Redstate

commented on this. She suggested that the bill the House G.O.P. leadership was going to be working on in the closing days before the election recess be named the "Horse's Ass Bill" in honor of the kind of thinking that produced it.

...along with the last quarter of the article.

A conservative talk radio station is suddenly number one in the ratings in liberal southern California.

A conservative talk radio station.

Think about the implications of that fact for a moment. Think about what it would take to put Rush Limbaugh et al on top on the Left Coast.

Are you envisioning a sudden migration of conservatives and Republicans to Los Angeles in the last year? Or a sudden change of mind on the part of LA voters? I'm not. For KFI to suddenly find itself atop the ratings heap with their conservative format, a lot of people who would label themselves as moderate and even liberal would have to be tuning in and listening regularly to the station.

If you think this has happened because the folks in LA have suddenly started supporting the war in Iraq, the GWOT, smaller government, lower taxes, or other "safe" Republican issues--then you are seeing a very different reality than the one that exists. LA is ground zero in the immigration crisis facing this country.

Immigration issues, Hispanic gangs and crime syndicates, border security and worries about the flood of illegals are the reason a conservative talk radio station is suddenly number one in Los Angeles.

This isn't just a case of conservative voters being disenfranchised and having to be wooed back to "their senses".

This is not simply a case of "let's remind them once more that no matter how bad Republicans have been, replacing them with Democrats would be worse. The old, "half a loaf" is better than nothing at all strategy is not going to work here.

Ultimately, it is not conservatives that Republicans have to worry about this Fall and in '08.

Failing to take a principled stand on immigration and insist at a bare minimum that existing laws be enforced is not a winning strategy with moderates and independent voters, much less with conservatives. Ignoring the fact that a growing number of Americans across the political spectrum want something done about this problem now is a fast track to returning Republicans to minority party status.

It is one thing to say that you cannot get anything done on immigration issues because "the Dems" or "the Libs" will not let you and are blocking legislation. You can campaign on that and say, quite legitimately, "give us a larger, veto-proof majority and we will get this done".

It is another thing entirely to visibly lack the guts and the political will to tackle the issue. Whether "anything good" can be done on immigration with the current WH and Senate GOP leadership is irrelevant. Failure to try to do anything is the cardinal sin here. Political cowardice is not the way to win elections--especially wartime elections.

If moderates and liberals in California are listening to Rush Limbaugh as they look around at Los Angeles, and putting Pat Buchanan's book on the Amazon and New York Times bestseller lists...then how well do you think this "strategy" of ignoring immigration until after the election is going to play in Peoria?

The current GOP leadership is seriously misreading the whole electorate.

You said, "The only people who can hand the House to the Democrats are the voters." You are right. Unfortunately, Republicans seem determined to give moderate and independent voters--as well as conservatives and core Republicans--easy to see and easy to understand reasons to either vote against them or to not vote at all.

Don't blame me. Don't blame conservatives. Blame a lack of ability on the part of Republicans to read which way the political wind is blowing and respond in a principled and forthright fashion to an issue of real concern to voters for the losses that are probably going to come.

And I'm not blaming you, or conservatives, for anything.

But I think you are missing my point when you say things like this;

The current GOP leadership is seriously misreading the whole electorate.

or this;

Blame a lack of ability on the part of Republicans to read which way the political wind is blowing and respond in a principled and forthright fashion to an issue of real concern to voters for the losses that are probably going to come.

To repeat myself, I think "they" understand the electorate perfectly, they just don't care that much. They have their own preferred policy on immigration and they want to see that implemented. They are gambling that since the Democrats have the exact same position on immigration (and a range of other issues) the voters have no real choice. I don't think Bush and Rove will lose one minutes sleep if the Democrats take the House and rubberstamp the Senate immigration bill.

By "they" I'm referring to the WH and Senate leadership. It's important to keep in mind that the Republican party is a coalition of different interests. There really is no such thing as "the Republicans". The liberal wing of the party is ascendant in the Oval Office and the Senate, while the conservatives have more clout in the House. The two wings dislike each other as much as they dislike the Democrats. Getting any kind of real immigration reform will require a conservative in the White House.

So saying "Darn those Republicans, I'm not going to vote for them" is exactly wrong. You have to vote to strengthen the "good" Republicans and to weaken the "bad" ones. The people who should be taking the fall for this mess are Bush and his circle, plus McCain and the other Senate "moderates". Regrettably they are not up for election. But punishing the House for other peoples idiocy would be counter-productive.

You say, "So saying "Darn those Republicans, I'm not going to vote for them" is exactly wrong. You have to vote to strengthen the "good" Republicans and to weaken the "bad" ones."

Conservatives (and core republicans) are not going to decide a lot of these tight House races. They will be decided by independents and moderates who swing their support back and forth between the GOP and DEM candidates in different election cycles.

If Republicans are going to hold onto the House, then individual GOP incumbents in those tight races are going to have to latch onto an issue that will get independents and moderates behind them while still holding on to their core voters. The only thing I see doing that in this election cycle is immigration.

As I mentioned in another comment, I think the absolute best way to do this in the '06 elections is through a simple, concise, "contract with America"-style three or five or seven point plan that gives some specific, measurable, do-able goals that will be accomplished in the opening days of the next session of Congress.

Follow the KISS principle, sign on as many incumbents in vulnerable districts first, and then move to get the whole House GOP to commit to the plan and the Republicans would not only hold what they have--they would probably pick up some seats.

'94 wasn't some kind of anomalous miracle. It was a carefully crafted plan that made sense to people, picked up the attitudes of a broad spectrum of voters, and was--unlike most politics--specific, measurable and direct.

It could happen again.

There is a misconception by some in the GOP that the party leadership is only interested in getting and keeping power. For better and for worse, I don't think that is the case. The party leadership would sooner stick to their principles and lose power rather than abandon their committment to liberalism.

There is no question at all that a harder line on immigration would be popular, and would even help make inroads among current Democratic supporters. But Bush, Rove, Mehlman, and the rest of the people who set the parties direction would sooner lose power than give up on their open borders dreams.

The best case scenario is to keep the House and use it to block the various amnesty plans, then make immigration the issue for the 2008 elections. Nothing good can happen as long as the current people are in positions of influence.

...is for GOP candidates running for the House to distance themselves noisily and visibly from the current GOP leadership.

Period.

Immigration is one of the easiest ways to do this. If immigration does not quickly become the major issue for GOP candidates in the '06 elections...then the '08 elections are going to be a spectator sport for too many of current incumbents.

As I mentioned above, this is not a case of conservatives not voting for GOP candidates in a "cut off their nose to spite their face" gesture. This is a case of the GOP so seriously misreading the temper of the electorate that they are not only missing an opportunity equal to that of the "Contract With America" but actually being perceived as on the wrong side of the issue.

"The best case scenario is to keep the House..."

I agree.

My point is that failure to be seen as trying to act in a principled fashion on illegal immigration is not a way to keep the House. Being seen as actively doing nothing on an issue of concern to Americans of conservative, moderate and liberal persuasions is a sure-fire way to be turned out of office.

Being seen as actively doing nothing on an issue of concern to Americans of conservative, moderate and liberal persuasions is a sure-fire way to be turned out of office.

But the House is doing about all it can, I think, short of threatening Bush with impeachment for failure to enforce the law. It's a sign of how desperate the Democrats are for open borders/new voters that they never suggest going after Bush on this issue, where he is wide open to legitimate criticism.

I think this is a case, however, where the only way the House is going to be held is if individual GOP candidates start speaking out on this issue themselves.

Or...perhaps even better, if enough incumbents in tight races are seriously interested in getting re-elected...perhaps the best way would be for a group of them to make a joint statement on illegal immigration or appear en mass to give voters a reason to vote Republican despite the current leadership.

I'm not talking about a book-length "Contract With America" here--I think the times call for something short, simple and direct. Picking up on a few of the measures Buchanan calls for would probably work--heck, even just a firm statement on getting tough on enforcing current immigration laws, deporting illegals with criminal records or caught in criminal activity, and funding a border fence would probably be a winning three-point plan right now.

Towing the current party line and not making waves is not going to win elections for Republicans this November.

A "Contract With America" style marketing effort would be very effective. It would have to be done by the House members on their own, publicly challenging the Senate and WH leadership. I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt they will be willing to go that far. But this kind of division is why some think we are facing the rise of a new party or a political realignment in the existing ones.

If the House Republicans hadn't already sided in favor of enforcement only, and if the Senate Republicans weren't so notoriously skewed to the extreme left of the party, then I might agree that a realignment is coming.

But the only problem I see is that too many Republican states are electing Democratic senators. We ought to be RULING the Senate based on our state-by-state advantage in the sparsely populated middle. But no, too many states in the middle are electing too many Democrats to the Senate, and Sen. Dole's NRSC has done nothing to stop it.

In fact, all she's done is work to keep the caucus as skewed as ever by working overtime to save Chafee...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

if you've read Strauss and Howe's books and agree with their cycle theory (Generations, The Fourth Turning, etc.)

At each point in the cycles the analyzed, one of the major political parties effectively dies out completely and is replaced by a new party. I had thought, from the way things were going a few years ago, that it was the Democrats that would be dying out this time.

Now, I'm not so sure.

I also doubt that Republican incumbents are going to strike out on their own and do something so contrary to the leadership position. I'm hoping that they wake up before it is too late and realize that it is one of the only hopes they have (and probably the best hope) if they want to keep their seats.

Plus, of course, if they did it as a group there is much less risk involved and the potential for a power block in the new session.

Now, if there was only one incumbent (or incumbent advisor) reading this who would actually act on it...we might have a hope.

Somebody has to start the ball rolling.

I think this is a case, however, where the only way the House is going to be held is if individual GOP candidates start speaking out on this issue themselves.

But surely conservative GOP candidates -- including incumbent members of congress trying to hold on to their jobs -- are doing just that. GOP poobahs, aware of this fact, don't really see the need to push for legislation they disagree with in order to hold on to House or Senate seats. Why risk losing Hispanic votes (or, as Jon Sandor would have it, why risk betraying your heartfelt Republican liberalism) to push for high profile legislation that's probably not going to help you win contests anyways?

Think about it: GOP Congresscritters in the deepest Red districts are those least likely to be facing strong challengers. The only way I see your typical conservative Republican losing in a genuninely conservative Red State district solely on the issue of immigration is if he/she is running against a conservative Democratic challenger who absoultely hammers him from the right on immigration. As far as I can tell, this isn't happening to a wide extent; more likely than not, the Democratic candidate is not going to be as conservative as his Republican opponent on the issue of immigration. So, even if national GOP leadership fails to get a bill passed, the local Republican candidate can still take a hawkish, restrictionist stance on immigration, and vow to push for enforcement if only the voters will be wise enough to return him to Washington.

In vulnerable GOP districts -- especially in the northeast -- it'll be very unusual indeed for a Republican candidate to be facing a Democratic opponent who is to his right on immigration. Northeastern Democratic primary voters simply don't nominate Buchaninite candidates with great frequency. So, to the extent that taking a restrictionist stance will help a Christopher Shays or a Rick Santorum, the latter can do so if they like. If you're a general election voter in the Northeast, and your number one priority is cracking down on immigration, I doubt very much you're going to pull the lever for the Democrat, because nine times out of ten that Democrat is going to be a standard issue open borders Democrat.

Bottom line: at least in '06 (though maybe not in '08, when there's a presidential election), restricacons will usually be able to run for office while taking a tough stance immigration and not suffer politically merely because their party's leaders failed to get national legislation enacted. There will no doubt be a few voters here and there who stay home in November, or cast a quixotic, and ultimately self-destructive protest/punishment vote for the Democratic candidate, but there won't be many.

Like the man said in other posts, it is the independents that matter in the upcoming election. This kind of thinking says that everyone who goes into the ballot box is either a democrat or a republican and votes consistently based on party loyalty.

That doesn't happen. It hasn't happened in a very long time.

Elections come down to the swing voters who go democrat one time (or in one race) and republican another time or in other races. Where I live, you see dems getting voted in year after year at the local and state level by the same people who vote pretty consistently republican at the national level.

"There will no doubt be a few voters here and there who stay home in November, or cast a quixotic, and ultimately self-destructive protest/punishment vote for the Democratic candidate, but there won't be many."

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. If you seriously believe that, I certainly hope you aren't representative of the thinking of republican advisers. I'm afraid you are though. That is probably why nobody in the republican leadership is taking seriously the concerns and complaints of people within the party at the grassroots level, much less the swing voters who don't like a lot of what they are seeing in either party.

People have more of a tendency to vote against a candidate or a group than they do to vote for one. If they vote for somebody, they mostly vote for the name they know. That is why incumbents win most of the time. It is also why every once in a while a "throw the bums out" mentality takes hold and you get one party swept out of office.

The danger this Fall is not that people are going to go into the booth in republican-held districts and pull the lever for the Democrat. The danger is that they are going to go into the booth and pull the lever against the republican.

What people do in the voting booth very rarely makes sense to sober analysts.

Think I'm wrong?

1992. Ross Perot. 18.9% of the popular vote nationwide where Clinton had 43% and Bush Sr. had 37.4%.

2000. Ralph Nader. 2.7% of the popular vote in an election where Bush had 47.9% versus Gore's 48.4% and Nader's vote total in Florida far exceeded the margin of victory that made Bush president.

The people pulling the lever for Perot and Nader knew that neither one had a snowball's chance in you-know-where of actually winning. Their "quixotic and ultimately self-destructive protest/punishment vote(s)" determined who became president in a way that was probably contrary to the interests of the protest voters in both cases.

They voted that way anyway.

It would be amazingly arrogant to assume that people might not do exactly the same thing this November. That kind of take-the-voters-for-granted attitude might just make Nancy Pelosi speaker.

This kind of thinking says that everyone who goes into the ballot box is either a democrat or a republican and votes consistently based on party loyalty.

I don't think that at all. I believe there are now a number of states where independents or "unenrolled" voters now form a pluarity.

What I am saying is that, nine times out of ten, it is the Republican candidate who will have the tougher stance with respect to border security and immigration. If you're an independent voter whose biggest concern is immigration policy, why would you vote for the squishy Democrat when you can vote for a fire-breathing, Tancredoesque Republican?

If you're anwswer is: to publish Republican leadership, I think you're just plain unrealistic. I have no doubt that occassionally voters will make strategic calculations about casting protest votes they think will futher their goals over the long term (even at the cost of furthering the political career of someone they disagree with). But I think this phenomenon is really quite rare. Again, if you're a voter whose biggest concern is the Mexican border and restricting immigration, almost invariably the candidate who is closest to your position is the Republican. Are there a few examples among the nearly 500 contests where it is the Democratic candidate who is to the right of his Republican opponent on immigration? Probably. But just a few. And Republican strategists know it.

I'm not suggesting that independent voters are going to vote Democrat because the Democrat is tougher on immigration than the Republican candidate. We both know that is unlikely.

What I am saying is that in a time when a lot of independents are dissatisfied with the way things are going, and there is an anti-incumbent feeling about, somebody who wants to get re-elected had better come up with as many reasons as possible for a voter to pull the lever to keep the status quo when they go in to vote.

Border security and stopping the flow of illegals into this country is an issue that has widespread popularity among the general public and cuts across party lines. It is an attractive issue, in terms of giving voters a reason to vote for a candidate that backs them. It can bring people to the ballot box who might otherwise stay home.

Being seen as more concerned with legislation on protecting horses from being sold or traded for human consumption than being concerned about border security and the flood of illegal aliens coming into the U.S. is not the way to win an election.

If the Republican leadership had forced confrontations on key issues and shown constant blocking by the Democrats to prevent getting anything passed, then they could have legitimately said, "Give us a bigger majority and we will be able to accomplish these things."

That isn't what has happened, and it isn't the perception that the general public has. The perception is that the Republican leadership has been inept and can't get things done.

I think you'll find that perception even among a lot of Republicans. It is a lot more widespread among independents.

And even if I agreed with your statement that voters pulling the lever to punish someone they disagree with is quite rare--and I don't agree, I think people vote against someone far more often than they vote for someone when they are think about their vote at all--rare events still happen.

If the mood of the electorate is building toward one of those "rare" times when a perfect storm of discontent sweeps a party out of power, then this country could be in real trouble over the next several years.

I'd rather that the powers that be in the Republican party got off their duffs, rolled up their sleeves, worked their butts off, and actually tried to give people solid reasons to vote Republican this November. Instead, what I see is a pulling in to "safe" issues like electronic surveillance, wrangling over military tribunals, and increased funding for the Pentagon that have little emotional appeal and do not have the immediacy of border security.

I also see a widespread attitude that people will have to re-elect Republicans in order to feel safe, since Democrats are so lousy on defense. Isn't that the same type of arrogance that we have criticized the Democrats for having with regard to minority voters "having" to support the Democratic party?

I think people vote against someone far more often than they vote for someone when they are think about their vote at all--rare events still happen.

You may well be right on this point. I don't think I disagree. But again, if your own congressman has taken a tough "secure the borders first" stance on immigration, why would you vote against him in favor of a Democrat who, say, favors amnesty or increased legal immigration? Answer: you probably wouldn't. And yet, there has to be at least a 50% chance of the GOP losing its House majority were the election to take place tomorrow. And the vast majority of vulnerable GOP House incumbents are to be found in either blue or purple states. To the extent that they lose their reelection bids to Democratic challengers, they will be losing to candidates who are "softer" on immigration.

For your contentions to be true, either of two things (or both) would have to come to pass. Either:

a) Substantial numbers of "secure the borders first" voters opting for the more liberal challenger in vulnerable GOP-held districts in blue/purple states will being do so only to punish President Bush or the Senate leadership, even though these voters will nonetheless be casting a vote for a more "open borders" congress; or,

b) Ditto the above, except change the setting to solidly Red State parts of the interior.

Now, I've seen absoulutely no evidence whatsoever that indicates scenario B will come to pass, and that GOP losses will occur in places like Kansas, Texas and Georgia.

I have heard a lot of worried talk about sizable GOP losses in places like the Northeast and Great Lakes, or in purplish states like Colorado or Oregon. But nearly every GOP congressman who goes down to defeat in such areas will be losing to a Democratic opponent who is more liberal than he (no surprise, that's why they call them DEMOCRATS!) on most issues, including immigration. I don't doubt that the desire to secure our borders and crack down on illegal immigration (and indeed reduce legal immigration as well) is a critical issue for many voters, and is the single most important issue for a sizeable number. I just think most of these voters already reside in conservative districts certain to return their GOP congressman to office. If sufficiently large numbers of restrictacons resided in purple and blue states, the GOP wouldn't have to fear losing the House, because 9 times out of 10, the GOP will field the "tougher" candidate with respect to immigration policy.

Could someone please fix the </i> in the parent comment?

Thanks!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If the Democrats let new voters determine their policies, they'd oppose abortion.

Nah, this isn't about deseperation for new voters. This is about appeasing the coalition. And the Reconquista people are part of the coalition.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"The party leadership would sooner stick to their principles and lose power rather than abandon their committment to liberalism."

As I pointed out, it is illegal immigration that has put KFI radio into an unprecedented number 1 position in Los Angeles--and there have to be an awful lot of moderates and liberals among the new listening audience.

Ironically, this lack of political will is precisely the wrong strategy needed to win in November and maintain Republican control of the House. Backing away from the issue because "you can't get anything done with the current GOP leadership in the White House and Sentate" simply means that when the dust clears post-election...the only Republicans left to do battle will be the current White House and Senate GOP.

This strategy is not a winning strategy with vital swing voters.

As I pointed out, Pat Buchanan was very well received last week on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory--a late-night radio show with a demographic that includes large numbers of "new agers" and on which privacy concerns and anti-current administration comments are the norm.

If moderates and liberals are tuning in to Pat Buchanan--and they are--this is a political fact that people running for election in tight races should be paying a lot of attention to.

The House is not going to be held by the GOP because of a focus on the war in Iraq, or the GWOT, or by holding up "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" in an attempt to scare the base. It is not going to be held by a GOP election slogan of, essentially, "re-elect us and we'll do something next time".

The House is only going to be held if GOP candidates show that they are trying to fight for the people's concerns. Whether or not anything good can be accomplished on immigration between now and election day is irrelevant. Being seen as trying to do something is extremely relevant.