen him looking nervous. He started the conversation by saying that the linchpin of the case was legal advice to the elections staff from Janine Joly, the senior deputy prosecutor assigned to the Elections section, which "may or may not have been given and may or may not have been followed". Therefore Joly would have to be the first witness in any investigation and that would be a conflict of interest for his office. So although he also stressed that he couldn't conclude that no crime occurred, he wouldn't pursue any kind of investigation."
There are hundreds of posts on soundpolitics.com explaining different parts of the fraud problems, just query voter fraud.
The most recent voter fraud story there is the ACORN employees efforts Story
A look at Montana and the 2006 Senate election shows it was won by 2847 votes
Searches of Montana voter info sites show different figures for late registering voters, but the numbers vary between four and seven thousand. The voter registration form requires an oath showing citizenship, but how would this be checked is unclear.
Missouri claims not have voter fraud problems when the Voter ID Law was Debated
Part of the info in that link is East St Louis, which is in Illinois, but whether Missouri or Illinois, the info is still pointing out voter fraud.
IMO, the entire effort by the Democrats to instill in their voters the thoughts that they are too poor, too old or too busy to have photo ID is insulting to their voters. But there has to be a reason why the Democrats fight voter ID and proof of citizenship so much and IMO that reason is they do not want voter fraud stopped. Story
"Venezuelans' Abraham E. Gomez, 46, and his wife, Mayen C. Gomez, 41, had little difficulty registering to vote in Boone County, Kentucky. The ease in which the Gomez's became US voters is an indictment of how susceptible US elections are to fraud and manipulation by foreign nationals.
All the Gomez's had to do to register to vote was to claim US citizenship on their voter registration forms. No proof was required--no verification conducted by the board of elections. If not for a tipster who put law enforcement on the Gomez's trail, the fraudulent registrations probably would have never been detected."
are simply devastating. This is the real threat to our republic. Nixon refused to do a Gore when maybe it was apt in 1960. Gore breaks American history by withdrawing a concession setting the stage for election challenges without end.
We must take on this motor voter plus voter scheme and we have to get voter ID!!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
is where Dionne thinks the GOP needs to distract from the economy. Say what?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Do I care whether some other state legislates child porn, blue laws, school funding, and most anything else? Well at some level of course I do, but in general it has nothing to do with me.
But if liberal judges or state officials are allowed to hand out marriage licenses and drivers licenses like candy on Halloween, it DOES affect me because now that person is married in every state or can drive in every state.
These cases of reciprocal rights are ones that the GOP could - make that SHOULD - be using to drive a wedge into the heart of the Democratic party support.
Oh and by the way, have any of the Democratic candidate answered the DL question with a yes or a no? Edwards criticized her for answering both yes and no, but I don't believe he ever said which he believes is the correct answer.
Is the public listening? I was at a wedding last weekend, my niece married a young man in the National Guard, who might be deploying to Iraq. My stepbrother said to him, "Maybe this next election will change things for you." I asked him in total amazement, "Are you for Hillary?" He answered, "That's the only way we will get out of Iraq."
How many are there like him?
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
Sept-Nov. Hillary and all the lib statements of the rest are on tape. Forces will begin leaving Iraq in the Spring based on SUCCESS not defeat.
If we have many like that Nat Guard guy then we are doomed no matter who is elected. I don't think he is typical of Nat Guard much less the regular military.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Sorry, I guess that I didn't state the situation well. It was not the National Guard guy who was for Hillary. It was my stepbrother. All he seems to care about in the next election is getting out of Iraq. Many who are not paying attention, don't know that things are changing there.
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
of the words LBJ chose during the 1964 Presidential Campaign.
"We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves..."
LBJ's opponent, Barry Goldwater was painted as a war monger who would use anything - even nuclear weapons - to escalate the war in SE Asia.
No matter who is elected, American troops will be in Iraq for many years to come.
Democrats today, just as they were in 1964, are delusional.
every sort of ballot security reform at every step. And with cynical liberal judges, mostly succeeded.
They have done it at every level and in every venue.
The fig leaf of 'discouraging poor/minority voters' is patently false by the most casual examination.
I do not beleive they are operating in good faith on this at all.
But with Judicial competence so low, what can be done?
by the GOP to great advantage to tie 911 to illegal immigration. The idea that terrorists can get a DL and then vote! And then to tie it to the illegals who even most dems don't want to legitimize!
This is powerful stuff man.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I do believe, now that you bring it up, it will be good to point out that loose immigration policy was behind 911. And the bitterness of the idea that democrat opposition to all ballot security efforts, no matter how reasonable, only makes it worse.
The idea that our enemies can sneak in easily, live openly in violation of our immigration laws, easily acquire not only drivers licenses but voter registration, all because democrats refuse to take a reasonable stand, is indeed powerful.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I agree with most of what you say. You make some excellent points. The potential combination of illegal immigration and voter fraud is huge, and public anger over illegal immigration in general could really hurt the Democrats and help the GOP.
But we should not lose sight of the overall demographic trends in this nation, which are fueled in large part by high levels of legal immigration. Even if all illegal immigration were stopped, we'd still be allowing in about a million immigrants per year, and the majority of both the immigrants themselves and the first few native generations born to them will be significantly pro-Democrat.
If we pass anything like the failed 'comprehensive' bills, then the GOP will face a double demographic whammy; first with the deceptive and unadvertised increases in legal immigration they would unleash, and second with the eventual citizenship granted to current illegals. More generally speaking, if we do what elites of both parties want and increase legal immigration, then the demographic destruction of the GOP will happen that much sooner. Giuliani in particular would like to increase legal immigration, and of course every Democratic candidate would want to do the same, since they are apparently better at simple electoral math than Republicans are.
I really do try to understand the electoral and political optimism of pro-mass immigration conservatives, but I just don't see much basis for that optimism. High levels of immigration (even if its all legal) will only strengthen and reinforce the dynamics and forces that lead immigrants to vote Democratic in the first place. And it has nothing to do with being 'anti-[insert victim group here]'. Those are just bogus charges thrown out by those who are terrified of a fact-based, reaoned, and rational debate on immigration (and a lot of other issues as well). Yes, such demagoguery by the Left does hurt the GOP, but the underlying reasons for the pro-Democrat tilt of immigrant groups goes much deeper, and would still exist even if we all adopted the nauseating rhetoric of diversity-worship and ridded our party of all the Tancredos.
The myth of the Latino voting bloc
The GOP has less to fear from a backlash than many claim.
By Steven Malanga
October 18, 2007
When President Bush's immigration reform bill collapsed this summer, largely because of objections from his own party, open-borders advocates warned that the GOP would pay a harsh political price for killing the bill. Latino support had been crucial in electing Bush, the argument went, and Latino voters represented a rising electoral tide that Republicans were ignoring at their peril.But such commentary is based on an inaccurate picture of the Latino voting public that emerged after the 2004 election and persists today. Just days after the election, for instance, Dick Morris, a former pollster and advisor to President Clinton, declared that Latinos had elected Bush; they represented 12% of the electorate, Morris reasoned, and 45% of them had pulled the levers for the president, enough to be decisive.
The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.
Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.
This suggests that the key to winning Latino votes may be running good candidates, not pandering. Latino voters themselves seem to agree. A 2004 Washington Post poll found that immigration was the least important issue among Latino voters, with only 3.5% placing it at the top of their concerns.
The decline in Latino support was not a unique phenomenon for Republicans; from 2004 to 2006, the GOP lost support among virtually all constituencies, including union members (down 10 percentage points) and even white evangelicals (down 8 percentage points). In many places, the falloff was larger among core Republican voters than among Latinos. In California, for instance, 2006 GOP Senate candidate Richard Mountjoy's share of the Latino vote was 10 percentage points below Bush's 2004 share -- while his share of white male voters was a whopping 12 percentage points below Bush's comparable showing two years earlier.
Many commentators make another mistake by assuming that a liberal immigration policy will attract voters for a candidate but not cost him any votes. In fact, polls suggest that Bush's immigration policy might be more of a detriment at the ballot box in some places. In Arizona, a state with a large Latino population that some commentators have suggested could wind up in the Democratic column in future elections, 78% of the electorate told pollsters in 2004 that immigration should either be maintained at current levels or decreased.
One can only imagine how those voters would have reacted in the 2004 election if the president had introduced an immigration reform bill that offered a path to citizenship for about 12 million illegals along with vastly expanded legal immigration slots.
Given what the voting numbers show us, it's unlikely that Latinos will become an important voting bloc in most places as soon as many predict. And by the time that they do, Latino citizens might find that an immigration policy based on enforcing borders and increasing the number of better-skilled immigrants, which many Republicans advocate, actually benefits them. Recent economic studies show that the country's current levels of immigration are hurting immigrants who are already here -- and hurting native-born Latinos more than most U.S. residents. A saner immigration flow is likely to boost the average wages of our current Latino population and free up resources, like housing, in Latino communities.
But much of the commentary on Latino voting power tends to ignore such issues, focusing instead on Latino voters' supposed anger at Republicans and comparing it to black voters' desertion of the party after key Republicans opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. But the analogy hardly stands up. American blacks were striving to obtain rights guaranteed in the Constitution but denied to them. By contrast, the current immigration debate is not about denying immigrants anything; it's about dealing with those now here illegally and those yet to come.
Steven Malanga is the coauthor of the forthcoming "The Immigration Solution" and senior editor of City Journal, from whose forthcoming issue this is adapted.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game
The path of destruction some of the "Round them up, send them home", Tancredoites set will do no good for the Republican party in the long run. To pretend that 20+ Million illegals will just self deport, and to pretend that businesses who rely on this source of cheap labor will go down with out a fight is just plain silly.
From today's LA Times
"The number of citizenship applications received in the Los Angeles area tripled in September compared with the same period last year, despite a major application fee increase that immigration experts feared could drastically set back demand.
Nationwide, citizenship applications also in August and September compared with last year, according to new figures from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
"The anti-immigrant sentiment is bordering on the xenophobic, and people are taking notice of that," said Evan Bacalao of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund in Los Angeles. "So even though the fees have increased, people still want to make sure their voices are heard."
To help boost the number of new citizens even more, an alliance of hundreds of organizations last week launched a "100 Days" national campaign to urge immigrants to apply for citizenship in time for the 2008 election."
The full article goes into efforts to encourage people to apply for citizenship and once citizens, vote...and NOT for Republicans.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-citizen4nov04,0,5023303.story?co...
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
"The number of citizenship applications received in the Los Angeles area tripled in September compared with the same period last year, despite a major application fee increase that immigration experts feared could drastically set back demand.
Don't we want to encourage "legal" immigration, and wouldn't the increase in "legal" applications mean that efforts to thwart "illegal" immigration might be working?
While I will grant you, the article is encouraging people to vote against Republicans, "legal" immigration is preferable to the 20 million "illegals" we have here today.
Let them apply "legally," go through the "legal" classes and do the "legal" steps to citizenship. Possibly, if they do it "legally" they will discover the Republicans ideas have merit.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
from? guess not, since you dive into a diatribe about the mythical million bus deportation march to the border.
Has SteveLA's acct been seized by an imposter?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game
Nope, still me, still looking for serious politicians who are willing to do the right thing about illegal immigration.
1) Secure the borders
2) Enforce the laws on the books now, including placing immigration holds on all criminal illegal aliens.
3) Develop a rational, fair and human way of dealing with the 20+ Million illegals that we allowed through our own greed to come here.
4) Revise our immigration policies to recognize that low skilled labor is required in this country.
5) Reducing federal dollars and subsidies to cities, states and towns that want to succeed from the Union by declaring themselves sanctuary cities.
Serious topics for serious people who are not concerned about silly things like what the tides of "Brown" people are doing to our culture.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
in terms of its importance as of now. I hope this fact would cause some that think they need to pander to not pander, esp to a false stereotype that most LEGAL latinos are against border security first, esp those Latinos that we can win over.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game
While your assertion may be true in the South where you are, it is far from the truth in the West and South West of the country.
There is this tipping point where the rhetoric from some of the harshest of harsh voices in the Republican party do nothing towards the goals of convincing Latino voters that this is not a law and order or economic issue, the comments lead Latinos to view the Republican party as supporting xenophobia or worse.
Pretend all you want that there's not a MSM push to highlight that streak, and pretend all you want that MSM spin on the issue does not hurt the future prospects of the party, but it is evident out here in the West.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
to fight them with facts and appeal to the intellect of Latinos.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
What your points really show is what a folly it has been for the GOP to allow mass immigration for the past three decades. It was pretty obvious that this influx was always going to support the Democrats. We shouldn't be suprised now that they are.
The despicable and disgraceful bias of the media, and their demonization of people like Tancredo does hurt the GOP, buts its not decisive in determining overall group voting. If all Republicans pandered like Bush did, then the GOP would still consistently lose the latino vote by double-digit margins, just like Bush did!
You can't import millions of natural Democrats and then be surprised when they vote for Democrats.
A conservative Republican could win California in 1980. Today a conservative Republican Senate or Presidential candidate has a very low chance of winning the state. What changed? It sure wasn't that San Francisco and Los Angeles all of a sudden started voting Democrat. They always did. What changed was that millions of Mexicans came into California and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Effectively losing the biggest state in the country because of Hispanic voters is a big deal.
If people think that the Hispanic vote is going to be decisive in every state soon, then yes it is overblown. But the truth is that if Hispanics continue to vote 60-70% Democrat, then the conservative Republicans will have to ad states like Colorado, Nevada and even Arizona to the list of states where conservatives can't win. That seems like a pretty big deal to me.
votor laws
which I put in my blog btw
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If you purged all the illegal votes in California, do you honestly think a conservative could win there? Kerry beat Bush by 1.25 million votes. Maybe I'm overly trusting of the our electoral system, but I don't think there were that many illegal votes.
it would take more to win Cally, but you also mentioned other states. Cally will have to be mugged by reality, like a carbon tax and the continuing exodus of the income producers to come around
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The last two decades have been a demographic disaster for the GOP in California. Its not just the influx of pro-Democrat immigrant communities (which includes Asians as well as latinos), but its also the movement out of the state of many conservative whites.
Simply put; movement in of pro-Democrat immigrant groups + movement out of conservative whites = Democratic dominance in the state of Reagan.
I think if we just decided to jettison part of our coalition, the Republicans could win pretty well in this state. Just look at the way Schwarzenegger wins.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Jettisoning the social conservative wing of the party is a pretty big deal, and it hasn't worked out for others who have tried it in California. Besides, Schwarzenegger is a special case. He has the celebrity thing going for him, and he hasn't exactly been a stalwart fiscal conservative either. When faced with defeat, he ran left to save himself. It worked because the state is well left of center now, and on more issues than just abortion.
Who since Pete Wilson has been a pro-abortion Republican nominated for Governor or Senator though?
And yeah Schwarzenegger has been the disaster I predicted, but the first time around he ran like Giuliani is now.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Wasn't Dan Lundgren a social liberal? He certainly didn't hold to Wilson on illegal immigration.
And what about the former Congressman Tom Campbell, who got crushed by Feinstein in 2000. I admit that's not a truly fair example since Feinstein was a popular incumbent, but Campbell was a true social liberal, but it didnt' help him any.
I remember the hype around him since I was in the Caltech CRs at the time. Some Rs were starting to buy the hype that it was illegal immigration/209 that was hurting us, so the big deal was that "Latin America is heavily Catholic... Lungren is Catholic... he can reach out to them!"
Well, Davis came out hard with television ads hitting Lungren on "a woman's right to choose," and the results: Davis beat Lungren by 1.6 million votes, 58-38.
I guess you're right on Campbell though, I forgot about him. Probably because it was a Presidential year against Feinstein, heh. But that means of the last three pro-abort Republicans we've run, Schwarzenegger, Campbell, and Wilson, two of them won.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Being pro-abortion may have helped Wilson by making him less threatening to center-left whites in California, but it was frustration over illegal immigration and his support for Prop 187 that spurred on his amazing comeback in 1994.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
-ate Mexicans more successfully than we can assimilate liberal elites in academia, the press and hollywood.
Latinos are, after all, Christians!
But, they do need to buy in to the rule of law and leearn the language, and
when too many move in too quick to smaller communities, they can upset the pursuit of happiness in a bad way.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We should thankful that our low wage immigrants come from Latin America as opposed to North Africa. The worst you can say about the Mexicans in this country is that they don't seem to care that much for the United States, they aren't used to the rule of law and some of them are street criminals. Not to downplay any of these problems but the Muslim immigrants in Europe bring all of those problems, plus some of them are actively trying to destroy Western Civilization. If we are going to have low wage immigrants, I'll take a Mexican over a Moroccan any day.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
#3 - Does this mean a path to citizenship for the illegals? Because if it does, then we can go ahead an count on yet another large gain in future voters for the Democrats, both from the illegals who take the path, and the millions of relatives they will sponsor so long as chain migrtion stays in effect.
#4 - What exactly does this mean? If its a call for an increase in legal immigration, then just say so. But before you do that, then why not at least first call for an end to extended family chain migration, and the abolishment of the diversity visa lottery to see how many slots that would free up?
#s 1, 2, and 5 sound pretty good to me.
As far as culture goes; are you saying that a discussion of the impact of immigration on our culture is beyond the pale? Is it something only racists would talk or worry about? I hope that's not what you're saying, because there is obviously nothing wrong with being concerned about a large, unending influx of people from different cultures into a nation that does not demand assimilation, and indeed, where assimilation is actually condemned in certain important circles.
Unfortunately Bush had it right on immigration. The republican party is finished. Maybe not this election but in the next 15 it's over. We've lost blacks, Latino, Asian, Gays, Single women. The countries a changing and the republicans better do something fast becase in 2025 it's going to be president Socialist Anna Martinez
for the GOP when one examines the assimilation rates of legal immigrants.
"We estimate that there were approximately 11.6 million lawful permanent residents in the United States as of October 2004 and that 8.0 million were eligible to naturalize. Approximately 60 percent of legal immigrants admitted during the 1970’s and 1980’s had naturalized as of 2005 (see Chart 1). More recent immigrants are naturalizing sooner than earlier immigrants, though it is not known whether this will result in lifetime naturalization rates higher than 60 percent. About 33 percent of immigrants admitted before 1986 had naturalized after 10 years, while between 45 and 50 percent of immigrants admitted from 1992-95 had naturalized after 10 years of residence."
Recent trends show that 50-60% of those eligible to become naturalized citizens will actually do so, although historically, the assimilation range has been between 35-45%.
Approximately 50-60% of those naturalized citizens that register to vote, and actually vote, will vote for the opposition party.
We could try to hedge our bets.
It should be our goal to increase employment-based preferences for legal immigration, while placing limits on family-sponsored preferences and refugees or asylees.
Turning to legal immigration, the DHS has granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to an average of 1.1 million persons during the past three years (See Table 1). More than 4 out of 10 of these immigrants are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are admitted without limitation. The next leading categories are family-sponsored preference immigrants (19 percent), employment-based preference immigrants (17 percent), and refugees or asylees (13 percent). About 1 of 4 immigrants derives their status through a spouse or parent.
The employment-based preferences would be less likely to require government assistance, and one could assume, they would be less likely to fit the stereotypical mold of the "modern" Democrat.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I think Hillary is smart for this move. For the simple reason she does not need the south. She will win the North win Cali, Washington, and Oregon and will take arizona, Nevade, or Colorado and will become president. I will bet anything that the democrats are going to target Hispanics non stop. Saying Republican are racist etc. Bush got almost 40% of the Hispanics last time. I bet you it drops to 10-15% in 2008. Once again the republicans have managed to lose a minority. They lost the blacks now they lost the Hispanics. Bush, Rove, and Mccain and had it right. After 2012 I don't see how the republicans are going to win an election again. Just look at the demographics.
blacks and latinos that oppose allowing illegals to vote will end that practice. That's how. Then the demographics favor conservatives. WE have babies.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If Hispanics vote 70% for Hillary, then she will win Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and maybe Arizona.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game,
I hope that pool you're getting ready to dive off the deep end into has a really deep end or that point of view is gonna leave a mark.
How about instead of Hyperventilating, you take a deep breath and remember that parties are about ideas, right now the Republican party is coming up a bit short in the idea department. There are lots of folks like Newt that are working on and talking about ideas that might just propel this party back into dominance, but the '2006 election mantra of "We stink less" ain't gonna hack it (cleaned that up a bit).
Oh one other thing, voting rules are mostly a matter of State law, with few National strictures. I'm one of those crazy 10th Amendment kind of Republicans and have no interest in asking for more Federal noses in states business.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
and that Fund documents elections decided by illegal alien votes, and given that dems favor motor-voter and oppose voter ID and purging rolls of the dead and dawgs,
our ideas, present at shallow and my 70s era deep pool,
are to respond to these facts with policy proposals, ie
ideas
still breathing normally so don't worry and listen to us that live in the US
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If we are not willing to put forth the effort of treading the deep water for the truth, our voices will be drowned out in the shallow pool of demagoguery- by a group that cares little about what happens just as long as they are elected.
If the right to vote is not reserved for citizens then we should just get rid of voting altogether in our country. Maybe have international polls instead, asking the world at large how we should conduct our affairs.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Not necessarily. It would depend on how the white vote goes, at least in Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. The electorate in each of those states is still majority white by a significant margin.
Latinos have babies too and they have way more babies mere capita then white people. I can't see how you say the demographic favors conservatives. Republicans have lost the black vote and the Latino community thinks the republicans are racists. On top of that Latinos are having way more children then white people and they are more likely to look for a party that offers social programs.
and medium term. In the long term latinos will become repubs too!
Why? Libs have abortions and less children.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
when they read such well thought out posts like yours on a respected Republican website?
/snark
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?