Redstate

I don't see one. Conservatives are split on immigration, with some standing with Tom Tancredo and others with Ronald Reagan.

That's an unfair comparison. The issues facing Reagan were completely different in the eighties. For one, it was assumed the America was still a melting pot; a country of assimilation. This was before mainstream culture and naive Republicans understood the divisiveness and intentions of cultural Marxism and multiculturalism. With multiculturalism firmly embedded, amnesty is much different.

Second, national security issues were not the same. If Reagan thought illegal immigration was a gateway for communists, he would have built a fence the size of the Great Wall of China. The domestic terrorist threat was minimal then.

There may be a small split amongst conservatives on economic grounds. A minority backed by Wall Street, free enterprise extremists and Lawrence Kuldow types believe the cheap labor critical to our economic health. However, I think most main street conservatives lament the strain on services and the effect of blue collar workers.

With the exception of some Wall Street free market types, the overwhelming majority of conservatives support immigration reform on national defense, cultural and economic grounds.

He saw The Shining City on the Hill as a place into which all were invited. He said that if there were jobs in America not getting done, it was foolish not to allow inside those who will do them.

The problems with immigration have been similar since the 1860's, AT LEAST.

National security was not the same then as it is now. But you’re partially right, immigration issues have been the same from about 1860 to about 1980. It was only in the sixties when the New Left began embedding multiculturalism in our culture have things changed. It’s come to fruition now with identity politics, victimization culture and ethnocentrism fully matured. The architects of the New Left did this by design. Don’t be a sucker for their machinations.

If they want to do jobs no one else wants, fine. Let them pay taxes, obey our laws, learn English, and serve our country.

A lot of the Multi-culti stuff came out of the late 60's and early 70's in the guise of critical "Theory". In reality it is Marxist/Leninist sophistry designed to destroy our culture from within. I get it.

By the 80's it was in full bloom (post-modernism, deconstruction, etc...) so that would have been the best time in your analysis to restrict these groups threatening to Balkanize the U.S.

Much of that is losing sway to New Historicism nowadays, which tends to be Marxist without being Leninist. Multi-Culti is being discredited on the Continent with the advent of radical Islamists, so I think the worst of "relativism" is behind us. The Marxists realized they had not a leg to stand on with their activism if there was no right and wrong.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Insightful stuff. While the various permutations of the Left/New Left/Socialsit/Marxists often change, the deconstructionists mentality still prevails. They all have a vested interest in undermining our traditional institutions and culture.

At least when immigrants cam over in the past they learned about American history and heroes. Today, fourth genration Amerian adults cannot place the Civil War in teh right century. Multicutural ethno-centrism combined with Leftist control of our schools, media and entertainment industries spells disaster for the future of our country.

It irks me when people say that the same arguments against illegal immigration were also used by nativists in the past.

point 1: we no longer have a frontier in need of homesteading, we also no longer have an early industrial economy in need of low skill labor. Is the government going to open up it's huge land reserves to homesteading?

point2: Those "nativists" must have had a point since every wave of immigration in the past was followed by a period of low immigration in order to allow assimilation. However, we are currently in the largest and longest running wave of immigration and no assimilation in sight.

point3: when all those immigrants came to Ellis Island they got checked for many things including disease, and they had to be quarantined if they had TB and other disease. We now have antibiotic resistant Tb and all sorts of other things coming in and no one checking at all.

point4: In the past we didn't have an army of lawyers and politicians ready willing and able to give handouts and welfare bennies to newly arrived ilegales.

End rant.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There was no frontier left, yet many of the same arguments were used against Chinese and Japanese people as a pretext to diminish competition (they were very efficient farmers and laborers and they diminished wages).

This led our dear leader FDR to intern the Japanese in keeping with nativist prejudices of the time, even while Italians and Germans were left alone (they had been here longer and were mistreated during WWI under FDR's hero Wilson).

Nativism is a progressive thing. It doesn't belong in conservatism.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Like I said, things are a lot different now than in the nineteenth century. besides things got bad enough that there were restrictions placed on immigration. In your political correct revisionist history world those Americans were just evil nativists to insist on restrictions.

However, we cannot now judge what they were going through, may be they were right, did that every occur to you? Probably not.

Besides you do not answer my contention that illegals now get benefits from our welfare society. They are literally taking over huge parts of our country through intimidation and illegal voting and you don't seem to care.

Guess you think things will be hunky dory when our south western states have the same politics and quality of life as Mexico.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I would also point out he didn't answer your point about disease which in my opinion is a much bigger issue since we have a deadly combination of aids patients who can fight off diseases incubation diseases coming in from third world countries that we have long since eradicated. I find it funny that we quarantine pets and exotic animals that enter this country but can't with human carriers of deadly diseases.

I would also point out the danger posed by terrorists coming in through wide open boarders.

The Republican Party once stood for and was partially swept into office because it respected the rule of law. Now even many so-called conservatives have been reduced to mind-numbed emos who feel that the laws they like should be enforced, and those rules, codes, and regulations they don't like should be ignored.

In other words, the New Left has in some ways reduced conservatism to bleeding heart liberalism. Bad stuff.

at your smugness.

Maybe you should do a little more reading and you will realize the conservative movement has gone through many changes.

Should we go back to the 3/4 compromise because we are a nation of laws? If you read in seminal conservative thinkers, you'll see that change is welcomed. It is just a matter of the manner of change that is up for debate.

WFB helped the conservative movement by separating it from cranks. You two sound like cranks in your inability to see someone else's point of view.

You don't want to think I'm a real conservative? Fine. I know what I am and you don't have a patent on conservative.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

why things like the Compromise ended. Laws were changed, as we do in democratic republics. Of course, if you believe in judicial fiat and a feel-good, pick-and-choose approach to our legal system and law enforcement, feel free to do so. Just don't delude yourself into a belief that such is conservative or even republican with a lower case "r."

Some laws are factitious, mere beaurocratic rules of process. Some laws are the embodiment of immutable eternal principles ("endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights"). Standing for the rule of law means enforcing the former, until they change because it is useful, and defending the latter to the death.

Ronald Reagan didn't get elected by being flexible. He got into office by upholding the GOP brand. He got re-elected by knowing how to deal and politic. The same could be said of Bill Clinton: First term by dint of brand appeal, second term by realpolitik. The GOP brand is very dirty right now.

What truly appalls me is the way the Central Committee is enforcing the inevitability of McCain by dictat. If I wanted to be told who to vote for, I'd move to Russia. The nominee will be determined by the delegates in St. Paul, and not before. Don't let CNN tell you who to vote for. Unifying behind a loser is called a deathmarch, and it's sheer folly. At 72, McCain is at least as likely to die by November as he is to get elected.

As a delegate, I'm voting my conscience, because that's the only way to make the party strong, and victorious.

"At 72, McCain is at least as likely to die by November as he is to get elected."

Wow - how ignorant, mean-spirited and totally useless. I hope this is not the direction we are headed. If so, many will jump.

What truly appalls me is the way the Central Committee is enforcing the inevitability of McCain by dictat. If I wanted to be told who to vote for, I'd move to Russia.

Darn, I must have missed my telegram from the Central Committee with my voting instructions. Guess they left me off the payoff list.

Another bit of evidence for a 7-day waiting period before posting to Redstate.

And Rightly So!

"What truly appalls me is the way the Central Committee is enforcing the inevitability of McCain by dictat."

When someone wins the most votes and thus wins an election. Just like Communism and Russia.

Oh wait... no. That's called democracy. Sometimes you lose, but we all followed the rules. McCain won.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I would add that Reagan had no history to look back on. He did not and could not look back and see what unintended consequences his amnesty policy bring about.

We can look back and see what the results were. The idea in the eighties was that we would legalize those here and regulate any more coming in. Instead we created a magnet by saying to immigrants in effect...if you get here you will be welcomed with open arms. It's not Reagan's fault he couldn't look into the future but we'd he idiots to ignore the past!

The issue now is...are we going to learn from this mistake or are we going to repeat it. To repeat an axiom from Dick Army...."If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got!"

Reagan signed a law that was supposed to legalize a few hundred illegals and then truly enforce illegal immigration.

The bureaucracy lied to him and us, way over a million eventually were legalized, laws were not enforced, and the illegal immigration problem has grown 20x.

I stand on the side of Reagan, legal immigrants are a boon to this country; legal immigrants who stay and become Americans and share in our beliefs in liberty and freedom and add to our culture. Most illegals do not do that.

I also stand on the side of Reagan that supports states making their own decisions regarding local laws. Laws regarding employment, driving privileges, voting privileges, etc... McCain's bill took those rights away from states and forced a federal solution on them; not very Reaganesque.

McCain has a Mexican government cabinet official running his Hispanic policies. The guy who enforced Mexico's policy of pushing its citizens to illegally invade the US, get illegal jobs, not become Americans, not become a part of our culture, and then send steady streams of money home. McCain's guy is the antithesis of Reagan's stated vision, and he is McCain's right hand guy. When McCain fires his Mexican government official and repudiates what the man has stated and stands for, I will seriously consider voting for McCain.

Please be more accurate in your responses.

wish we could edit our responses here

> what he stands for.

What might that be?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I live in Illinois and I've learned to admire Obama. It's probably because in comparison to Durbin or Gov Blago, he's a reasonable man. However, I have no intention of voting for the man. I think an Obama / McCain election will be relatively clean and issues-based. If that happens, McCain and his mainstream conservative principles will win.

but the results cited deal with likability. At first glance, I think Obama looks more likable than does McCain, but I would vote for Obama (the likable one).

Further into the article. they report that more of those surveyed thought that Obama was the smartest of the three remaining, followed by Hillary, with McCain trailing. I thought Bill Clinton was smarter than Bob Dole, in IQ terms, but I voted for Dole.

I suspect McCain's problem is particular issues with certain voters. Immigration is one. Campaign finance, and its concommitant political speech issues, is another.

Once we're done with Obama, there won't be many Republicans who like him more than McCain.
___________________________________________________________

"I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial system American." Chief Justice John Roberts

nt

"There is something about Barack Obama that is hard to capture in polling and it's an enthusiasm, it's a freshness, it's an excitement he can generate that will certainly be a factor in the campaign," said pollster Scott Rasmussen.

Either I am an enormous cynic, or I have taken the red pill and can see the truth past the facade that is BHO's "likeability." I don't like the guy - I am sickened by him. He's a fake - a bloviating blow-hard who talks a lot and uses pretty words like "hope" and "change" but says nothing.

The popularity of BHO is a sure sign that the ignorance of the American people has stooped to a new low. We have a country of blue pill eaters - those who have decided that truth should take a back seat to "hope."

I said it many months ago here on RS - Obama is dangerous...to the GOP and to the USA.

The problem is, you see what's wrong with Obama, and I see it. Most Red Staters see it as do those who participate and discuss politics year in and year. Not so the majority of voters. Most of them get their info from the press which will sing Obama's praises till the cows come home. Even more so once he wins the nomination and he is facing a Republican. With the advent for McCain Fiengold and the push to drive money out of Politics....good luck getting the word out and overcoming the press in their bias. I fear McCain will be slain by a sword of his own making...only time will tell.

Obama would probably have higher numbers in "likeability" against Mitt than against McCain. It would embarrassing to have GOPs "liking" the D more than the R.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

As I grow older, I realize... I am never going to have a beer with this guy, I am never going to play cards with him.

Why in the heck is it important if I like him?

I'd rather have someone I would hate on a personal level who can do the job than someone I'd think would make the best neighbor in the world who would bumble around and screw stuff up (and keep signing bills into law).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If Obama wins the nomination McCain can kiss his strategy of ignoring conservatives and courting moderates and indies goodbye. Moderates will follow the crowd since they are swayed more by the press than the rest of us.

Every poll that has been taken has shown McCain leading with independents, and among party switchers, there is twice as many Democrats that say they are voting for McCain then Republicans voting for Obama.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The polls you refer to are prior to a general election campaign when the press will have 4 to 6 months to play up how great Obama is and what a jerk McCain is. They'll play up his negatives and make fun of his every gaff while ignoring Obama's.

What experience you ask? 1996. Bob Dole lead in the polls in match ups against Clinton after months of glowing press about his record as a war hero and touting how centrist he'd always been and how he was able to reach across party lines for the good of the country, How civil and inclusive he'd always been....blah.....blah....blah. Then a funny thing happened....He won the primary and became public enemy #1 as far as the MSM was concerned.

After months of negative press and being pounded relentlessly by the Clinton machine...there weren't all that many moderates and independents left to vote for him because they all went for Clinton.

You are right...I don't have facts to back me up now....but check back with me say...mid October...and let's see what the moderate and independent numbers show then....Deal?

I think you unintentionally nailed a big reason why conservatives are skeptics. Many McCain supporters love to talk about smaller government and a return to our individualistic ways. This is great, but naive. Liberal and the New Left will eat this country up like they did for fifty years if this is all we represent.

McCain is scary to me because he seems completely naive to the New Left. Cutting pork and the size of government is not going to stop their long march. A President can't do it all, but he at least has to be aware of the designs of the enemy within. When I hear McCain talk about global warming, immigration, Samuel Alito, campaign finance reform, I just don't thin he gets it. It's tough to have a leader who is oblivious the enemy behind the curtains.

McCain has a conservative voting record, but he is not fundamentally a conservative. There is no depth to his conservatism. I worry that he would throw conservative principles under the bus for the "greater" principle of being bipartisan.

I think McCain IS fundamentally a conservative with a voting record that, at times, has strayed.

Reagan reached across the isle with immigration (and yes, the issue WAS the same then as it is now, and people were worried about Marxism/Leninism in Mexico. Reagan had faith in this country and was not an isolationist. Today isolationist=conservative for some reason)

Reagan had good relations with Tip ONeal (the Ted Kennedy of his time). Reagan also expanded SSI. All of these would call his conservatism into question in this day and age.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Really, when immigration was an issue in Reagan's day bi-lingual education was the norm; hospitals and schools were bankrupt and overrun by people not paying any taxes; Los Angeles had a mayor formerly affiliated with La Raza; La Raza and their racists creed had legitimate influence; Atzlan was a polical crusade; foreign Mexican nationals preached allegiance to Mexico while working for American politicians; Caesar Chavez Day was being substituted for Columbus Day; ...

Only naive conservatives cannot recognize the designs of the New Left. There is a huge gaping difference between the Melting Pot an Mutliculturalism. The issue is not the same. Soft conservatives let multiculuralism and the politics of victimization become rooted.

I was pretty young, but I remember things weren't all peachy in the 80's. There were problems then just as today, except the Japanese were feared by isolationists rather than Latinos.

Inner cities had some serious problems, and liberals liked to beat us over the head with ginned up homeless statistics much in the way "conservatives" are throwing around anecdotes and passing them off as statistics today.

Reagan believed in America. He knew that once people had a stake in society, the American Dream would do the rest. Opportunity is what creates success. Not fences. There is room here for religious, family oriented Latinos looking for a better life. Their children are already serving in the military in droves.

cheers.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

statement....

"Their children are already serving in the military in droves."

So are you open borders? Is this not a country of laws? Do these military people not fight for our country of laws?

Reagan by the way gave 2.4 million amnesty there are some 12-20 million based on most estimates. Who by the way when we enter this "recession" is going to be paying benefits to 12-20 million illegals who are now legal? because they will be legal for welfare etc...or did you think that far....is there any other law you might to forgo? Or do you just get to pick this one?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

are a lot of Hispanics in the military. My guess is the Army would have the highest percentage.

legal or illegal???

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

then maybe you ought to let them stay at your place cause we are all pretty filled up here.

Damn I hate people who do not see the costs involved with illegal immigration.

HEY, WHY DON"T YOU SEND US IN HOUSTON YOUR PAYCHECK SO WE CAN STOP OUR HOSPITALS FROM GOING BANKRUPT DUE TO ILLEGALS?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Our economy is much larger today than in 1986, as is our population.

Creating a way to keep track of workers and allowing them to work would actually help the hospitals because the workers could be organized into a private insurance program for migrant workers.

Doing nothing is inhumane. Laws are human constructions, and they are not always perfect. So when you ask me whether we are a nation of laws I have to say we are a nation of laws amongst other things...and laws are changed every day.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

illegal immigration favors the criminals (we have all seen the news of countless criminals who flee back to Mexico then come back later)

Illegal immigration favors one nation over all others, So while Senator McCain and others want to give amnesty to every Mexican who ever lived my college educated friends from Nigeria had to go back to their home country.

Illegal immigration favors the low wage immigrant over the guys with skills we really need in this country.

I am all for LEGAL immigration, if we need to increase those numbers then let's do it. But don't think that illegal immigration has no cost to society.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

change the law to bring them under a legal umbrella. It is like saying I want to cut taxes without changing the tax code.

We have a black market of labor today created by prohibitionist policies. If we bring people into the open we can make them accountable and productive, and they won't be a drain on the system.

Our country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate these people without making them all dependent on the government. A larger Latino community would create new markets and new opportunities.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

I am all for changing the laws to increase LEGAL IMMIGRATION, you know, the kind where people are checked for criminality, disease, and put on a track for citizenship?

But that's ok, I have you down for;

Anti rule of law
pro Mexico (not any of the other people who would like to
immigrate)
anti taxpayer
and pro Democratic party (who else is going to harvest the votes of all those poor ignorant people?)

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

and before anyone threatens to ban me for calling names, Kyle8 did accuse me of being pro Democratic party. That's worse than being an idiot.

And you admit you are open to changing the laws. Thanks for coming around to my side. Then the taxpayers would have company. As for Mexico, I'm pro Mexico in the sense that I would like to see in prosper so that so many workers won't want to come here.

You seem to want to see a rattlesnake round-up but with people. And your tag line says the exact opposite.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

I DARE you to spend some time in a place like Texas and see the problems that are caused by illegal immigration.

You seem to just want to pigeonhole all of us as nativists and yahoos, but in reality we are the ones with nuanced views and you are the one with an ignorant ideological viewpoint.

I never met a single person who was opposed to illegal immigration who did not want to change the laws. What we do not want is a continual invasion by one country with one of the major parties giving them aid in subverting all of our laws and culture.

Yes, your viewpoint puts you square into the corner of the Democratic party. (McCains's awful bill was mostly supported by democrats.) Sorry, that is the truth. I invite you to rethink this before you accuse others of being motivated by the basest emotions.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

the problems around you and decided...to do nothing?

The immigration bill was a compromise. we have a 50/50 congress, and the bill would have addressed many of the problems you complain about.

Instead, we have nothing and we sent the wrong message to a very large voting bloc and the problem just gets worse.

The states could do a lot irrespective of the federal government.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

The immigration bill was a compromise. we have a 50/50 congress, and the bill would have addressed many of the problems you complain about.

You lament the death of McCain/Kennedy because it was a 50 50 compromise....never mind that it was a mess of monumental proportions. Compromise isn't always a good thing just because it's called compromise.

Had we compromised and swallowed that bill we would have given 12 million, (I think this is a huge underestimate) illegal immigrants leagal status and there would have been no way to stop the 24 million that were sure to follow!

Instead, we have nothing and we sent the wrong message to a very large voting bloc and the problem just gets worse.

I'm perplexed by the continual reference to this issue. What is so hard to understand about not wanting to sell this country down the river so we can win elections...Winning isn't everything is you loose the overall war.

Doing nothing is inhumane. Laws are human constructions, and they are not always perfect. So when you ask me whether we are a nation of laws I have to say we are a nation of laws amongst other things...and laws are changed every day.

1) So if laws are imperfect we should ignore them?

2) If laws are changed every day...why don't we change them instead of refusing to enforce them?

I am thrity four. Regardless, I never said the eighties were peachy. The immigration debate has changed profoundly. Firt and foremeost is national security including dirty nukes, bio-terrorism and domestic terrorism. If a fence stops one terrorists cell from detonating a dirty nuke in a city like Chicago, I'm all for it. I don't care about pollyannesque symbolism of a fence. As Reagan said, a nation with borders is not a nation.

Culturally, a big difference is that we have lost on many fronts including our schools. There is no more assimilation. Yeah, immigrants came over in the past and there were nativists, but the were always assimilated. That is no longer occurring. There is no incentive to learn English in the Southwest anymore. How can you buy into the American dream when you dont know or appreciate her culture, hitory, traditions. Its even more difficult because we rshare a contiguous border and technology makes it easy for people to maintain home ties.

A big part of assimilation was education. Now, the liberal unions have infected the schools and all kids are taught is deconstructist garbage. More and more younger people are buying into the blame America first mentality. Its one giant gordian knot of nefarious twisted New Left designs and its working.

with the dangers you outlined so well.

I guess I just want to see something done about it. People are so frustrated with the immigration issue that they are unwilling to do anything. Any law trying to normalize century-old migrant worker patterns is called "amnesty" and invested with all kinds of horror stories of crazy Latinos, and then people start beating their chests and howling.

These are potential future Republicans we're treating like someone else's stray cattle and driving into the arms of labor unions and democrat political machines.

I just don't want us to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want to see the nice families I see at Wal-Mart and Goodwill given a chance to become Americans and to contribute to the fullest extent. We can't do that if people are demogoguing [sic?] the issue.

We're the same age.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

you sound like our simplistic president.

I suppose that people who come from a socialist nation, who are poor and ignorant, who are steeped in anti-americanism, and who are wooed with cheap handouts by the Democratic party are going to be natural small government Republicans right?

Yeah, that's why California is now a blue state and Texas, Colorado, and Arizona are turning purple.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

purple at the though of all these "poor ignorant people" from a "socialist nation" "steeped in anti-americanism" "wooed by cheap handouts" being Americans just like you.

Actually, your description is very apt for just about every immigrant who has fled to the US in the last 100 years. (Give me your poor and huddled masses longing to be free)

Colorado and California are not blue because of Latinos.

Texas and Arizona are becoming purple because of Republicans like you.

They voted for our Democrat (in your view) president by 40%. It ain't gonna happen this time, and it could cost us the election. McCain is the best bet for damage control.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

like to think I'm gillfully winorant.

Thanks for being through with me. I feel so dirty.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Not to mention that Latinos are a very family oriented ethnic group, and so many of them saw a natural alliance with the family values party. And Texas ain't turnin purple-no way, not now not ever. The hardline Tancredo talk is turning off a lot of Hispanic voters I agree-this is a gourp that has not pledged 90 percent loyalty to the Democrats, but I think pushing hardline, anti immigrant rhetoric is going to push them away, and Reagan did not just support amnesty, he even called it amnesty. I don't think its anti-conservative to be for McCain-Kennedy, and I don' think its nativist to be for securing the borders. I do think that deporting 12 million people is unrealistic, and the we're gonna send them all back rhetoric is unproductive and unrealistic,a dn only makes us look like blabbering crazies.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

With respect to the rounding up 12 million people canard, the agument has been proven moot. This is a prime example of unecessary rhetoric. The laws that have recently passed in Arizona and elsewhere prove that people will simply go home when there is no incentive for them to stay with respect to illegal employment and illegal housing. They do not love this country that much. It's been well documetned in a short period of time that attrition will prevail although if laws are enforced. I do feel bad for Texas however, for they are about to get swamped with all of Arizona's illegals.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Even the liberal Boston Globe can see what you can't. Now you should really dirty.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/02/illegal_immigrants...

Try looking at some facts, Illegals are leaving Arizona and Oklahoma because those states have clamped down on companies hiring illegals.

Texas and New Mexico are absorbing the flight of illegals from these states!

who have been here many generations. But those numbers are rapidly being diluted by the newcomers who have no real knowledge of this country and are susceptible to democrat vote buying. You might be comfortable with that, but I am not.

We need time, time of low illegal immigration in order for many of these Latinos to learn about our system.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I like McCain-Kennedy, I've made no secret of it. I think that it makes sense to try an incorporate people who are already here. I think we should also build a strong secure fence so that we are not having this discussion again in 20 years just liek last time. I also am in favor of deporting every single person who has committed a crime and is an illegal alien. Then I would look at some kind of pathway to citizenship for everyone else, and allow them to become American citizens provided they learn English. Look, I understand there is a long line, and I don't think that they are going to just leave when the states enact differnet laws-that might be true in SouthWest border states, but it is not true in states up here liek Illinois. I think we need no have a rational humane solutionf or dealing wit the people who are already here, and I think that based on the fact that this is a nation of immigrants, and based on the fact that now we are talking about the ones who are comiing in adn working hard in America, that we should allwo them to become citizens.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I agree with this post by and large with one exception.

I point you to the eighties and nineties practice by our leaders of voting for budgets that would raise taxes now and decrease spending in the future. We always got the tax increases and never got the spending cuts till Gingrich and the boys swept in in 1994 and said the jig was up.

Now we have leaders from both parties who are bent on legalizing 12 million illegals with promises to secure the borders later. If you want to fall for that game be my guest but I ain't buying it.

Hook em

Fine build the god** fence ::smile:: first-but I think immigration reform is going to be necessary nonetheless. Secrure the border frist, whic is what the American people want, then move towards a reasonable solution,, which I thinkis rasiing the legal immmigration number, fines, back taxes, and English learning for those who are here, and deportation for everyone whose even committed a misdemeanor while here illegally.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

We agree!!!

Small wonders ever cease!

:>)

connection with the hispanic people. Talking about them like they're a bunch of dirty crimnals and socialists is what's going to lose them, and turn them into a demographic like the black population.

We can try to beat them, or we can join them. Your wing of the party is intent on trying to beat the illegal immigrants - driving them out. Of course if you suceeded that could definitely help the Republican party. However, if you lose, than you'll lose badly. Personally I'm in favor of trying to reach out to the hispanics so that when a legalization proposal does go through we will be in good with them. I'm afraid the strategy of your side of the tent will involve us losing the hispanics like we lost the blacks, and Republicans will end up on the losing side of history. I see the growing hispanic population as an opportunity, you see it as a threat -either view can be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The immigration restrictionists make it all about whether you're for illegal immigration or not. This way they avoid anybody saying that they are for more restricted immigration or less immigration, they're just for legal immigration. Any talk about changing the laws seems to be met with - well we need to enforce the laws. Therefore anyone who is in favor of reforming our immigration laws like I am and Goldenboy is, are accused of being against the laws of the United States. This is not true. I absolutely think we should enforce our borders to know who and what is coming in. However, I think we should greatly lighten up our immigration laws and in this way that which is coming in as illegal immigration will be coming in as legal immigration. While the restrictionists claim that securing the border is in the interest of security - they ignore the security benefits of allowing immigration to come out of the shadows and into the mainstream. If we allowed more immigrants the law enforcement could spend more time looking for actual terrorists and crimnals rather than looking for Romney's lawncare service. Same thing if we allowed the illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows. So while I'm against illegal immigration, I think the solution is likely to legalize much of it.

sealing off any more illegal immigration before you legalize those here or you invite yet another wave of illegal immigration.

So secure the borders and enforce labor laws concerning the hiring of illegal immigrants first. Talk about lkegalizing those that are here after that can then begin. While that discussion is going on increase the quotas of those allowed to come here legally while streamlining the process by which they are processed.

Simply minimizing us by trying to paint us as isolationists and racists is an oversimplification of what we believe and what we are calling for.

"Personally I'm in favor of trying to reach out to the hispanics so that when a legalization proposal does go through we will be in good with them."

Ronald Reagan and Allen Simpson (of the Simpson-Mazzolli Act aka 1986 Reagan Amnesty) were both Republicans. By your logic, having Republicans push amnesty would swing the Hispanic vote to us. Have we done well with Hispanics as a result?

The BEST we have ever done is 38% (which means we lost 62%). Usually we do much worse. And if you took out the Cuban vote which really has little to do with amnesty, we would do MUCH worse. Creating 12 or 20 million new voters who are mostly poor is suicide for the GOP. It really has little to do with their ethnicity and a lot to do with their economic status.

It seems that sacrificing our law and order and national security principles in favor of racial/ethnic pandering is a losing strategy for Republicans because the Democrats will always be able to promise them even more.

And by the way, the tired 44% number which somebody trotted out yet again above has been repeatedly debunked. It came from the same flawed NEPA Exit polling numbers that called the election in favor of John Kerry. Even NEPA has disavowed it. The correct number was probably about 38%. I guess this is just one of those lies that if it gets repeated often enough people will start to believe is true.

I remember things weren't all peachy in the 80's. There were problems then just as today, except the Japanese were feared by isolationists rather than Latinos.

There are two major distinctions I would make to this comment.

1) The Japanese weren't entering the country illegally and soaking up state budgets and they weren't voting illegally and influencing our elections.

2) My opposition to current illegal immigration does not make me an isolationist. I'm for legal immigration. I think once we get the borders secured and stop illegals from being able to work here they will leave. Arizona is proving this. I also want to see an increase in the numbers of LEGAL immigrants allowed as well as a streamlining of the process to be legally allowed in the country.

I don't know how that makes me an isolationist...I simply want the laws enforced and I want to know who is coming here as well as who is already here!

What, beyond his voting record, shows that he is fundamentally a conservative?

The only Republican leader we have ever had who understood the left was Gingrich, even Reagan only had a bare inkling of what they are really like. The Bush's are a lost cause. McCain? hell, he is not really a conservative anyway so you can't expect him to understand, the moreso because he has been doing "buisiness" with the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle for decades.

But do not despair, they have been at their master plan since it was first laid out in "The Nation" in the 1920's and they sometimes move forward but often have to take a step backward as well.

Our forces will regroup and move forward with a new alliance soon, it will take a time "in the wilderness" first, I am afraid to say.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

George HW Bush was a member of teh old guard. He reminds me of McCain. The both always assumed the poltics are business as usual. George W. Bush is a different creature. He is suffering through a fatigue, but history will be much kinder to him. Bush fought a lot of the little conservative proxy wars.

George W. Bush is a different creature. He is suffering through a fatigue, but history will be much kinder to him. Bush fought a lot of the little conservative proxy wars.

I disagree about W....I'm starting to look back at the last 8 years and wonder, "what was I thinking"? When you look at the fact that he signed McCain Fienegold, he let Kennedy write the no child left behind bill, he pushed for and signed the prescription drug bill, he nominated Harriet Myers and fought her tooth and nail against conservatives, he also pushed for McCain/Kennedy and called his own base racists for opposing him.

If liberals are writing the history books history might be kind to him but I'm beginning to wonder if it was worth it.

---

--"Faith is a free work to which no one can be forced. Nay it is a Divine work, done in the Spirit."--Martin Luther

At one point in time, conservatives were rugged individualists who did what needed to be done without whimpering. Today, we are like fat, spoiled children who can't enjoy a movie unless it is in stereo, or dinner unless it is cooked to the exact temperature within one degree.

First of all...since when is expecting our leadership, those who represent us and those who are supposed to articulate our ideas to stick to what they say they believe in being a "spoiled children who can't enjoy a movie unless it is in stereo, or dinner unless it is cooked to the exact temperature within one degree."

I'd settle for a leadership that didn't tell me they were for limited government all the while giving us the largest expansion of Government since LBJ. I'd settle for a leadership that didn't tell me they were against government corruption all the while crawling in bed with crooks and larding up our budget with provisions written by participants of the K street project. I'd settle for a leadership that didn't quote to me the high ideals of the founders and the genius of the Constitution while working overtime to undermine it.

In short, I don't have to have the perfect candidate and I don't know many who do but it would be nice to have politicians who respect us enough to at east kiss us before they screw us!

McCain only has a 64 ACU rating since 2000

have to come from a really good, articulate, charming VP.

And no, I don't mean Huckabee.

governor of Utah?

And it strikes me as though there's something wrong when some voters hope to be excited by a Veep choice. It's kind of like not being thrilled by a new clothes dryer but hoping to be excited if it has a nice lint catcher.

This includes the supposed independents and Democrats he purportedly can attract.

Every time the Republican Party tries this strategy we lose.

If faced with a choice between Democrat and Democrat light the choose the Democrat. )I think Reagan said that but I'm not sure).

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Regardless of my disagreements with McCain on policy issues (and there were things I didn't like about Rudy, Mitt, Mike and Fred too), the GOP front-runners each had at least a chance of getting the nomination and, ultimately, winning the White House. With respect to Ron Paul, please repeat after me: Ron Paul will NEVER be President.

Ellis Wyatt

but he nevertheless represents a portion of America which can never win an election. I am talking about the America First, John Bircher, Conspiracy tin foil hat, vaguely racist, party.

Not going to happen.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Jim Tomasik

Over/under 20 mins?

And Rightly So!

Ya know, this here gent wants a true war hero to get shot by Dick Chenney. That really ain't very nice!

Jim Tomasik

Time to check the men's urinals I suspect.

And Rightly So!

When you get the chance to kill the vampire you do it. I would rather face Obama and know that the toxic Clintons were out of the picture.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Be careful what you pray, (or vote) for....you just might get it.

I disagree. A long, drawn out nomination fight on the Democrat side is the best thing the GOP can hope for right now, and I am hoping against hope that Hillary will come out on top. She has an unbelievable "established negative" rating of something like 45-47%. Outside the hardcore Democrats, people just don't like her.

Unlike Obama, Hillary's campaign hasn't exaclty been flush with cash. She's had to loan her own campaign something like $5M and the recent federal reports show that her people are terrible at managing the money she does raise. In a general election, she will -- like McCain -- accept federal funds and the corresponding (relatively) level playing field.

Finally, the Obamessiah's disciples will be crushed if The Savior doesn't win. Many of the folks who have been drinking his Kool-Aid will be seriously depressed if he doesn't win, and will either stay home or vote against Hillary in protest.

Finally, nothing will increase GOP voters' enthusiasm like a chance to keep the Clintons from re-inhabiting the White House. Against a Clinton, I like McCain's chances just fine.

Ellis Wyatt

I don't get those who believe this:

A long, drawn out nomination fight on the Democrat side is the best thing the GOP can hope for right now

They continue their fight for the next for months and suck up all the coverage and oxygen in the race. McCain ends up relegated to the second or third pages of the news papers and an "Oh by the way" piece in the network news once in a while....how does that benefit McCain?

If you are waiting for him to try to court you because you are a conservative...forget it......Now is when he "Tacks left and courts Moderates and independents. it's the inside the beltway strategy of running to the right in the primaries and running to the left in the general to win the "Middle".

We've heard the last of the "I'm a Reagan conservative," from him!

He's focused his campaign on judges, tax cuts, ending pork, and winning the War. If that isn't winning over conservatives, maybe they are just trying to dense and not listen to the Senator.

If his big 4 issues where restricting speech, opening the borders, surrendering in Iraq and expanding health care through a mandate system, I would understand the concern.

But he has been running as a conservative all year. Maybe conservatives will notice that eventually.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Whay do you have som much faith in McCain and judges? I don't. He was skeptical of Samual Alito. He wa part of the gang of fourteen. His focus has never been on social issues.

There are a lot of potential nominees that are fiscal conservatives, but are wishy washy on social issues like Souter, O'Connor, and even Stevens who was nomintated by Nixon. I fear McCain will nominate these types of old fashioned conservatives who had no stomach for fighting cultural issues like McCain. The Democratic Senate will salavitate to get a couple of social engineers on the Court. I fear McCain will naivley usher in a new Warren Court era.

that the beltway movement cons insisted upon when Harriet was sent up. McCain will have a lot of pressure to appoint a proven conservative appeals court justice that the federalist-society establishment approves of.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The situatio is a little different because we had a solid Republican President and a solid Republican Senate. Miers wasn't all that bad. It was jsut that conservatives recognized that Bush was squandering a once in a generation opportunity for reasons of loyalty. We are not going to control the Senate after 2008.

We need a real saavy and committed conservative to nominate and fight for his appointments because the D Senate is going to initially reject everything he does. Does McCain have that kind of backbone? Or does he revert to his favored "we must be bi-partisan because all this partisan bickering is divisive and not patriotic" mantra. Let's meet in the middle appoint a couple of 'nice' conservatives like Souter.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I haven't seen it. I'm not saying he's not running on those issues I just haven't heard it. I don't know if it's that he's not emphasizing it enough or if the press is so preoccupied by the Democrat battles that they haven't played it up?

You think that John McCain told you that he was going to mend fences.

Actually the work John McCain has in mind is having his surrogate brow-beat you and other conservatives into submission. You will be told repeatedly that a)it is time to suck it up because you have no choice; b)that Party loyalty demands your vote; c) that you don't love your family or your country if you don't vote for McCain and d)that the alternatives are far worse and that as bad as he is, John McCain is head and shoulders above either of the Democrats.

That is the hard work that John McCain has in mind for conservatives.

Glad most Rs don't follow the "agree with me on everything or I won't vote for you" strategy. Bush would never had won if that was most Rs strategy.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"Were McCain to repudiate what he has spent large portions of his Senate career saying and doing"

So he needs to denounce his anti-pork views? His anti-big government views? His opposition to the Energy and Transportation Pork votes? His opposition to the Bush Prescription Drug Entitlement vote? His free trade support? His support and assistance in getting Roberts and Alito on the Court? His votes for Bork and Thomas? His support for Reagan tax cuts? His opposition to the H.W. tax increase? His support of welfare reform? His support for personal retirement accounts? School choice? His support for our troops? The War in Iraq? Our veterans?

I'd prefer he run on his record. Because the vast majority of it is good. It's only the two or three things that Rush focuses on that are problematic.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You make a good case Adam, I just wish that was ,ore than half the story.

This has been discussed at length at Redstate, and there have been presented a number of reasons that were more than "not the other guy". But of course, a cynic can characterize any reason as nothing more than voting against the other guy.

Take Mitt, for example. You may say "executive experience" ... well I could just pout that you are merely fear mongering about the lack of experience on the part of Obama.

The war, judges, taxes ... these are important issues. You are willfully discarding them as "using fear to get them to VOTE AGAINST the other guy." Frankly I find that less than reasonable.

absentee

ACU speech